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

Monckton: IPCC climate models speeding out of control compared to real world

Christopher Monckton reminds us of just how badly the “experts” have failed in the last 15 years, even including the recent hottest ever El Nino months. China bombed the atmosphere with record carbon “pollution” — worse than we thought. The world though, warms sedately at a mere half a degree per century. This is what 95% certainty looks like.   — Jo

Introducing the global warming speedometer

A single devastating graph shows climate panic was unfounded

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

A single devastating graph – the new global warming speedometer – shows just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have failed.

 

climate change. models, IPCC, predictions, Success, failure, 2016

The Speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2] C°/century-equivalent range of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be happening by now, against real-world warming (green) equivalent to <0.5 C°/century over the period, taken as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite global lower-troposphere temperature datasets.

Predictions

IPCC (1990), at page xxiv, predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century.

IPCC (1995), at fig. 6.13, assuming the subsequently-observed 0.5%-per-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, predicted a medium-term warming rate a little below 0.4 C° over 21 years, equivalent to 1.8 C°/century.

IPCC (2001), on page 8, predicted that in the 36 years 1990-2025 the world would warm by 0.75 [0.4, 1.1] C°, equivalent to 2.1 [1.1, 3.1] C°/century.

IPCC (2007, 2013) are too recent to allow reliable comparison of prediction against reality.

Reality

RSS and UAH monthly global lower-troposphere temperature anomaly values were averaged and the least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean determined as equivalent to 0.47 C°/century.

The least IPCC prediction made at least 15 years ago is that global warming should now be occurring at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C°/century. Yet that minimum prediction is well over double the rate of warming over the past 184 months, and IPCC’s maximum prediction of 4.2 C°/century by now is more than eight times what has happened in the real world.

Conclusion

Fifteen years is long enough to verify the predictions from IPCC’s first three Assessment Reports against real-world temperature change measured by the most sophisticated method available – satellites.

The visible discrepancy between wild prediction and harmless reality demonstrates that the major climate models on which governments have relied in setting their mitigation policies are unfit for their purpose. Removing the exaggeration inbuilt into the models eradicates the supposed climate problem.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (123 votes cast)
Monckton: IPCC climate models speeding out of control compared to real world, 9.0 out of 10 based on 123 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hx6abc5

238 comments to Monckton: IPCC climate models speeding out of control compared to real world

  • #

    The fact that the IPCC requires CAGW to justify their existence and that they were allowed to become the authority to which those who believe in CAGW appeal, has resulted in the unconscionable conflict of interest that has allowed climate science to be driven by models so completely disconnected from the ground truth.

    560

    • #
      • #
        Ben Palmer

        Why do you think that global temperature has any incidence on very local mangrove growth?

        101

      • #
        Onyabike

        CK, I don’t follow you; are you saying white mangroves in Queensland are a proxy for temperature change? I have no idea what caused it. Maybe you can expand or explain your personal theory relative to this subject…

        73

        • #
          climateskeptic

          Hahahaha, maybe you should find out what proxy data actually is before you ask a question that highlights your ignorance on the subject

          315

      • #
        Andrew

        Before 1950 mangroves were immortal.

        81

        • #
          climateskeptic

          ….and so was coral, your point being??

          310

          • #

            Are you now saying coral is dying as well as mangroves .
            It seems that coral grows really well in seas at much higher temperatures than found on the Barrier reef and isn’t it just AMAZING that despite the earth being far warmer in the past your mangroves and reefs are still here !!!

            40

      • #

        wannabe climateskeptic,

        Most species that have ever evolved on Earth have since become extinct, so the null hypothesis is that this is normal and most likely the result of disease (or perhaps an untimely frost). You’re delusional if you think the tiny fraction of a degree in warming arising from increased CO2 has anything to do with it. Face it, you’re just grasping at straws trying to fit observations into your distorted view of reality driven by the self serving consensus crafted by the IPCC for the sole purpose of fabricating support for the CAGW they need to justify their existence and charter of using climate change as an excuse for implementing redistributive economics under the guise of climate reparations.

        171

        • #
          RB.

          Wouldn’t be frost but we’ll let the (heavily biased) experts have the last word
          blockquote>It appears to coincide with a period of hot water in the southern Gulf, but we need more evidence,” Professor Norm Duke from Queensland’s James Cook University said.

          “I’m speaking ahead of the evidence so I have to be really cautious, but I do want to draw attention to this because we need more capability to respond and find out more about what’s going on.”

          20

      • #
        Portus Moresbius

        This Australian Government Report from 2006
        shows that not only is this nothing new, but
        that so called climate change caused by man
        made CO2 is really a minor issue, compared to
        deliberate clearances, and chemical pollution,
        farming practices, coastal population growth,
        pumping of aquifers and many other things.
        http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3971/SORR_Mangroves_Saltmarshes.pdf

        41

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I might change my screen name to NukuviaWewakius but I haven’t been there in 45 years.

          30

      • #
        Geoff

        At 31 degrees CO2 gas is rapidly released from the ocean. Such temperatures are normally found only in the top few mms. In an El Nino there is little wind. So shallow water can get quite warm. Not warm enough to kill a mangrove tree, but warm enough to deplete the water that comes and goes with the tide of CO2. The tree depends on this source of CO2 rising from the water. Rising CO2 also supplies a humid environment for the tree to absorb fresh water as the rising CO2 causes more evaporation (its a solvent).

        20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The IPCC have clearly attempted to use a multiplier effect on the properties of CO2 in the atmosphere, this would achieve the best fear factor amongst the population, a runaway compound that only we can control at the sacrifice of a decadent life preserving lifestyle, Hubbard would have been impressed with such imagination.

    182

    • #

      Fear is certainly a great motivator, but the IPCC also relies on the division inherent in partisan politics. Most people tend to be in the center and the direction they lean is determined by how they resolve conflict between social responsibility and fiscal responsibility. If you understand that without fiscal responsibility, social responsibility is unsustainable, you tend to lean right. If you think the cost of being what you believe to be socially responsible is irrelevant, you tend to lean left. The IPCC pushes its ‘solutions’ as the socially responsible thing to do which puts nearly half the population on their side before the science is even addressed. Not only is the cost considered irrelevant, the scientific truth becomes irrelevant as well.

      650

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        co2isnotevil, you nailed it. What a nice, concise, and well written summary of politics and the difference between leaning right or leaning left and how scientific truths (and any truths)
        are irrelevant to the leftists pushing global warming (now called climate change, but really it is still global warming).
        Thank you.

        250

      • #
        mike restin

        Certainly describes US politics.
        It’s this frustration that has fueled Trump’s rise.
        Establishment politicians still don’t understand.
        The right can’t understand how any freedom loving American could vote for Crooked Hillary.
        The left can’t understand … reality.
        And neither side can understand how Trump did it.
        The people may very well push Trump into the White House just to piss off both political parties.
        It’d almost be worth it to watch them and all the pundants squirm.

        260

        • #
          Annie

          I like ‘pundants’!

          30

        • #
          climateskeptic

          The Left can’t understand …reality

          Like the reality that Trump will get smashed at the election

          330

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Trump will get smashed at the election”

            So, you think he will have a few beers after he has won.

            America will be cheering and celebrating too. :-)

            122

            • #
              climateskeptic

              You are dreaming again Noddy. Trump is heading for one of the biggest defeats in election history and it looks like “Malcolm in the middle” might bite the dust as well. Be interesting to watch the right wing at each others throats while I’m having the beer in a recliner watching the spectacle.

              218

              • #
                AndyG55

                YAWN.!! Boring !!

                101

              • #
                AndyG55

                “while I’m having the beer in a recliner watching the spectacle”

                You mean basically any hour of the day, right.

                91

              • #
                Manfred

                In between beers, if you can tear yourself away without a sense of self-deprivation, have a closer look at the writing on the wall.

                40

              • #
                William Palmer

                Would you wager 10k in a futures market that Trump will lose? What odds would you give?

                00

        • #

          “The right can’t understand how any freedom loving American could vote for Crooked Hillary.”

          That’s just it. They aren’t freedom loving Americans. To be that, they would have to be responsible for themselves, their thoughts, and the consequences of their actions. THAT is the last thing they want. They want to be taken care of from cradle to grave without having to be responsible for anything. Hence, they don’t hold Hillary responsible for her past choices, words, or the negative consequences of her actions and failures to act either. Bad stuff just happens and someone else has to pay to make it better. All they need to do is be “offended”.

          240

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            All they need to do is be “offended”.

            \

            Yes, I agree. But why, oh why, did they feel the need to turn it into an industry?

            90

            • #

              “But why, oh why, did they feel the need to turn it into an industry?”

              Since they have no self, they are obliged to be part of a hive that is larger than any one individual. They feel alike, choose alike, and act alike because that is the only self identity they are capable of. They have no existence apart from their hive.

              That is why we skeptics are so feared. The simple existence of a different way of being, thinking, and acting threatens their collective feelings of oneness with their fellow hive members. That “feeling” is all that gives them a sense of existence. Without it, there is nothing.

              210

              • #
                Lawrie

                That’s a profound thought you have there Lionel. They have no religion which for the believers gives everyone a sense of self and self worth. It also leads to having the free will that is fundamental to [snip18c "most"] religions. The new left have to have a belief because that is the nature of humanity but religion is taken out of the equation it has to be replaced with something else. For now it seems to be gaia or even communism. As you say it saves these folk from thinking for themselves.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Since they have no self, they are obliged to be part of a hive that is larger than any one individual.

                Shades of Star Trek and the evil Borg collective… …have you been watching old reruns again, Lionell?

                31

              • #

                There is no need to watch old reruns. Simply watching the news is more of an experience of The Borg than I care to partake.

                Rather than becoming cyborgs as The Borg became, the Green Blob + Progressives + MSM Collective has had what little Objective Metaphysics replaced with Social Metaphysics and their fragmented Objective Epistemology replaced with a pure Subjective Epistemology. It is because of those transplants, they can see nothing but their hive and are compelled to follow it faithfully. If the least bit of reality leaks into their closed shells, they work to destroy reality. All without caring about the fact they are destroying themselves at the same time.

                As I have said many times, all we need to do to stop them is to stop feeding them. Their inability to know, understand, and deal with reality will soon finish the job. The down side is that they will cause a lot of damage on their way out. Though I suspect much less damage than if we kept on feeding them.

                90

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Epistemology

                Such a big word for what distinguishes the real from the imagined, which is what it boils down to in this case.

                And true, Star Trek doesn’t really begin to describe the present reality.

                As usual you grasp things quit well. But remember what one of my english teachers said to the class so long ago,

                Never send a 10 dollar word to do the job a 10 cent word can do.

                Or in this case several 10 cent words.

                10

              • #

                Roy,

                Sometimes the 10 dollar word does the job better than the many 10 cent words it would take to replace it. It depends upon the audience and the purpose behind your communication. In this case, you were my audience and my purpose was for you to understand what I was writing. Mission accomplished.

                10

  • #
    Manfred

    IPCC climate models speeding out of control compared to real world

    It’s ‘speeding out of control’ at about the same rate as things appear to be speeding into kontrolle. But then it never was about the science was it?
    As for the ‘real World’, and confirmed by another line of evidence, that current temperature changes lie well within the natural range of centennial variation over the Holocene.

    The Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C. During the 20th century, thermometers recorded an increase of about 0.7C. It seems reasonably certain that there was some warming due to the increasing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but it seems difficult to estimate the magnitude of this warming in the face of a likely natural variation of the order of 1C. The signal of anthropogenic global warming may not yet have emerged from the natural background.

    AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
    Lloyd PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015

    231

    • #
      Neville

      Manfred, here is a link to the full Lloyd study of April 2015 that I’ve linked to here before.
      Your study seems to be a later update and in your study Philip Lloyd actually states that there was about 0.7 C warming during the 20th century. But not in this abstract.
      BTW have you got a link to the full study?
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276276180_An_Estimate_of_The_Centennial_Variability_of_Global_Temperatures

      20

      • #
        Manfred

        Neville, apologies for any confusion! No intention.
        I did not present the abstract, otherwise I would have labelled it as such. Instead, I truncated Lloyd’s abstract and added the last paragraph from the Conclusion in the paper, which contains the reference to 0.7C etc, the full text of which I also possess (thanks). I was rushing this morning and simply stuck in the link to the Journal.
        There’s further informed comment at WUWT regarding this study.

        30

        • #
          Neville

          Thanks Manfred and good to see you link to Philip’s study as well.

          10

          • #
            Manfred

            Yep. It’s useful and I’m interested in the paleo-climatological context. I’ve posted this article on three occasions at this site, and numerous times elsewhere, or commented on it, and we should continue to do so at every opportunity!

            20

  • #
    Ruairi

    The warming predicted to be,
    As modelled by the I.P.C.C.,
    Should be looked at again,
    And divided by ten,
    To fit with reality.

    360

    • #

      The physics dictates that the sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 claimed by the IPCC is about 3-4 times to high and somewhere between hard limits of about 0.2 and 0.3 C per W/m^2. There’s another factor of 2 owing to an ambiguity in the IPCC’s definition of forcing, where a 1 W/m^2 instantaneous increase in solar power passing through the atmosphere is equivalent to an instantaneous decrease of 1 W/m^2 of emissions into space, i.e an instantaneous increase of 1 W/m^2 entering the atmosphere consequential to an increase in surface emissions absorbed by GHG’s in the atmosphere. At issue is that in the steady state, i.e after the system below TOT/TOA has come to equilibrium, the power entering the atmosphere leaves the atmosphere across twice the area from which it arrived.

      To be precise, I’d say ‘divided by 7 +/- 1′ and while it doesn’t rhyme with again it is a lot closer to 10 then to 1.

      80

      • #
        Peter C

        I don’t see how you can claim that the climate sensitivity must lie within hard limits of 0.2 to 0.3. Richard Lidzen says that evidence points to low sensitivity. The lower limit of climate sensitivity keeps being revised downward.

        David Evans, if I recall correctly, came up with 0.1, which makes Ruairi’s verse spot on. The Slayers think that the climate sensitivity could be negative.

        50

        • #

          The upper bound is dictated by the SB law, where owing to the T^4 relationship between temperature and emissions and the fact that in LTE emissions == absorption == accumulated forcing, the incremental sensitivity must be less than the average sensitivity when expressed as degrees per W/m^2. The average sensitivity is 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing, which at an average surface temperature of about 288K works out to be a sensitivity of about 0.3C per W/m^2 and sets the absolute upper bound. The lower bound is set by the SB sensitivity of an ideal black body at the average surface temperature and is about 0.2C per W/m^2. FYI, I believe it to be closer to 0.2 C per W/m^2, where W/m^2 are equivalent solar power.

          3 decades of satellite data (from GISS) plotted to scale with the SB law for a BB and gray body shows graphically how the planets behavior is largely indistinguishable from a gray body and thus should have the sensitivity of a gray body.

          http://www.palisad.com/co2/tp/fig1.png

          The data plotted is surface temperature vs. planet emissions which approximates a gray body whose emissivity is about 0.6. Each little dot is one month of average surface temperature vs. average planet emissions for one 2.5 degree slice of latitude. The larger dots are the long term averages for each slice.

          42

          • #

            The thumbs down on this comment illustrates my point in comment 2.1 that the scientific truth has become as irrelevant as the cost to pursue what many are deluded into believing is the socially responsible thing to do, especially when the scientific truth reveals that the most socially and fiscally responsible thing to do is absolutely nothing.

            60

          • #

            “The upper bound is dictated by the SB law, where owing to the T^4 relationship between temperature and emissions and the fact that in LTE emissions == absorption == accumulated forcing, the incremental sensitivity must be less than the average sensitivity when expressed as degrees per W/m^2.”

            There is no upper bound on stupidity! The entire concept of climate sensitivity is based on monumental stupidity! No conspiracy theorem is needed. The clueless academic meteorologists cannot even determine the amount of Earth’s atmosphere, let alone why this Earth has that amount.
            All the best! -will-

            11

            • #

              Will,
              The best way to understand the sensitivity is to start with an ideal black body, whose sensitivity is exactly equal to the slope of the SB relationship (dT/dE). Extend this to an ideal gray body, which again, has exactly the same slope of SB with a non unit emissivity, both of which decrease as 1/T^3. Now, measure the planet and explain any deviations from the ideal LTE response of an idea gray body. It turns out that there is no difference to explain relative to the planet acting like a gray body whose temperature is 288K (the average temp of the surface) and whose average emissivity provided by the atmosphere is about 0.61 when examining the planets emissions relative to its surface temperature.

              There is a difference relative to variable input power vs. surface temperature, which would be a more relevant representation of the sensitivity. In this case, the slope of the measured relationship is the slope of an ideal black body whose temperature is 288K (the average temperature of the surface) which is about 0.2C and not the 0.3C per W/m^2 of an ideal gray body at 288K and an emissivity of 0.61. which is also the same as an ideal black body at the 255K emission temperature of the planet.

              The reason for the difference is that from the many degrees of freedom in the climate system emerges an LTE solution (the LTE climate is a solution to constrained differential equations) which is most ideal from an entropy point of view, where an ideal black body at 288K is more ideal than an ideal gray body at 288K.

              20

              • #

                “It turns out that there is no difference to explain relative to the planet acting like a gray body whose temperature is 288K (the average temp of the surface) and whose average emissivity provided by the atmosphere is about 0.61 when examining the planets emissions relative to its surface temperature.”

                What total B**l S**t!
                At each and every frequency the normal exitance remains at Planck radiance minus whatever near opposing radiance times the emissivity, (1-1/e), 63% of one optical depth! Atmospheric optical depth can range from 1.5 meters, (15 microns, surface pressure). to 78km, (12 microns). surface to mesosphere. Pray tell what might be the temperature?
                In addition This atmosphere contains structures (clouds) that increase the surface one PI steradians exitance to 2 PI steradians exitance.
                Any planet with any atmosphere completely voids any semblance to any S-B equation of maximum possible thermal EMR flux between two temperatures.
                All the best! -will-

                20

              • #

                Will,

                You should consider the facts a little more before you call BS, especially in light of what the data is telling us about the behavior of the planet (see the plot referenced in comment 4.1.1). The idea that the planet does not behave like a gray body is just noise pushed by the CAGW crowd because to acknowledge otherwise undermines what they need to believe. Consider a planet with a pure O2/N2 atmosphere (no GHG’s or clouds). Since this hypothetical atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and visible radiation, it should be pretty clear that this planet will behave like an ideal black body. Adding a few hundred ppm of trace gases like CO2 and H2O will not cause it to deviate very far from ideal, in fact you can discover this yourself by incrementally adding GHG’s or clouds to this hypothetical atmosphere a tiny bit at a time and quantify the result.

                The surface itself is nearly an ideal black body and the atmosphere makes it appear gray from space. There is no specific requirement that emissions from a gray body be a Planck spectrum, that the emissivity must be uniform across the entire spectrum or that the spectrum has any influence on the COE requirements for radiative balance. Quantifying grayness as a scalar emissivity acting on the integration of power across the spectrum accounts for frequency dependent emissivity by rolling non uniform spectral effects into a single metric and resulting in an ‘equivalent’ temperature. The SB equation still holds for the ‘equivalent temperature’ and the planet acts so close to ideal, that the equivalent temperature is very close to the real average temperature. In fact, all temperatures reported from satellite data are the equivalent temperature of an ideal black body emitting the same amount of power otherwise integrated across the spectrum.

                BTW, the idea of a sensitivity is certainly real, its just that the CAGW crowd quantifies it as if SB is irrelevant, which of course it is not, as SB is a first principles LAW that all thermodynamic systems must obey. The sensitivity is the slope of the relationship between emissions and temperature (since in LTE, emission == absorption) and the only physics that quantifies this is the SB LAW.

                10

              • #

                Will,
                Keep in mind that I say ‘THE PLANET’ behaves like an ideal gray body (not the atmosphere) and the closer to LTE we get, the closer to ideal behavior it becomes. Beside, the temperature of the atmosphere is largely irrelevant to determining the sensitivity or the radiant balance for that matter.

                The N2/O2 are idle participants and have a kinetic temperature profile dictated largely by the surface temperature and gravity and contribute nothing to planetary emissions. GHG’s absorb and emit photons in absorption band frequencies, affect planet emissions but otherwise have no direct net impact on the velocity of N2/O2 molecules which are transparent to the LWIR emitted and absorbed by GHG’s. Only collisional broadening offers a mechanism to transfer photon energy to kinetic energy and this has an equal probability to speed up a molecule as it does to slow one down, thus provides no net transfer. The water in clouds is a nearly ideal black body, can absorb GHG emissions and is the only atmospheric component that absorbs significant solar energy, although its close proximity to water vapor makes cloud emissions manifest as Plank emissions with absorption line attenuation of about 3db. However, with the water in clouds being tightly thermodynamically connected to the water in the oceans through the hydro cycle, energy absorbed by clouds (solar of GHG emissions) can be considered equivalent to energy absorbed by the oceans (the planets surface), at least relative to the EQUIVALENT average temperature of the planet, which is very close to the actual average because the actual average is dominated by the temperature of the oceans.

                The atmosphere is not some magic, potent influence that can push behavior far from ideal, but is a passive layer between a nearly ideal black body surface which makes this surface appear gray from space. Can you offer another explanation for why the LTE response of the planet looks exactly like that of an ideal gray body and why would the LTE sensitivity be any different?

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Will at 4.1.1.1.1

                Thanks for once again countering the invocation of AN.

                I’m sure that Stephan and Boltzmann would be turning in their graves if they were aware of the absolute rubbish being carried on in their names.

                Have mentioned so many times before that SB setup is very controlled and moving outside the strict boundaries applying immediately voids the process.
                Talking of grey and light grey and very light grey is only for warmers.

                Getting a number after working values into AN doesn’t mean anything.

                KK
                KK

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Autocorrections
                ..invocation of SB

                AN = SB

                Please ignore the stuttering.

                10

              • #

                Keith,

                You are so incredibly wrong about the applicability of SB, moreover; applying it properly doesn’t help the warmists one bit and in fact makes their entire scientific foundation crumble as its proper application can only support a sensitivity between 0.2 and 0.3C per W/m^2, where even the upper bound is less than the lower bound claimed by the IPCC.

                If its not SB that dictates the relationship between the surface temperature and its radiant emissions, what physics do you propose does? Given that the surface is a near ideal BB and average atmospheric conditions result in an average, relatively constant attenuation, why do you object to modeling this attenuation factor as the emissivity of the planet relative to the surface when the LTE results for this model match measurements better than any other model? What magic properties do clouds and GHG’s have that can force the behavior far from what the physical laws require?

                A gray body is a non ideal black body. Why is it so hard to understand that a non ideal black body can be accurately characterized by a single scalar called the emissivity even though in in the real world, emissivity is a strong function of wavelength? This is easily verified by both experiment and derivation.

                At wavelengths that are not captured by GHG molecules and in the clear sky, the emissivity of the planet relative to the surface is nearly 1. At saturated absorption line wavelengths, the emissivity drops to about 0.5. Under cloudy skies, the average emissivity (again relative to surface emissions) drops by another factor of almost 2, mostly uniformly across wavelength. The spatial and temporal average over decades and integrated across wavelength is approximately 0.61 and by definition, this average is nearly as precise at calculating the LTE response of the system as the wavelength dependent emissivity, from which the average emerges. This is the consequence of superposition which is an intrinsic property of the LTI differential equation that describe the climate system, Pi = Po + dE/dt, where E is the energy stored in the system, Po is a function of E and the power leaving the planet and Pi is the power arriving. Note that the units of dE/dt are Watts when E is in joules and that Po = e*o*T^4, where T is the surface temperature, o is the SB constant and e is the effective emissivity and that dE/dT is a constant (i.e. 1 calorie increases 1cc of water by 1C). You may recognize this DE as very similar to that describing a low pass filter.

                20

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi CO2 is not evil.

                Thanks for the response.
                I may very well be wrong in the context of what you are discussing as I have very little understanding of the atmosphere other than what was provided many decades ago in Physics 2 and Chemistry 2 at university.
                What is missing there is made up for by a very good load of coursework in metallurgy.
                There mass heat,and momentum transfer analysis on complex interactive systems was studied and this involved a physical and chemical interactions.
                I have little doubt that you are right in what you say about the use of SB for grey bodies.
                If you know as much as you appear to, it would not be a surprise when I say that SB can be used for grey setups but the constant applicable must be determined from the practical situation being examined.
                Once the grey constant has been determined experimentally it may be used within the applicable boundary conditions for that situation only.
                You mention that warmers don’t like SB but I have seen long diatribes about the use of SB as if it was the Holy Grail, coming from warmers. It appears as if they had just taken a text book off the shelf and plugged in values without any consideration for the actual applicability.

                Anyhow it’s a big question.

                PS if you can make any sense out of
                what Will says please let me have a translation. Some time ago I caught him out on an equation but he has probably forgotten.

                KK
                :-)

                10

              • #

                co2isnotevil May 12, 2016 at 11:51 am

                “Keith,You are so incredibly wrong about the applicability of SB, moreover; applying it properly doesn’t help the warmists one bit and in fact makes their entire scientific foundation crumble as its proper application can only support a sensitivity between 0.2 and 0.3C per W/m^2, where even the upper bound is less than the lower bound claimed by the IPCC.”

                The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is never a law! :-) That sigma T^4 flux has never ever been measured anywhere at any time. This S-B equation is a calculation of the maximum possible unidirectional thermal EMR flux between two parallel flat surfaces at any two absolute but fixed temperatures. the sign of the expression within parenthesis gives the direction of the maximum flux. IF THE PARENTHESIZED EXPRESSION EVALUATES TO ZERO THERE IS NO (zero) THERMAL EM FLUX IN EITHER DIRECTION This is not some thermodynamic factoid, such is demanded by Maxwell’s equations. The S-B equation not only does NOT apply to a planet with an atmosphere, it does not even apply to surfaces with finite curvature.
                Please tell us where you got your illusions of thermal electromagnetic radiation its generation and transmission through a dispersive medium. You claim the Earth’s surface approaches that of a black-body!! Have you ever even attempted to measure Earth’s surface emissivity at any frequency or direction?

                “why do you object to modeling this attenuation factor as the emissivity of the planet relative to the surface when the LTE results for this model match measurements better than any other model?”

                Why do you claim the atmosphere has some attenuation factor? Just the opposite is correct! Near the surface the broadband atmospheric radiance mostly of airborne H2O strictly limits surface exitance to less than an average of 30W/m^2. The atmosphere’s temperature and radiance, however, is not determined by radiative effects, rather throughout the troposphere it is determined by lapse rate and latent heat converting to sensible heat. This geometry has the result That total EMR exitance continues to accrue and increase all the way to 200 km. It is the atmosphere and the latent heat of evaporation that spreads power from insolation to all locations in the atmosphere then radiates that to space. That is the only thing that keeps this planet from overheating.

                “At wavelengths that are not captured by GHG molecules and in the clear sky, the emissivity of the planet relative to the surface is nearly 1.”

                You claim such with absolutely no physical evidence what so ever! Did anyone in some institution of higher learning ever teach you how to think, or measure?

                20

              • #

                Keith,
                The error the warmist make is to consider SB as quantifying the pre-feedback sensitivity and then claim that positive feedback increases the sensitivity while negative feedback decreases it. In fact, the exact opposite occurs since the 1/T^3 dependence of the sensitivity on temperature makes temperature the dominant influence and to the extent that ‘positive’ feedback is what increases the surface temperature beyond what it would be otherwise, the sensitivity will actually decrease!

                The real problem is that positive feedback per Bode can not be properly applied to a passive system like the climate, as Bode’s amplifier element measures input and feedback to determine how much output to deliver from an implicit, infinite source, while the climate system consumes the input and feedback to produce its output and this COE constraint has never been applied to climate modeling. Otherwise, increasing surface emissions by more than 16 W/m^2 to achieve a 3C rise from only 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental input (feedback) would be an obvious violation of COE.

                What Will seems to be saying is that just because the data matches the theory doesn’t necessarily make the theory right as he apparently believes that ideal behavior is far from achievable in real systems and that ideal behavior requires pure Planck distributions and wavelength independent emissivity. I contend the opposite and the more degrees of freedom a natural system has, the more opportunity it has to approach ideal behavior, or at least ideal behavior in the energy domain at LTE.

                BTW, the average gray constant (average emissivity) can be calculated in many ways from measured data. The most obvious is to divide the average power emitted by the planet (240 W/m^2 @255K) by the power emitted by the surface at its average temperature (390 W/m^2 @ 288K), 240/390 = .615, where planet emissions are given by e*o*T^4, where T is 288K, o is the SB constant and e is the average emissivity of 0.615.

                10

              • #

                KinkyKeith May 12, 2016 at 10:41 am

                Will at 4.1.1.1.1

                “Thanks for once again countering the invocation of AN. S-B law! :-)

                “I’m sure that Stephan and Boltzmann would be turning in their graves if they were aware of the absolute rubbish being carried on in their names.”

                Last time I checked both were dronk!! But they referenced such more like ROFLMAO!
                All the best! -will-

                20

              • #

                Will,
                An 11u photon will not be absorbed by any GHG or cloud in the clear sky atmosphere and will pass right on through out into space, thus the 11u emissivity of the planet, relative to the surface, is 1. At 15u where CO2 is most saturated, all 15u photons that leave the surface will be captured by a GHG molecule, however, those GHG molecules have an equal probability of re-emitting photons up or down, thus half eventually escapes to space and the LTE emissivity is about 0.5.

                Also, the SB LAW is indeed a law that can be derived from first principles. Even the SB constant can be re-expressed in terms of more fundamental constants and has its roots in Quantum Mechanics. It’s been verified by experiment in many ways. Flatly stating that no planet with an atmosphere observes SB is demonstrably untrue. What about an atmosphere like Earth’s but with no GHG’s or water? How can an atmosphere that neither absorbs photons emitted by the surface or emits any photons into space have any effect on the relationship between planet emissions and its surface temperature?

                You need to think of the atmosphere as nothing but a semi-transparent layer that reduces the emissions from the surface to space (i.e. reduces the emissivity) by re-directing some fraction of the surface emissions it absorbs back to the surface making it warmer than it would be otherwise. Both clouds and GHG’s are involved in this process, clouds being a broad band emitter/absorber while GHG’s are narrow band emitters/absorbers.

                10

              • #

                co2isnotevil May 12, 2016 at 3:32 pm

                “Will,
                An 11u photon will not be absorbed by any GHG or cloud in the clear sky atmosphere and will pass right on through out into space, thus the 11u emissivity of the planet, relative to the surface, is 1.”

                A photon is a singular event that only exhibits when absorbing matter has an absorbing work function less than hv!! If such flux is ever generated that flux creates such a photon in zero proper time. It is obvious that you have no education or hands on experience in any form of electro-magnetic radiation, its generation or transmission. Every word you write comes from some semi-modern heat transfer handbook. Such is much worse than nonsense. EMR is never ever heat!! Got that! Not heat. Nor any form of internal energy! Please obtain a copy of Maxwell’s Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. Seriously study for three years and try to learn something … anything.

                “At 15u where CO2 is most saturated, all 15u photons that leave the surface”

                The atmosphere within 2 meters of the surface has a higher radiance at 15-16 microns than the surface in every direction. No surface exit flux at these wavelengths is ever generated. There is nothing to absorb, transmit, or reflect.
                The measurements do not lie! All exit flux to space in the 15-16 micron band originates from atmospheric CO2 an or near the tropopause. The amount of such exit flux so generated is independent of the amount of atmospheric CO2 between 100 and 2000 ppmv.

                “You need to think of the atmosphere as nothing but a semi-transparent layer that reduces the emissions from the surface to space (i.e. reduces the emissivity) by re-directing some fraction of the surface emissions it absorbs back to the surface making it warmer than it would be otherwise.”

                Perfect replication of the climate clown mantra of superstition! There is no evidence anywhere of any generation or release of EMR fluxn in a direction of higher radiance! I no longer have to think. The measurement technique is built in! Have you ever attempted to measure anything in your whole miserable life?

                20

        • #

          Peter,
          BYW, 0.1 C per W/m^2 would be about right when forcing is considered to be an instantaneous decrease in emissions to space, rather than an instantaneous increase in solar input to the surface (the aforementioned ambiguity in the definition of forcing). Something else that confuses many is the idea that positive feedback increases the sensitivity above the SB sensitivity while negative feedback decreases it. In fact, the sensitivity is primarily a decreasing function of temperature (i.e. the slope of SB), so if positive feedback increases the temperature, the sensitivity would be lower owing to the higher temperature.

          30

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            CO2

            If you read the comment by Will just above,you will are a few paragraphs at the end which contain a point that I have made before.

            This is that energy does not go against the energy gradient. It may be expressed from a CO2 molecule uniformly up and down but the down component cannot go to ground.

            Kk

            00

            • #

              I stand by my analysis which is predicted by physical laws, readily modeled and demonstrated conclusively with data. It’s nothing more than an application of the scientific method. Unless you can cite new physics that supersedes the SB Law, there’s no other way to explain the data. Pay careful attention to the data shown in comment 4.1.1.1. Clearly, you haven’t grasped the importance of what 3 decades of satellite data (from GISS!) is telling us about how the system responds to change. This test is also highly repeatable using any other satellite data set.

              Also, the down component certainly does get to the surface, otherwise the surface would be 255K, just as the up component eventually leaves the planet, otherwise, the planet would be in a massive state of imbalance. The relative fraction of power absorbed by GHG’s and clouds is about 50/50 up/down although the transient response of clouds seems to be able to modulate this slightly above and below the 50/50 split.

              00

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      too good …. ‘to fit with reality’…reality to them is akin to a crucifix to a vampire

      10

  • #
    Ron C.

    The activists and politicians no longer abide by IPCC science, when official projections are not alarming enough.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/data-vs-models-3-disasters/

    150

  • #
    Robber

    The other critical number: When are we going to reach the 1.5 or 2 degree warming above pre-industrial times that the IPCC tells us we CANNOT exceed without catastrophe?

    80

    • #
      AndyG55

      Schellenhumber.. (or whatever his name is) admitted that he just pull that number from where the sun don’t shine.

      It has ABSOLUTELY ZERO scientific basis.,

      191

    • #

      Never if you believe in peak oil, or at least not as the result of CO2 emissions. If we burned all the remaining oil, it would not produce enough CO2 to cause this much warming. Furthermore, if innovation is not stifled by insane policy, we will have developed the technology to produce the molecules needed to convert CO2, water and sunlight into O2, methane and water at which time our biggest concern will be how to pump CO2 into the atmosphere to improve the efficiency of this process.

      90

    • #

      “The other critical number:”
      Never critical! Yet another meaningless value used to create fear from the quite ordinary! At any given instant, Earth’s surface temperatures ranges from +40°C to -60°C. Any spatial average of such a temperature spread can have no physical nor even statistical significance/meaning! Earth has cyclic local values,daily, (lunar semimonthly), annually!
      Greater repetitive variance is not of fixed cycle, but instead, based of the relative position of each massive body within this Solar system. This generally is noted as the planetary tidal effect upon the Sun’s compressible gas mass, and also the epicycles the Sun position has with respect to the solar system barycenter! These repetitions; amplitude and phase modulate the cyclic nature of the surface, oceans, and atmosphere. Such cannot be truly cyclic as this would lead to destructive resonances among solar system bodies.
      These tidal,highly studied Astrological effects, are much more important to life on this planet than any minor variance in atmospheric composition can possibly be! These effects because of their vast scale are completely ignored ridiculed by earthling so called learned academic science, because of the learned overwhelming myopia upon the false illusion of thermo-mechanical energy! The most important part of Earth’s weather system is completely missing from any multi billion dollar climate model! :-(
      All the best! -will-

      81

      • #
        Annie

        I think you mean ‘astronomical’ Will. Astronomy and astrology are two very different things; one is science, the other is superstition.

        52

        • #

          “I think you mean ‘astronomical’ Will. Astronomy and astrology are two very different things; one is science, the other is superstition.”

          No Annie I most definitely am referring to the exacting planetary record keeping of Astrology referenced to the near stationary constellations or star clusters. This along with the record keeping of local weather patterns. Then, as now, there is no scientific explanation as to whether the effects are inertial, gravitational, electrical, magnetic, or other! The answer may be a huge complex combination, even involving extremely high frequency EMR, (gamma radiation). Modern Astronomy helps greatly with much better exact four-space location of the bodies, especially with the inclinations, that demonstrate the absence of resonances (also unexplained). It has only been the past few years that folk have returned to the study of this geometry in relation to the historical weather record.
          Yes! In past times Astrologers did oft times tell folk what they wanted to hear, or give comfort that perhaps some did one know the unknown! Those nigglings, can easily be excused when compared to the deliberate public SCAM by learned academic Meteorologists, for financial or political gain! :-(
          All the best! -will-

          52

    • #
      sophocles

      Robber asked:

      When are we going to reach the 1.5 or 2 degree warming above pre-industrial times that the IPCC tells us we CANNOT exceed without catastrophe?

      Probably never. That’s a projection for the Northern Hemisphere and is a NH problem. Doesn’t apply Down Under, where the rate of warming is about 0.18dC per century since 1880. :-)

      20

  • #
    Angry

    Admission that the Global Warming Scam is all about the money….

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/admission-that-the-global-warming-scam-is-all-about-the-money/

    It says it all really!!

    100

  • #
    manalive

    I could be missing something here but using the Wood for Trees interactive graphs and the UAH series I get a least squares linear trend of ~1.3C per century since 2001 (including the recent El Nino) which is near enough to the linear trend for the whole satellite era since 1980.

    50

    • #

      I used the latest available versions of the RSS and UAH datasets. UAH shows 0.58 K/century from Jan 2001 to Apr 2016; RSS shows 0.36 K/century. Mean is 0.47 K/century equivalent, as stated in the head posting.

      161

      • #

        can you explain the difference?

        39

        • #

          The difference is caused by measurement uncertainty.

          52

          • #
            Gee Aye

            Sorry, I think my question was ambiguous because of course there is measurement error but I didn’t mean among your values but between the rather large (and I suspect significant) slopes that you calculated and that manalive derived from wood for trees.

            22

            • #
              Gee Aye

              That is “large difference between slopes…”

              22

              • #

                I determined the least-squares linear-regression trends directly and correctly from the data. The discrepancy between prediction and reality is stark.

                81

              • #

                I am trying to get to the bottom of two completely different estimates and I might proffer a comment. My comment and your article would be helped by some transparency of the data used and the methods, you’ve given no precision on either but some assurances that they are correct in some way.

                So how did you manage biases due to end point variation? As you know, pulling out trends from data can be biased by short term variation and how the variation is distributed through the time series. An uptick or down tick at one or both ends can exaggerate a trend one way or the other in a way that does not represent the signal in the data. Did you correct for this?

                Also, as you also know, analysing a partition of a longer trend that fluctuates over small time periods, can lead to a different estimate of the trend from that seen in the long term data. How did you determine that 15 years is sufficient for such data to enable you to make the conclusions you made? A reviewed paper would never be published with an assertion like, “Fifteen years is long enough “. How do you justify this?

                Did your power analysis determine whether your estimate is robust to minor fluctuations in the data?

                14

              • #

                The head posting is entirely clear as to the data and method used. The RSS and UAH monthly near-global lower-troposphere temperature anomalies for January 2001 to April 2016 were averaged and the least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean determined.

                The usual method of eliminating biases owing to the departure of the start-point or end-point of the dataset from the period mean of a global temperature anomaly series is to ensure that whole cycles of el Nino and la Nina are included in the series. At present, however, a strong el Nino is running. The effect of including this el Nino is to cause a small upward bias in the least-squares linear-regression trend. Removing that bias would, of course, widen still further the already startling discrepancy between models’ prediction and observed reality.

                I took the 15 years 4 months from January 2001 to April 2016 because that period allowed me to show the discrepancy between prediction and observation for three IPCC reports – 1990, 1995 and 2001. As the NOAA State of the Climate Report for 2008 makes clear, at least 15 years’ data are neeeded to establish a reasonably reliable trend.

                IPCC’s 1990 report predicted a slight uptick in temperature in 2000. However, the opposite has occurred: the rate of warming, which had been predicted to increase, has instead slowed, contrary to prediction.

                IPCC’s 1995 report provided a range of predictions for the 21 subsequent years, based on the annual compound percentage increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The actual CO2 concentration change since 1995 has proven to be 0.5% per annum compound. On that basis, IPCC (1995) had predicted warming over the past couple of decades at a rate equivalent to about 1.8 K/century, as the needle on the speedometer correctly shows.

                00

  • #
    handjive

    Surprised!?!

    Obama White House showed ‘bad faith’ in global-warming case, judge rule (washingtontimes)

    “In this most recent case, the Competitive Enterprise Institute was trying to force the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to release documents backing up Director John C. Holdren’s finding that global warming was making winters colder — a claim disputed by climate scientists.

    Mr. Holdren’s staffers first claimed they couldn’t find many documents, then tried to hide their release, saying they were all internal or were similar to what was already public.

    But each of those claims turned out not to be true.”

    100

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      Surprised!?!

      ‘Fraid not. Obama insisted from the start that his administration would be “the most transparent in history” and, from the start, that claim has been laughable. On a whole range of issues, various departments and agencies have

      a) dragged their heels over FOIA requests (e.g. re Justice Department appointments);
      b) refused point blank to supply relevant documentation (e.g. in the case of “Fast and Furious“);
      c) suffered mysterious highly implausible hardware failures (as in the case of Lois Lerner’s hard drive at the IRS);
      d) experienced remarkably inconvenient losses of data, which just happen to affect precisely the data requested (your example and Hillary Clinton’s e-mails spring to mind here);
      e) even set up parallel, pseudonymous e-mail addresses (as Lisa Jackson, alias “Richard Windsor“, did at the EPA), or entire systems outside the official departmental ones (Clinton, again).

      Proof that the administration does routinely delete e-mails which it refuses to share came a couple of years ago, when a freedom of information request followed up claims about government bullying made by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson (“Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington“). The relevant department, following the traditional delay, triumphantly produced a string of e-mails, with no reference to “Sharyl Attkisson“.

      Except that they hadn’t been as clever as they thought. Noting that both “Sharyl” and “Attkisson” are rather unusual names, but close to very familiar ones, an eagle-eyed observer scanned the e-mails supplied for, I think, “Sheryl Atkinson”. Sure enough, there she was, in an e-mail which was plainly a reply to a previous (and deleted) discussion of Ms Attkisson.

      10

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    So a predictive calculation out to 100 years by the IPCC is compared to a series which only covers a small portion of the that prediction, and then assuming a straight line. Best misuse of statistics this year!

    13

    • #

      IPCC (1990) published a graph showing the predicted trend in global warming, and I correctly the portion of that graph that relates to the period 2001-2016.

      IPCC (1995) published a graph showing the predicted rates of warming over the 21 years 1996-2017 in response to various annual rates of increase in CO2 concentration over the period, and I correctly derived from that graph the trend that related to the appropriate period and the appropriate mean annual compound rate of increase in CO2 concentration.

      IPCC (2001) published medium-term (i.e. decadal, not centennial) predictions showing the interval and central estimate shown on the speedometer.

      Accordingly, the comparison between these wild predictions and the unexciting observed reality that is tellingly demonstrated in the Global Warming Speedometer graph is accurately and fairly presented.

      111

  • #
    TdeF

    The miracle of science, thousands of experts have come up with the mathematics, roughly from a single jump of +0.5C in ten years. Roughly then

    +0.5 in ten years means +5.0 in 100 years
    +0.5 in twenty years means +2.5 in 100 years
    +0.5 in thirty years means +1.65 in 100 years

    Genius science.

    The outstanding problem with all models is to prove the past or even the present before you predict the future.

    The North Pole goes to +25C in summer to -25C in winter say. The ice forms and the ice melts. The ice extent is very dependent on slight variations in the heights of summer and winter, not some ‘global’ temperature. However the South pole is much colder and goes from -25C in summer to -50C in winter.

    So in creating this ‘world’ temperature, predicted to 0.1C resolution, do the models even explain why the South Pole is so much colder than the North pole?

    If they cannot predict this precisely, how can they create a credible world temperature? How can the temperatures weighted to a sensible figure if we do not understand the significance of the various regions via a model which accurately predicts what we see? Did Professor Turkey really think the South Pole was identical to the North pole?

    Or is it all a childish fantasy? Is there another explanation for the change of +0.5C in the 1980s, like the change of all instrumentation to electronic at that time, increasing resolution by 0.5C and raising the awful problem of absolute continuity? So did the world meteorological organizations support their IPCC and create this +0.5C by confirmation bias?

    As the ‘pause’ continues, we are now thirty years into their predictions and they are completely wrong. How can CO2 be blamed for nothing changing?

    So we are also carbon taxes imposed by the same IPCC and supported by Australian politicians on all sides. If you cannot predict even the temperature, how can you predict climates? How can you tax the air we breathe? Easily. Politicians have always wanted to do so and now the carpet baggers are in power with others waiting at the door. Only democracies have to pay. Sinners have to pay their carbon indulgences in the new religion of rapid runaway global warming. The greatest moral challenge of a generation. Even Al Gore gets a Peace prize!

    102

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The North Pole goes to +25C in summer to -25C in winter say. The ice forms and the ice melts. The ice extent is very dependent on slight variations in the heights of summer and winter, not some ‘global’ temperature.

      The magnetic North Pole also moves around, so when you are up there, it is very difficult to be sure where “there” is.

      52

    • #
      Raven

      So in creating this ‘world’ temperature, predicted to 0.1C resolution . .

      I was having a little conversation on Facebook the other day when someone touted the “hottest month ever” thing.
      In order to be able to consider his assertion, I asked the guy what the average temperature was for Darwin Airport for May 1770.

      Most replies from others joining in consisted of the predictable “authoritative” views citing the Science™ of all manner of unrelated things.
      One guy said he was shocked to learn that there was no Airport in Darwin in 1770. I think he was playing along but no one had the answer . . and of course neither did I. ;)

      41

  • #
    TdeF

    The homogenous models of radiation balance which are used to try to predict temperatures must also include both the rapid gaseous exchange with the vast cool oceans and whatever mechanisms create world where the bottom half is a lot colder than the top half. Without such detail, there is no sense in a credible world temperature and no understanding of how energy is transported around the globe or the significance of a deeper than normal winter in Antarctica. The most egregious part of Global Warming
    ‘science’ is to even create such a representative temperature when there is no one temperature for the planet.

    90

  • #

    30 years of little warming has caused the red thumb guy to sleep in this morning, as I post this, he is completely absent. Perhaps the billions of dollars of rain falling across the country has embarrassed him. Tim? Tim? Are you still there?

    214

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    O/T but FYI re renewables etc

    “David MacKay, The Final Cut”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/05/david-mackay-th.html#comments

    and link

    30

  • #
    handjive

    PCT.
    Personal Carbon (sic) Trading in individual carbon (sic) rations

    Yes, the propaganda is here:

    May 3 , 2016: Personal Carbon Trading – Dr. Yael Parag
    A radical policy response to climate change. (‘fun’ cartoon, 3.16 minutes, youtube)
    . . .
    Hey, generation-x,y,zedder, can’t charge your mobile phone?

    You used up all your carbon credits! Suckers!

    That’s your ‘renewable’ future.

    Can’t say you weren’t warned, least of all by Monckton of Brenchley’s most excellent, easy to read graph.

    80

  • #
    tonyM

    Monkton has provided a silly apples and pears comparison.

    If the trend is based on 1990 predictions then it must be compared with outcomes since 1990. Similarly with the other comparisons.

    Cherry picking the 15 year trend from 2001 actual as well as not including other databases is not the recipe for valid comparisons particularly if the model T outputs are for the surface.

    417

    • #
      TdeF

      What do you mean by this? Besides, apples and pears are very similar. Perhaps you mean apples and oranges? Cherries are quite different.

      92

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      IPCC (1990), at page xxiv, predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century.

      Therefore the predicted temperature rise 1990-2015 would be 0.71℃, or from 2001 to 2015 (as above)

      UAH 0.09℃
      RSS 0.05℃

      IPCC 0.71℃

      130

      • #
        tonyM

        Graeme, you are doing exactly what Monkton has done; cherry pick the comparison base.

        How does that help?

        418

        • #
          Egor TheOne

          yes, exactly what Monckton has done ….. display the truth , fact and reality…..instead of Medieval Marxism .

          123

    • #
      RB.

      If the trend is based on 1990 predictions then it must be compared with outcomes since 1990. Similarly with the other comparisons.

      Please justify and keep the fruit out of it.

      Do you realise that the slope of linear trend is a constant?

      Do you know that the apples/pears analogy comes from the teaching that you cannot add two values of different units or that the dimensionless quotient of two values of different dimensions is a meaningless fraction?

      Please substitute “everyone knows that you can’t compare apples with pears” with a proper argument.

      71

      • #
        tonyM

        Thank you for you explanation but kindly allow me to author my own work. I’m sorry you did not understand it.

        You ask:
        Do you realise that the slope of linear trend is a constant?

        You add nothing to the conversation for the comparison is still a cherry picked period.

        Now let me ask you some questions:
        Do you realize that the 2001 to 2015 linear trend slope (actual) is not the same as the slope from 1990? If so why choose the slope from 2001 when the forecast was based on 1990 levels? Can you point to any statistical treatise which justifies this method?

        If on a journey I make a prediction that we will take X hours or average Y kmph to arrive at a destination do you believe it is a valid to judge my prediction accuracy by calculating the linear trend of the speed over the last 20% of the journey (or equally adjusted time comparison)?

        In hypothesis testing we are meant to test the predictions made by the hypothesis not do some post hoc fiddling with data. Monkton is not testing the model predictions or projections. Neither are you.

        316

        • #
          RB.

          If on a journey I make a prediction that we will take X hours or average Y kmph to arrive at a destination do you believe it is a valid to judge my prediction accuracy by calculating the linear trend of the speed over the last 20% of the journey (or equally adjusted time comparison)?

          If the car started to put when barely pulled out of the drive way I’d suspect that we ran out of fuel and weren’t going to make it to the destination.

          82

          • #
            tonyM

            Perhaps and if monkeys were donkeys they would not be swinging through the trees.

            The question asked has little to do with what you suspect. If you addressed it perhaps it would lead you to answering your own question.

            215

        • #
          RB.

          Excuse #54 for the pause – flat tyre!

          52

        • #

          Tony, in 1990 there was barely a 15 year warming trend to assess (and yet it was enough to launch the IPCC). If that period was enough for the IPCC then, why not now?

          The IPCC predictions also failed completely from 1990 – 2012.

          Not only does the April 2016 figure include the latest El Nino (and not the 1998 one) but emissions in the 2000s were far higher than the IPCC predicted in 1990.

          The prediction was “per decade”, not “as calculated from 1990, and only from 1990″.

          “Under the IPCC Business as Usual emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C – 0.5C)” [IPCC FAR summary]“

          261

          • #
            Manfred

            Equivalent to a mind blowing 3C per century or three time the known centennial variation over the entire Holocene, up to the present day, which is (sigh, sigh) why this was always about politics not science.

            120

          • #
            RB.

            That period between 1975-90 had just under 0.2°C/decade warming trend and it was enough to claim unprecedented warming.

            The 30 years from 1945-1975 used to have a little less than 0.2°C/decade cooling, that was unprecedented and caused a cooling scare.

            Now we have 18 years of 0.2°C/decade of warming masked by 0.2°C/decade of cooling. We’re doomed!

            70

          • #
            tonyM

            Hi Jo,
            I am a skeptic and this can be easily verified as I use the same pen name on the Drum. Arguments along the lines of Monkton will only encourage ridicule and cement that “deniers” cherry pick.

            We only need look at the criticism from Schmidt which caused Judith Curry not to include the spaghetti graph from Christy in her Senate testimony to understand the sensitivity in this field.

            She should have used it. Subsequently Steve McIntyre destroyed Schmidt’s argument as he was cherry picking start dates for comparisons. In that case plotting the difference would have given the same outcome and resolved the issue I feel.

            We can carry on with rationalizations and quid pro quo arguments but they won’t wash. For a start the models were not based on the previous 15 years. Giving a rate per decade is not the same thing as saying every decade must achieve X. If that was the case then it likely would have been falsified in the decade to 2010. One is seen as an average to a far out date the other as an absolute decade constraint. Carpetbaggers are never that stupid. Further this is stated in your quote:
            “…..the average rate of increase of …. during the next century….”

            I have yet to see anyone make a decade claim in an absolute sense. Even Jones picked 15 years. Most climatologists will argue for a 30 year period. Of course flim flam Flannery will argue that it will be hundreds of years.

            41

        • #
          Egor TheOne

          You need to study this reality equation : CAGW = BS

          60

    • #

      Tony M deludes himself. The comparisons I made were between the real-world temperature data for 2001-2016 on the one hand and the medium-term predictions in the IPCC’s first three ASSessment reports on the other. The comparisons were accordingly accurate, fair, and devastating to the adherents of the Party Line.

      123

      • #
        tonyM

        As author of the work you would not be in the best position to judge your own objectivity.

        The issue is certainly not about whether the models succeed or fail and emotive terms along those lines do not resolve it.

        I say it is a cherry picked distortion to judge FAR and SAR model predictions by taking the period from 2001 to 2016. What is your justification for taking that data? Can you explain why you did not take 1998 to 2016 actual data? Or perhaps 1995 to 2016? For the FAR can you explain your reason for not taking the whole of the data-set from 1990 instead of simply a shortened subset?

        Please explain your rationale for not taking any random 15 year subset; that too would be accurate and fair!

        It may be a simple process to resolve this in a more objective manner. Perhaps we could ask for the opinions of Schmidt and McIntyre and Christy. They deal with this sort of data all the time. I am happy to respect their conclusions. Are you equally happy?

        00

    • #

      Tony M has not studied either the head posting or the underlying data with sufficient care. IPCC in 1990 had predicted an acceleration in the global warming rate after 2000. Instead, the opposite of what had been predicted occurred: the rate of global warming slowed.

      I have simply compared the IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 predictions for the period 2001 to 2015 with the observed outturn: apples for apples.

      10

      • #
        tonyM

        We seem to be going in circles. I am already clear on what you have done and why you have done it including, may I suggest, your motives. I equally suggest blind Freddie would see it too.

        My questions, which you have not addressed, were not directed at this but rather the lack of concern for the totality of relevant information which is available. It is incumbent on a scientist to explore all these different possibilities even if they weaken his argument. Science is not about “got you moments” or debating team presentations or prosecuting a case in law.

        Further, science is not written immutably in stone. Saying that these were the predictions is not in line with the more up to date reflection and implications of “projections.” Nor is the scant regard to the relevant, qualifying comments in the reports acceptable.

        As for the slowdown this was acknowledged by the climate establishment – so what? One can’t just judge on the basis of a lull for a period and ignore the higher than predicted T period which preceded it and which stepped up the T early on in your selected period of study. Nor can one ignore the total system. There are papers on this yet you make no reference to them. I also questioned your use of satellite records which measure the troposphere and not the surface measurements to make the comparisons when clearly this is what you are addressing.

        This should not be taken to mean that I support the models as the infamous more than 97% of the runs fail on one side i.e. the high side of the “actual” T hence indicating a hot inbuilt bias (I am talking about the longer periods and not 15 years).

        Earlier in a reply to Jo I highlighted Judith Curry’s concerns. Even though she had a far stronger case than you present she was being prudent knowing that this is a highly politicized environment. She would be another good candidate to seek an opinion re your speedometer in addition to the other three mentioned earlier.

        I suggest your presentation would be doing the skeptic cause more good if you modified the comparisons which would make it more robust hence my suggestion to have a second opinion from these professionals. Schmidt might indeed make no suggestion whatsoever; no need to wonder why.

        00

  • #
    thingodonta

    The IPCC modelling mistake relating to warming of the earth’s temperatures by C02, and subsequent failed temperature projections is actually quite simple.

    It’s similar to the qwerty keyboard or ‘ownership is 9/10ths of the law’ principle. (The qwerty keyboard, which is most commonly used, is not necessarily the best arrangement of letters, it just happens to be the first one which became widespread, which has proved difficult to change since people are so used to it).

    The IPCC models were first compiled in the 1990s by assuming that most of the warming from the mid 1970s to the mid to late 1990s were caused by humans and CO2, since there wasn’t much else that seemed to be causing it. Once these models became formalised and established in the literature, researchers who were the ‘first-in’, so to speak, subsequently became reluctant to change them very much, because they retain a certain ‘ownership’ of them, and it has helped establish careers, institutions, and various other flow-on effects.

    However there were at least 2 major variables which were not well understood or known by researchers or the IPCC at the time the models were first formulated in the 1990s. One was the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), which was only discovered by accident in about 1995. Pacific Ocean cycles have a large effect on earth temperatures, and this information was not integrated into the original IPCC models, (partly also because the majority of IPCC researchers at the time based their information on the Atlantic since this is where most researchers on both sides-western Europe and eastern North America, actually came from, and where there was the most information). It so happens, that the Pacific was in a warm phase between the mid 1970s to the early 2000s. This is a major reason why the original IPCC models over-stated the effect of C02, and in fact why the still do, the PDO data was never properly integrated into the original models. There is also now a significant reluctance on the part of the established order to modify an original oversight or ‘mistake’, especially since so many have stamped their flags to the mast and since the PDO effect was not known at the time.

    Another variable which was not well understood, but which also partly relates to ocean cycles, is the delayed effect of increased solar activity. Solar activity increased slightly from the mid 1800s to about 1950 and remained high until the 1990s, and although this information was known, it was downgraded in the models because it was thought that once solar activity had stopped rising, the effects on temperatures should have leveled off in the latter half of the 20th century. However certain aspects of thermodynamics contradicts this; in actual fact temperatures can continue to keep rising for up to several decades after solar activity levels off (just like summer season temperatures which peak weeks after the summer solstice, or on any day where temperature normally peaks well after noon and after solar input is highest), and when you add the effects of multi- decadal long ocean cycles this ‘delayed effect’ can become quite pronounced.

    The end result, is that the combination of multi decadal-long ocean cycles, and delayed effects from relatively high solar output, meant that the warming of the earth that occurred between the mid 1970s to the late 1990s was significantly affected by natural factors, which factors were never properly understood or integrated into the original IPCC models, which are now difficult to change because they have become formalised and established.

    And note: I’m typing this on a qwerty style keyboard, which I’m told is not actually the best arrangement of letters for typing.

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      A few things. The QWERTY keyboard is used primarily for English. Most countries have a completely different layout, if you have ever had to use an internet cafe. Russian is quite different. The revolution in China was to use Pinyin to type, choosing which of the four alternatives was correct. Children learn the English alphabet first, then Chinese. As for the layout, people disagree but I assume it was based on the frequency of characters and their associations and levels of repetition. Personally my use of Q and Z is quite limited. The Chinese use the keyboard phoenetically and their phonics are quite different. What is ideal for Ireland is not ideal for the 28 official languages of India.

      “since there wasn’t much else that seemed to be causing it”.

      Causing what exactly? This was the time of complete change of all meteorological instruments. Much has been said about the heat island effect and even moving devices can cause omission or massive homogenization by our BOM, universally pushing temperatures up. However what was in the boxes was changed completely in the 1980-90 period and no one much commented. It is a huge coincidence that the amount of ‘heating’ corresponded to the reading error of the previous devices. So we had a plateau before the 1980s and a plateau since. Instrumental change? No, CO2.

      Further, we know CO2 has been changing very steadily for at least a century and did not show this ‘blip’. There is no correlation at all between temperature and CO2. So why a CO2 explanation?

      The real reason was that blame could be sheeted to Western Industrial civilization because fossil fuel consumption and CO2 went up at the same time. Based on the idea that man can actually change CO2 concentrations, this suited the communists of the UN. In evidence only rich democracies are being asked to pay. Everyone else is exempt. Even Robert Mugabe turned up in Paris with his hand out and the entire Figureres family from Costa Rica is rampant in the UN. Tiny islands like Tuvalu, population 10,000 want their cash too and have an equal vote with India.

      No the real explanation is not that CO2 was first. It was that it was a way of raising money for the UN by claiming a Climate Emergency, even if it had to be manufactured first. The other coincidence was the very formation of the IPCC at the same time the emergency was discovered and not since. The trick was to get a lot of students to write science reports and then the political committee wrote the conclusions. The funniest was the vanishing Indian glaciers killing 400 million people. This not only did not make sense, it was not based on any evidence at all. However it did upset the Indian government.

      90

      • #
        TdeF

        How the IPCC survived the announcement of the imminent deaths of 400 million Indians is not understandable. This was not based on a single fact or measurement, only a comment of a tour guide to a student.

        To state that the Hindu Kush up to 9,000 metres would cease to have any water or that the Indian government could not build a dam to save 1/3 of their population is incredible. 400 million people dead by 2035. In itself the third biggest country in the world, bigger than all of Western Europe or the US, all facing death in a generation. Their advice, reduce world CO2.

        The IPCC’s final explanation, not an apology but a typographical error. The IPCC should have been shut down. It is not about science. It never was.

        130

      • #
        Paul Bamford

        The QWERTY keyboard was developed to from an alphabetical one, to slow down typists who quickly learnt to type fast enough to jamb the keys. They were not allowing enough time for the keys to retract from the slot above the ribbon, before the next key landed on top of it. My wife was touch typist and used electric typewriters, but if asked to a manual one she could easily “overtake” the keys to cause jamb even with a QWERTY keyboard. BTW the QWERTY name comes from the fist 6 letters of the top line on the board.

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          As a child I had an Underwood 1923 typewriter and typed everything. Easy and fast to learn but few people do. The trick is to use a rhythm like a metronome and jams happened if you lost that rhythm. Beginners and two finger typists would jam keyboards. Professionals rarely did. Stangely when typewriters came out, they were impressive new machines and considered far too complex for women, so only men typed and acted as secretaries. When it was found to be boring and repititious and unimpressive hard work, the job went to women. Women were taught at school to cook and type and men were not. Even today, few men type.

          60

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      After reading this lengthy tome, the reality is that the IPCC just didn’t and still don’t have a full knowledge of how climate works….. Ergo they can’t predict global temp movements…..

      30

  • #

    tonyM May 10, 2016 at 9:31 am · Reply

    “Monkton has provided a silly apples and pears comparison.”

    Much much less silly than some spatio-temporal global temperature, pulled from the toilet, having no physical nor statistical meaning whatsoever!!

    163

    • #
      tonyM

      You are conflating separate issues. It does not help the Monkton argument. If the models are to be discredited it needs to be done on a like for like comparison.

      Monkton has made the choice of comparing avg T irrespective of what you may say about such a measure.

      510

      • #

        tonyM May 10, 2016 at 10:18 am · Reply

        “You are conflating separate issues. It does not help the Monkton argument. If the models are to be discredited it needs to be done on a like for like comparison. Monkton has made the choice of comparing avg T irrespective of what you may say about such a measure.”

        Can you not even recognize satire when it kicks you in the NUTZ!

        113

        • #
          tonyM

          Will, perhaps you should have left your mind open to the possibility that I am a skeptic and perhaps I do feel there is a lot of truth to your comment given the machinations with the data. Further I agree there is no physical or statistical meaning to an avg T when the system is not in equilibrium.

          It hardly becomes satire under those conditions just because you express it colourfully in a non sequitur comment.

          33

      • #

        The comparison that the Global Warming Speedometer makes between prediction and reality is a fair and accurate comparison between IPCC’s medium-term projections and observed reality. Understandably, the usual suspects are attempting to cast aspersions because they do not like the truth. But the truth is the truth, and falsely alleging that an inappropriate comparison has been made does not alter the truth that the IPCC predictions upon which the global-warming panic was and is predicated have proven to be wild exaggerations shown up as unreliable by unfolding events.

        81

        • #

          You stating this

          fair and accurate

          does not make it so and then stating it again and again does not make it so.

          23

        • #
          tonyM

          In science one does not discard or avoid any data which is available and relevant. Paraphrasing Feynman, the easiest person to fool is yourself. If one can avoid that then there is a good chance that we will not try to fool other people.

          You are avoiding using all the data available for any report in question and yet claim that you are being objective. No such thing. It is cherry picked bias for you have no basis to choose your 15 year subset over any other 15 year subset.

          Further your 15 year subset excludes data which is relevant for FAR and SAR.

          01

          • #

            IPCC in 1990, 1995 and 2001 made predictions of the rate of global warming that would occur over the 15 years 4 months 2001-2016. I have correctly and reliably compared those predictions with the rate of warming that has occurred over the same period.

            10

            • #
              tonyM

              I have given a full reply earlier today (above) which covers this so I won’t repeat it here.

              In passing, the science has moved on to projections and not predictions which has significant implications.

              00

  • #

    I find it difficult to reconcile the factual data represented in the above figure with the current rhetoric of our politicians now in election mode.

    Yesterday Dr. di Natale was stating the need to combat dangerous global warming. The previous day it was stop coal mining to combat climate change and save the Barrier Reef. Nevertheless, I still haven’t seen a mathematically significant correlation between global temperature and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to base any carbon abatement policy on. Has anyone?

    What does one believe, the fact or the fiction?

    120

    • #
      el gordo

      The Greens will continue to sprout their mantra, but the Coalition won’t be drawn on the subject. Sitting on Abbott’s DAP laurels and aiming for mitigation, should theoretically keep them in good stead with the majority of voters.

      AGW is fiction and over the next few years it will become painfully obvious that cyclic global cooling is real. We need to raise cherry picking to a higher level and prove the point that what came before is here again.

      Its only natural, so look for signs of a change in the weather.

      140

  • #
    RB.

    I keep pointing out that the first 110 months of anomalies from RSS since 1998 has a mean of 0.270 and the last 110 months has a mean of 0.253 for a good reason.

    When you fit a straight line, you assume that the difference between the straight line and the data are effects that are independent of x (or time in this case) and if you filtered out these effects, you get a straight line trend. This is clearly not the case. The noise is not (all) measurement error.

    Do the models show that any 9 year period could be warmer than or equal to (<0.01°C+) the next 9 years?

    20

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    For all the great work that Monckton puts in, I’m doubtful that facts are of any use when talking to the climate zealots.

    After all, it wasn’t facts that led them to their belief in catastrophic man-made warming, so why would facts persuade them to abandon that belief?

    They came to global warming alarmism through a narcissistic need to feel nobler and wiser than other humans, and only the realisation of how childish that belief is, will cause them to let go of that attitude.

    150

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘… doubtful that facts are of any use when talking to the climate zealots.’

      That is true, but there’s still a lot of ordinary people out there who are diffident on the science and open to persuasion.

      80

      • #
        Manfred

        It constantly amazes me how readily, indeed reflexively people echo the climate mantra they have gleaned from the MSM and their propaganda bath of the last two decades, without taking a trivial second to examine the veracity of the ridiculous diet of political claims by slacktivist climate ‘scientists’. It is a small joy to watch their psyche implode when one walks them systematically through a few of the more obvious falsifiers.

        90

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Agreed and the speedo diagram makes it easy to show people any easy to understand thing

        60

  • #
    pat

    ***pure comedy:

    9 May: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: How games are preparing Ethiopian farmers for climate threats
    Red Cross/Red Crescent combines maths and theatre in playful ways to boost resilience in a warming world
    A self-described “maths geek from Argentina”, Pablo Suarez spent his early career explaining complexity.
    When it came to teaching illiterate farmers in Ethiopia about index-based microinsurance, however, he realised conventional methods were not getting through.
    On his second trip, he improvised a way for the farmers to act out a basic insurance scenario. They traded stones as money and rolled dice to represent risks like a child catching malaria.
    Now associate director at Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre, Suarez – working with his wife Janot – has developed a whole suite of games…
    Maarten van Aalst, director of the climate centre, explained the benefits at an event hosted by the Overseas Development Institute in London…
    Insurance is seen as an important way to protect those on the front line…
    To get the benefit, those people need to understand and trust in the system…
    Climate playbook
    Here are a few of the games Red Cross/Red Crescent has developed…READ ALL
    If the odds are rooted in maths and science, the playful element owes a debt to jazz and theatre.
    Paul Jackson, co-founder of the Applied Improvisation Network, has a background in ***comedy production…
    But asked who could most benefit from improv, Jackson’s answer could apply to Exxon Mobil or Peabody – incumbents failing to keep pace with global trends.
    “So many organisations and entire industries are being disrupted because other people are being more flexible, innovative and adaptive than they are,” he says. “They are going to be left behind if they don’t learn some of the skills.”
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/05/09/how-games-are-preparing-ethiopian-farmers-for-climate-threats/

    10

  • #
    Another Ian

    Another “Do the models handle this?” question

    “Micro-Spherical Rain vs Flat Land and Fictional Sky”

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/micro-spherical-rain-vs-flat-land-and-fictional-sky/

    30

  • #
    pat

    ***still shilling for renewables!

    9 May: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Climate change lurks as Turnbull bids to extend Australia mandate
    Australian PM has long talked up climate action, but brutal election campaign will test his commitment to low carbon future
    Turnbull famously labelled his predecessor Tony Abbott’s climate plans “bullshit”. Former Labor PM Julia Gillard called Abbott’s climate stance a “con”…
    TWEET 9 May by UNClimateAction@UNFCCC: In some parts of Australia, temperatures have been 10°C higher than usual in recent days…
    In contrast, Turnbull seems content to stick with the policies laid down by Abbott, scourge of Australia’s climate scientists and clean energy sector, who once called climate change “crap”…
    Few analysts Climate Home has spoken to believe Turnbull has much wiggle room, leading a party whose members voted in March for the government to investigate the UN climate science panel.
    The motion called for public debates between “independent climate scientists” and members of the IPCC on claims the “science is settled”. In New South Wales, 70% voted in favour…
    Last year the businessman Maurice Newman – then an advisor to Abbott – took this to new levels claiming climate change was a hoax to deliver a “new world order” under the UN…
    Yet Australia is on the frontline of a changing climate…
    “There’s a bit of a game going on at the moment,” said veteran politician Tony Windsor, standing for election as an independent in New England, in a video posted on twitter.
    “We need to sit down, particularly in regional Australia, and start to address what actually occurs if climate change is real. The very victims of climate change are going to be in regional Australia.”…
    ***Selling clean energy shouldn’t be the hardest job in one of the world’s sunniest countries, but the sector sounds worried…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/05/09/climate-change-lurks-as-turnbull-bids-to-extend-australia-mandate/

    this wild headline:

    Australia’s wild weather just won’t stop
    NEWS.com.au – ‎3 hours ago‎

    has become this more targeted one:

    10 May: news.com.au: Staff writers: Flash floods, gale force winds lash South Australia, Victoria
    The cool change wasn’t just limited to South Australia…
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/flash-floods-gale-force-winds-lash-south-australia-victoria/news-story/af543f6c7439a9f4ca195cc659334b2b

    guess the Aussie climate has changed again!

    30

  • #
    pat

    comment #23 is in moderation.

    Freya – who self-describes on her twitter page as: “News reporter at @DailyMailAU. Crazy cat lady. Bit of a bookworm. Loves a good cup of tea. Feminist” -

    knows a good twitterati-outrage story when she sees it:

    10 May: DailyMail: Freya Noble: Environment Minister Greg Hunt criticises Bill Shorten for not caring about the Great Barrier Reef – but he’s the one who gets smashed on social media as a ‘hypocrite’
    Environment Minister Greg Hunt has come under fire on social media
    Criticised Opposition Leader Bill Shorten for ‘ignoring’ Great Barrier Reef
    Was immediately slammed on Twitter for Coalition’s climate change policy
    On Monday evening Mr Hunt criticised Mr Shorten for failing to mention the Great Barrier Reef and the coral bleaching of the area during a trip to Cairns.
    ‘Extraordinary. Bill Shorten goes to Cairns and fails to even acknowledge the Great Barrier Reef let alone offer any support,’ Mr Hunt’s initial tweet read…
    (READ THE OUTRAGE… plus one-sided science/prediction from Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Chairman, Dr Reichelt – whose org/position is not included in Freya’s sensational tale)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3581892/Environment-Minister-Greg-Hunt-criticises-Opposition-Leader-Bill-Shorten-Great-Barrier-Reef.html

    20

  • #
    Mike

    Who is paying for all the lingerie those climate models are wearing? :)

    70

    • #
      Mike

      Now we will never know what the highly anticipated climate model winter lingerie will look like.

      “ABC Science Online
      Future of ice core research uncertain as CSIRO ice lab hangs in balance”
      http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4458854.htm

      30

      • #
        el gordo

        Save the ice cores, sack the scientists.

        CHRIS TURNEY: ‘Well, at the moment one of the big questions we’ve got in climate change science is what sort of feedbacks there are with climate change. When things warm up, what happens to the carbon cycle? With warming, will things get even warmer as more carbon is given out of the planet. So we will be significantly hit.’

        If the earth warms there will be more CO2 released from the oceans and effectively green the planet.

        80

        • #
          TdeF

          Once you admit that warming releases CO2, you have a problem with CO2 producing warming. The whole climate alarmist theory is that CO2 produces warming, not the other way around. Even Prof Turkey admits that it could be the reverse, in which case the warming needs explanation other than CO2.

          111

          • #
            el gordo

            Let’s not shy away from the truth, warm waters release CO2 and it hasn’t lifted temperatures in two decades.

            This is a massive fail for the warmists, which is why they were forced to move the goal posts from temps to weather.

            60

        • #
          Mike

          To me it looked like they are more interested in having an ice lab. I wonder how much ice they were thinking of processing a year.

          Maybe they were looking at drilling to the north pole to get two ice cores for the price of one. ? Or maybe all the ice core holes can be used to sequester CO2 later on if they can drill enough of them.

          “If the earth warms there will be more CO2 released from the oceans and effectively green the planet.”

          And beer. There will be more CO2 released from beer as well.

          40

      • #

        Mike May 10, 2016 at 12:02 pm · Reply

        “Now we will never know what the highly anticipated climate model winter lingerie will look like.”
        (“ABC Science Online Future of ice core research uncertain as CSIRO ice lab hangs in balance” http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4458854.htm
        “)
        CRAP: Go to Victoria’s Secret To see the latest price in feminine crotchless Polar Bear panties this season!

        31

  • #
    Analitik

    Former vice-chairperson of the IPCC says

    There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change

    h/t WUWT

    2016 El Nino strongest yet but not linked to global warming

    30

    • #
      Mike

      The Climate model recruitment agency headed by Grant Funding is working flat out to find a suitable climate model to emphasise this years climate fashions.

      El Nino (masculine)has traditionally been difficult to find suitable climate model attire for. La Nina (feminine)is easier to find suitable climate model attire. I cannot say why. It just seems that way…hmmm

      La Niña Events May Spike with Climate Change

      From: http://www.livescience.com/49572-la-nina-events-increase-climate-change.html
      The extremely strong La Niña events that can shake up global weather patterns may soon hit nearly twice as often as they did previously, due to global warming, researchers say in a new study.”

      30

    • #
      AndyG55

      With the “delays” from the solar influence that David is trying to bring to light, it could be quite possible that this El Nino was a loss of ocean energy as it tries to balance the drop in incoming energy (of whatever type).

      If that energy is gone, and the sleepy sun is not replacing it properly, things must get colder.

      Pity we can’t stall all this renewable junk for another few years until we know if a cooling trend is happening.

      A cooling trend from here would ABSOLUTELY DESTROY the anti-CO2 agenda and the AGW farce.

      10

  • #
    pat

    ***as i can only find this Tele piece & another by The Sun, it would seem the MSM did a great job burying this story anyway:

    6 May: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Households face new £38 energy bill levy to avert blackouts
    ***Ministers were accused of trying to bury bad news by quietly releasing an impact assessment showing the new costs on the morning of the local election results.
    Under the plans, the Government will make consumers pay subsidies to old power plants to keep running through winter 2017-18. These subsidies could cost up to £3bn, costing every household up to £38 on their energy bills in 2018.
    But ministers claim the scheme will actually leave households better off – because if they failed to intervene Britain could have faced serious power shortages that would have made electricity prices soar and sent bills up even further…
    Without the new subsidies – expected to be paid primarily to coal, gas and nuclear plants – several power stations had already said they planned to shut down, leaving Britain with zero spare power plant capacity in winter 2017-18 and at risk of blackouts…READ ALL INCL BRAZEN CRITICISM FROM LABOUR WHO ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DIRE ENERGY SITUATION IN THE UK
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/06/households-face-new-38-energy-bill-levy-to-avert-blackouts/

    have attempted to excerpt the bits mentioning climate change:

    PDF: 46 pages: UK Govt: Impact Assessment (1A)
    page 34: Background on expected DSR benefits
    7.3 DSR has the potential to play an important role in delivering a smart, flexible energy system in the UK and, as a consequence, the following associated benefits:…
    (includes)
    Meet binding climate change targets (if turn-down).
    Make the best use of our low carbon generation (by minimising the periods during which it may otherwise be curtailed).
    7.4 The National Infrastructure Commission’s report found that Smart Power – principally built around three innovations – interconnection, storage, and demand flexibility – could save consumers between £2.9 to £8 billion a year by 2030. However, it is important to realise, that the impact of this becomes significant in the medium term and will not reduce the need for new build capacity in the short term…
    page 42: Dispatch decisions
    5. Economic, energy and climate policy, generation and demand assumptions are external inputs to the model. The model runs on sample days, including demand load curves for both business and non-business days, including seasonal impacts, and are variable by assumptions on domestic and non-domestic sectors and smart meter usage. Also, there are 3 levels of wind load factor data applied to the sample days to reflect the intermittency of on- and off-shore wind. The generation data includes outage rates, efficiencies and emissions, and also planned outages and probabilities of unplanned outages…
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/521302/CM_Impact_Assessment.pdf

    The Sun should be asking: how much more would it cost customers if the green levies hadn’t been axed? and why are we shutting down coal-fired plants?

    6 May: UK Sun: Household energy bills set to soar by £38 with Government accused of lining power companies’ pockets
    Officials insist they have to act now to avoid blackouts in Britain in the future
    The move is humiliating for a Government which boasted in 2013 that it was shaving £50 off bills by axing green levies…
    Some 2.5 GW of capacity – equivalent to four power plants – is already due to close this year…
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7132383/Household-energy-bills-set-to-soar-with-Government-accused-of-lining-the-pockets-of-the-power-companies.html

    50

  • #
    Neville

    According to Ken Stewart the UAH V6 data shows there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months. This includes the April 2016 update from Dr Roy Spencer.
    And there has been slight cooling in the south polar region since Dec 1978.

    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/the-pause-update-april-2016/#comments

    30

  • #
    Robin willows

    I read somewhere ( maybe wattsup) that 1887/88 was the strongest El Niño on record. Is that true ?

    20

  • #
  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Monckton is the master of exposing this global climate propaganda and with obvious explanations .

    We are lucky to have him as a voice of reason and strong anti CAGW/CACC

    As Einstein once quoted ” if it cannot be explained simply then it is not well understood ” or understood at all as is the case with thy ‘Unelected Nutters’ IPCC CAGW propaganda outfit.

    And even here we have our own mini-me version of the ipcc …. The Climate Change AUTHORITY!

    What’s next ? The Climate Gestapo ? To make us Skeptics / Realists comply to the party line ?
    All these Climate Shysters are in urgent need of ‘The Bum’s Rush Out’ !

    101

    • #
      Dave in the States

      What’s next ? The Climate Gestapo ? To make us Skeptics / Realists comply to the party line ?

      Yes, I’m afraid so.

      10

  • #
    Analitik

    Fear for us – Adam Bandt forming energy policies

    As many as 1.2 million homes could have new battery storage systems within five years under a Greens proposal costing almost $3 billion to be paid for by the aviation and fossil fuel industries.
    The Greens will use the storage policy in its negotiations with the government over its budget, Greens energy spokesman Adam Bandt said.

    Greens pledge almost $3b for new batteries to be paid by fossil fuel industries

    And by targeting the aviation and fossil fuel industries, ordinary Australians won’t be affected. Yeah…

    70

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Yep , anything works , as long as someone else pays for it !

      A.Bandt: the only green in the lower house . only one of 150 MPs .

      That is less than 1% of the lower house attempting to dictate Suicidal Economic Policy to the rest of us.

      I have seen a study commissioned by the lunatic party (Greens) of the cost to make the entire country 100% renewable .

      I cannot recall the total cost , but do recall that by their own study , just the maintenance alone would double the national powerbill . ….Just the Maintenance !

      Wonder what that would do for our global competitiveness ?

      Not to mention our Steel Works and upcoming ship and submarine defense projects !

      He and his entire RatBag True B’lver Party of Marxists should be rounded up , deregistered , and Straight Jacketed away !

      71

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Analytik:

      At $A15,000 for 1 lithium battery per house would cost $A18 billion. I know they believe that the Fairies leave big bags of money at the bottom of the garden, but they will have hernias trying to provide that amount.

      60

  • #
  • #
    Analitik

    One to get Mr Lang’s pulse racing

    - a target for one million rooftops or 3000 megawatts of solar photovoltaics (PV) in Queensland by 2020
    - supporting up to 60 megawatts of solar generation (golly gee – a whole 60 MW!)
    - 50% renewable energy by 2030
    - With solar PV and battery storage you will be able to … sell clean solar energy back into the grid
    – many different ways to access solar power, and many of them don’t require money upfront

    A solar future: powering Queensland’s renewable energy industries

    50

    • #
      pat

      Analitik -

      this might get our pulses racing even more!

      check the graph, but ignore the Bloomberg spin:

      10 May: Bloomberg: Riding the ‘Solarcoaster’ as Shares Plunge Even More Than Coal
      by Joe Ryan & Brian Eckhouse
      Solar companies slump despite record demand for clean energy
      SunEdison bankruptcy raised questions on industry strategies
      For all the upbeat forecasts about the growth of solar power, this is a punishing year for the industry. And it won’t improve anytime soon.
      SunEdison Inc., the world’s biggest clean-energy company, is bankrupt. Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., once the top panel maker, warned it may be inching toward default. A Bloomberg index of 20 major solar companies has plunged more than 30 percent this year, with every member in the down column. Solar shares are performing even worse than coal stocks…
      Solar turbulence isn’t new. The past decade has been marked by booms, busts and failures that included Suntech Power Holdings Co. and Q-Cells SE, which both were once the world’s biggest panel producers…
      Solar investors remain rattled, with legitimate questions about leverage and financing. The markets are looking for proof that companies can make and install panels profitably…
      Abengoa SA, a builder of solar-thermal power plants, is seeking investor support for a 9.4 billion-euro ($10.7 billion) debt restructuring plan to avoid becoming Spain’s largest corporate failure. And Wednesday, hedge fund manager Jim Chanos said SolarCity, which is down more than 50 percent this year, will face more “financial trouble” in 2016, in part because the largest U.S. rooftop solar provider loses money on every installation…
      In past boom-bust cycles, the carnage was within specific parts of the solar industry; sometimes manufacturers, other times developers. This time, it’s both…
      Financial problems are hardly isolated to the marquee names, said John Berger, chief executive of the closely held residential solar installer Sunnova Energy Corp. Many solar companies have “growth-at-any-cost’’ business models that are neither profitable nor sustainable…
      Ethan Zindler, a New Energy Finance analyst, said the economics of solar economics have never been better…
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-09/riding-the-solarcoaster-as-shares-plunge-even-more-than-coal

      20

    • #

      - supporting up to 60 megawatts of solar generation (golly gee – a whole 60 MW!)

      Huge!

      60MW Nameplate of Solar PV will deliver 92GWH of power to the Queensland grid each YEAR.

      You know, the same power delivered by Bayswater in 35 HOURS.

      Tony.

      60

    • #

      My 3 KW solar PV system in Cairns produced 4,500 Kwh for the 12 months and I only use about 1000 KWh of it. It’s only between 10.30am and 4.30 pm.

      On this basis one million 3 Kw rooftops would produce, say, 4,500,000,000 KWh, or 4,500 Gwh each year and use, say, 30% of this. It’s saving the grid this amount, 1,350 GWh when its sunny, but as to the surplus of 3,150 GWh I am not sure as to where it goes to.

      20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Robert O:

        Did you use other power, e.g. overnight. I ask because that works out at 2.7kWh per day whereas most houses would be using 12kWh and upwards.

        50

        • #

          No that’s right, I live alone and don’t use the A/C much and use gas for hot water and cooking, the fridge is always on and kept full, and I use the dishwasher and washing machine with delays to reduce mains usage.

          10

          • #
            Analitik

            Did the (stup1dly) generous FiT encourage you to install such a large system? Purely based on savings, your 3kW system would never pay for itself.

            00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Robert
        It would be “saving the grid” if the main backup generation system was turned off.

        I appreciate that the money is a big factor in using rooftop.

        00

    • #
      Analitik

      Actually all Queenslanders should get on to the feedback site or “Engagement Hub”. There is even a discussion forum and some regional public forums coming up

      http://www.qldrepanel.com.au/engagement-hub

      http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/mackay-hold-renenewable-energy-public-forum/3022008/

      If you don’t have your say, someone else will…

      10

  • #
    pat

    more on Yingli -

    9 May: SeeNewsRenewables: Militsa Mancheva: Yingli may default on CNY-1.4bn note due May 12
    A unit of Chinese solar panels maker Yingli Green Energy (NYSE:YGE) on Thursday expressed concerns that it will be unable to make medium-term note (MTN) repayments due on May 12, 2016…
    The subsidiary blames the possible default on consecutive losses, an online statement on the China Bond Information Network shows.
    The risk warning comes not long after the troubled subsidiary failed to agree on an up-to-three-years maturity extension with its bondholders…
    Tianwei Yingli has not yet paid in full its CNY-1-billion 2010 MTNs that were due on October 13, 2015.
    Yingli Green saw its shares plunge significantly after it said it expects to report a net loss of between CNY 5.8 billion and CNY 5.9 billion for 2015, widening significantly from CNY 1.3 billion a year back. The firm may disclose “substantial doubt” as to its ability to continue as a going concern when it files its annual report for 2015, which is expected to happen on May 11…
    https://renewables.seenews.com/news/yingli-may-default-on-cny-1-4bn-note-due-may-12-524059#

    20

  • #
  • #
    pat

    PIC: 9 May: UKPress&Journal: Iain Ramage: Warning of Inverness traffic delays with wind turbines to be transported
    There could be regular traffic delays in and around Inverness during the next four months as the latest convoys of massive wind turbine parts trundle through the region.
    The deliveries to SSE’s 33-turbine Dunmaglass scheme will begin at 9am today when turbine blade and tower section deliveries will set off from the harbour.
    From the Longman roundabout, they will continue onto the A9 before switching to the B851 and on to the site, which is 16 miles south of Inverness.
    Daily convoys, comprising up to three deliveries of two components, will operate between Monday and Saturday under a police escort.
    The abnormal loads will leave the harbour at about 9am, 3.30pm and 6pm every day, although the times are subject to change at short notice.
    The turbine nacelle is being transported by road from Holland and will also require a police escort…
    “Although the escorted delivery vehicles will be slow moving, the police will ensure these are done safely and with the minimum of disruption to other road users.”…
    The turbine deliveries will take place throughout May, June, July and into August. The site is expected to be fully operational early next year.
    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/906944/turbine-convoys-roll/

    new 4 months of traffic chaos follows this lot:

    19 April: UKPress&Journal: Bob Hendry: Relief for motorists as turbine delays set to end
    Deliveries of huge wind turbine parts, which have caused delays on Moray’s busiest trunk road for the past month, are scheduled to conclude this week.
    Queues have routinely built up on the A96 Inverness to Aberdeen route while the wide loads have made their slow and carefully-prepared way through the region, accompanied by police convoys…
    The selected route was planned to avoid bridges, tunnels and roads with tight bends…
    The windfarm scheme was initially refused planning approval by Moray Council because of concerns it would “dominate” the surrounding landscape.
    But permission was later granted on appeal by a Scottish Government-appointed reporter who ruled the environmental impact was not “unacceptable”.
    The turbines are expected to be built by the end of June, and will become operational in the following weeks…
    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/892982/turbine-road-woes-end-week/

    10

  • #
    pat

    public opinion means nothing:

    Sept 2015: UKPress&Journal: Moray SNP councillors blasted over decision to “block-vote” over controversial Brown Muir wind farm
    The 12-turbine project tabled by Vento Ludens for a site between Elgin and Rothes attracted more than 1,300 objections.
    By contrast, Moray Council received just 20 submissions supporting the proposed development…
    But after the meeting furious Inchberry resident Bob Graham criticised the Nationalist councillors.
    He said: “I have been fighting windfarms for 20 years, and I am so disappointed the SNP arrived here with the intention of block-voting to support the SNP government’s policy on renewable energy, despite 1,300 local people objecting.
    “We have trashed most of Moray onshore – visual impact is a done deal. Now they are going to put 300-plus turbines in the Moray Firth to trash our seascapes as well.
    “How these SNP philistines could have no regard for the beauty of this country and its landscape is an absolute tragedy.”
    And long-term Brown Muir opponent Derek Ross said: “It is absolutely disgraceful that the SNP care nothing for public opinion.
    “We are very relieved that the other councillors recognised the feeling of the people of Moray, but it is criminal what the SNP have done…
    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/696156/moray-snp-councillors-blasted-over-decision-to-block-vote-over-controversial-brown-muir-wind-farm/

    there are other options besides wind and solar, he says:

    9 May: Irish Independent: VIDEO: 2mins: Minister for Climate Change says there’s an issue with building wind turbines
    http://www.independent.ie/videos/irish-news/video-minister-for-climate-change-says-theres-an-issue-with-building-wind-turbines-34697902.html

    30

  • #
    el gordo

    Tipping Point at Cape Grim

    ‘Within the next couple of weeks, a remote part of north-western Tasmania is likely to grab headlines around the world as a major climate change marker is passed.

    ‘The aptly named Cape Grim monitoring site jointly run by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will witness the first baseline reading of 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, researchers predict.’

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warming-milestone-about-to-be-passed-and-theres-no-going-back-20160509-goqcm0.html#ixzz48EjJam00
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

    20

    • #

      Ok, but his comments about CO2 and ocean acidification were not particularly scientific.

      30

      • #
        el gordo

        Hannam is a zealot, we put him up all the time just for a laugh. He is a mouthpiece for the Klimatariat and everything he writes is based on flawed science. Its not journalism, just propaganda.

        More to the point.

        ‘… the climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming delusion rests are structured without regard to the natural 60+/- and more importantly 1000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) so obvious in the temperature record.

        ‘The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense. It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back-tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.’

        Dr Norman Page

        40

    • #

      Historically, Cape Grim was part of the Land Grant by Queen Victoria to the Van Diemens Land Co., and part of the Woolnorth estate. There used to be direct shipping service to London from Stanley in the 1800′s. It was compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth to set-up the monitoring station, and the nearest land at this latitude (40 degree S) to the west is Southern Argentina.

      In the 1800′s it was the habitat of the Tasmanian thylacine, now extinct.

      00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    French Greens Party’s Baupin faces accusations, but Guardian doesn’t say “Greens” & doesn’t mention all eight accusers are “Greens”. Guardian also claims there can be no legal proceedings:

    9 May: Guardian: Kim Willsher: Senior French MP resigns amid sexual harassment allegations
    A vice-president of France’s national assembly has resigned after eight women accused him of sexual harassment, once again raising the spectre of sexism that many women in French political circles, including MPs and journalists, have claimed is rife.
    Denis Baupin, an MP for the Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV) party, strenuously denied the accusations and said his lawyers would countersue…
    Baupin, 53, is married to Emmanuelle Cosse, the current minister for housing and a former national secretary of the EELV…
    The women told France Inter radio, which also investigated the claims, that they had been prompted to accuse Baupin after seeing a photograph in which he and seven other male MPs posed for a photograph wearing lipstick to protest at violence against women…
    As most of the accusations took place more than three years ago, they are out of time for legal proceedings.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/senior-french-mp-denis-baupin-resigns-sexism-allegations

    10 May: ABC America: Alleged Sexual Harassment by French Politician Investigated
    The Paris prosecutor has opened a preliminary investigation into allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault and malicious calls against a French lawmaker.
    The office said Tuesday in a written statement that investigators will take evidence from four women who a day earlier publicly denounced 53-year-old Denis Baupin.
    Baupin, a Green politician, resigned Monday as vice president of the lower house of parliament, the National Assembly, to concentrate on his defense, according to a statement from his lawyer. He denies any misconduct.
    None of the women spoke out at the time about the harassment.
    ***They said they had feared for their careers and did not want to cause trouble for the Green party.
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/alleged-sexual-harassment-french-politician-investigated-39002473

    veteran BBC reporter Schofield looks for ulterior motives, given it involves the ***SUPPOSEDLY ultra-ethical Green Party!

    10 May: BBC: Hugh Schofield: France’s Baupin sexual harassment case leaves bitter taste
    Hard not to feel depressed and disenchanted by the allegations of sexual harassment now swirling around Denis Baupin, the deputy speaker of the French assembly who resigned on Monday…
    The French Greens, or to give their full name Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV), are a party divided on just about every issue that affects them…
    Allegations against Denis Baupin…ETC
    The Green Party has always been extremely vocal in the fight against sexism. So why did Denis Baupin’s alleged victims (all members of the Greens or with links to them) not speak out before?…
    Given recent history, involving Dominique Strauss-Kahn and others, the claims against Mr Baupin come as no surprise, except perhaps that this time it is the ***supposedly ultra-ethical Green Party at the centre of the storm…
    The stories about Denis Baupin’s allegedly chauvinistic behaviour have, it seems, been around for years…
    Supposedly it was only when they saw Mr Baupin parading himself recently in a pro-feminist tweet that they felt so disgusted by his hypocrisy they had to react.
    Maybe.
    No-one wants to belittle the significance of the allegations. But there is more than a little suspicion that it is all politics by other means.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-36252046

    10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Satellite TLT is not a pure boundary layer measurement, so this speedometer is apples and oranges. A better comparison would be UAH TLT versus a temperature computed from the original IPCC simulated troposphere layers with the same weighting function that UAH uses. Don’t know if anyone has done that already.

    The missing hotspot is the main reason the models were bunk, not because of the surface’s discrepancy with MSU TLT.

    11

    • #

      The lower-troposphere temperature anomalies measured by satellites are very close to the surface temperature anomalies measured by thermometers – or they were until all the major surface temperature datasets were tampered with to make the rate of global warming seem greater than the original data had suggested. The satellite anomalies are sufficiently close to the surface anomalies to provide a fair apples-to-apples comparison between prediction and observation.

      90

      • #

        Therein lies the problem. Here we call tampering homogenisation, or the use of computer generated data to smooth out anomalies. An inquiry into this never eventuated as it was reduced to an afternoon tea event by the Minister.

        With the current electoral campaign all parties support renewable energy to combat global warming, and there is scarcely a voice to be heard to the contrary. A low estimate of the wind turbines required to provide 50% renewable energy by 2030 is 12,000 (MW) x 4 (capacity factor)/ 2 (MW/sq. km.) = 24,000 sq. km. which is twice the area of Metropolitan Sydney. However, no one seems to understand the implications, nor discusses them.

        50

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        At just 17% I don’t think it qualifies as mandarins-to-oranges, let alone “sufficiently close”.
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

        01

        • #

          Mr McRae should feel free to do his own calculations using the mean of the various terrestrial temperature datasets. He will still find the results indicate far less warming than had been predicted. Try not to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the startling exaggerations of all IPCC predictions compared with all temperature datasets.

          10

  • #
    peterjfharris

    Hi, I would like to draw attention to the fact that we face the strong possibility of imminent multi decadal cooling due to the coincidence of a declining AMO resulting in cooling the Atlantic which has already commenced and the rapidly declining TSI. Cycle 24 will be at a minimum in 202o and SC 25 is predicted by Hathaway for NASA to be one of the weakest in centuries. . http://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/2016/4/28/215-pm-atlantic-ocean-showing-signs-of-a-significant-long-term-shift-in-temperatures-from-warm-to-cold

    It is not clear whether these observable and predictable factors and the attendant risk of possible imminent cooling were disclosed to participants in the recent COP21 climate conference in Paris. Pledges may have been made against the overstated modeled climate sensitivity to CO2 without allowing for the natural effect of the predictable more damaging Solar decline. A copy of my study is here:https://app.box.com/s/xk5knr3tb4o7qhyy90elaefmvo11ws1q
    Regards, Peter

    20

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    This pie chart or diagram by Lord Monckton,really puts the false IPCC claims into perspective! For me this diagram is a winner! It should be published on the front pages of the daily newspapers in order that the ordinary person in the street can see what has been going on with IPCC claims over the decades.
    Geoff W

    70

  • #

    Agree, an excellent diagram, but who will publish it as it is at variance to the political narrative?

    40

  • #
    pat

    Dr. Simon Albert, senior research fellow at the University of Queensland, scolds the MSM, kind of!

    10 May: Guardian: Karl Mathiesen: Headlines ‘exaggerated’ climate link to sinking of Pacific islands
    Report’s author says many media outlets have misinterpreted the science by conflating sea-level rise with climate change
    Many media outlets, including the Guardian, jumped to the conclusion that the islands were lost to climate change. But this largely misinterprets the science, according to the study’s author, Dr Simon Albert.
    “All these headlines are certainly pushing things a bit towards the ‘climate change has made islands vanish’ angle. I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply ‘climate change’,” Albert told the Guardian.
    The major misunderstanding stems from the conflation of sea-level rise with climate change. As a scientifically robust and potentially destructive articulation of climate change, sea-level rise has become almost synonymous with the warming of the planet…
    However, as Albert’s paper points out, the ocean has been rising in the Solomon Islands at 7mm per year, more than double the global average. Since the 1990s, trade winds in the Pacific have been particularly intense. This has been driven partly by global warming and partly by climatic cycles – in particular the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
    “These trade winds have basically pushed water up into western Pacific and have driven these exceptionally high rates of [sea-level rise] in the Solomons,” said Albert. “The trade winds are partly a natural cycle but also the recent intensification is related to atmospheric warming.”
    The proportion of the extra rise driven by climate change was not considered by Albert’s study…
    The loss of land in the Pacific is a totemic image of climate change…
    In this respect, the drowning of these lands is a window into the future. For the first time, we can see clearly that the amount of sea-level rise we expect from climate change will overwhelm entire landscapes…
    It appears that in some cases journalists did not contact the researchers and instead quoted from a comment piece the authors wrote on The Conversation website…
    Albert told the Guardian: “I understand why these more dramatic titles are used and it does help bring attention to the issue that I firmly believe will become a major issue for the islands in the second half if this century from climate change.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines-exaggerated-climate-link-to-sinking-of-pacific-islands

    10 May: news.com.au: Climate change: Rising sea levels mean five Solomon Islands now underwater
    by Debra Killalea and AFP
    An alarming new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, reveals rising sea levels and coastal erosion are to blame for the predicament…
    The research, conducted from 2012-2015, was based on historical imagery dating back to 1947.
    Led by The University of Queensland with support from CSIRO, University of Wollongong and Solomon Islands Government, researchers also relied on traditional knowledge of the local community members in Solomon Islands…
    Sea levels have been rising by an average of 7mm per year over the last 20 years, due to global warning and stronger trade winds, New Scientist has revealed.
    Dr Albert said it was a perfect storm.
    “There’s the background level of global sea-level rise, and then the added pressure of a natural trade wind cycle that has been physically pushing water into the Western Pacific,” he said.
    While global sea levels are rising by an average of 3mm a year, Dr Albert warned this could rise to 7mm by the end of this century with rising temperatures causing ice sheets to melt, which then leads to thermal expansion of the oceans.
    He warned the rest of the world would face the same predicament as the Solomon Islands by 2100.
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/climate-change-rising-sea-levels-mean-five-solomon-islands-now-underwater/news-story/f005f80f696f2abe13c15dd9334bbd2e

    00

  • #
    Analitik

    Recognition that Elon Musk aims to deceive

    The Musk Doctrine: Never set a deadline you’re likely to keep.

    Elon Musk’s Tesla Strategy: Win Big by Falling Short

    Yet there are still masses of id10t analysts and investors that fail to recognise the con job taking place right in front of them

    10

  • #
    pat

    Qld Govt running scared.
    headline doesn’t match the story, which is apparently an update, tho it might have been corrected by the time i post this comment.
    google result shows a new headline ‘No carbon tax under our government’.
    almost all comments i read were definitely NOT in favour:

    11 May: Courier Mail: Steven Wardill: Carbon ‘levy’ to add pain to bills
    QUEENSLAND’S energy minister has rejected suggestions the state will impose its own carbon tax.
    Mark Bailey’s comments came after a Queensland Renewable Energy Expert Panel’s issues paper released yesterday suggested a “fossil fuel levy” be imposed on coal and gas-fired electricity and passed on to consumers.
    “The Independent Renewable Energy Expert Panel’s Issues Paper is not government policy,” Mr Bailey said in a statement today.
    “The government’s commitment is there will be no new taxes, fees or charges, including a fossil fuel levy.
    Mr Bailey said it was government policy to stabilise residential electricity prices in Queensland.
    The issues paper had suggested the levy would help subsidise the costs of renewable energy…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-government/carbon-levy-to-add-pain-to-bills/news-story/d6f78cdff878524b8e29d9c60c43fa21

    00

  • #
    pat

    10 May: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: IRENA: Saudi Aramco float could spark renewables boom
    Riyadh’s reforms spell big changes for the clean energy sector, says Adnan Amin
    Rip up your clean energy predictions and prepare for a renewables investment explosion.
    That’s the bullish prediction of Adnan Amin, head of the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)…
    But while the transition from oil, gas and coal is slow and likely to take decades, it is happening insists Amin…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/05/10/irena-saudi-aramco-float-could-spark-renewables-boom/

    funny, i don’t see renewables listed as part of the ***”investment spree covering everything from car plants to weapons production, petrochemicals, and tourism” the Saudis are planning:

    8 May: UK Telegraph: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Saudi Aramco plans London listing but doubts grow on $2.5 trillion claim
    Saudi Arabia is planning a three-way foreign listing in London, Hong Kong, and New York for the record-smashing privatisation of its $2.5 trillion oil giant Aramco, anchored on a triad of interlocking ties with three foreign energy companies.
    The Saudi authorities hope to entice ExxonMobil, China’s Sinopec, and potentially BP, into taking strategic stakes, offering them long-term access to upstream operations in return for cutting-edge technology or refinery deals, according to sources close to Saudi thinking…
    The Aramco sale is planned as soon as 2017 or 2018 and would in theory be five times larger than any initial public offering (IPO) in history, a huge prize for the London Stock Exchange…
    Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s deputy crown prince and de facto ruler, says Aramco will sell 5pc of its equity, valuing the shares at $100bn (£70bn) to $150bn.
    The vast IPO is the spearhead of his “2030 Vision” to break the country’s “addiction” to oil and diversify, using the proceeds for an ***investment spree covering everything from car plants to weapons production, petrochemicals, and tourism…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/08/saudi-aramco-plans-london-listing-but-doubts-grow-on-25-trillion/

    00

  • #
    pat

    10 May: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Britain gets no power from coal for ‘first time on record’
    Britain generated no electricity from coal on Tuesday morning for what is believed to be the first time since the 19th century, in a major milestone in the decline of the polluting power source.
    National Grid confirmed that none of Britain’s coal stations were running between midnight and 4am.
    Experts from Argus Media and Carbon Brief said they believed this was the first time there had been no coal running since the era of central electricity generation began with the construction of the UK’s first coal plant in 1882…
    It also emerged that on Monday evening National Grid was forced to issue an urgent call for more electricity to keep the lights on after a series of coal and gas power plant breakdowns and the partial failure of a power import cable.
    One plant was paid £1,250/MWh – more than 30 times the usual price of power – after the Grid issued the “Notification of Inadequate System Margin” (Nism) requesting more electricity be generated between 7pm and 9.30pm…
    But the combination of the large number of coal and gas power plants shut down for maintenance, the series of unplanned shutdowns and wind power being lower than expected together forced Grid to take the unusual step.
    Peter Atherton, analyst at Jefferies, said the decline of coal power made the UK less able to cope with unexpected shutdowns or drops in wind power output…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/10/britain-gets-no-power-from-coal-for-first-time-on-record/

    10

    • #

      Read what pat writes here very carefully, especially this:

      But the combination of the large number of coal and gas power plants shut down for maintenance, the series of unplanned shutdowns and wind power being lower than expected together forced Grid to take the unusual step.

      A taste of things to come.

      Oh, and you can bet that while no power was actually being delivered from coal fired plants, they were all still burning and turning, just waiting for the call to come back on line.

      Also, note the time when they were not delivering, between midnight and 4AM, when power consumption falls to its lowest point.

      They were still operational, just switched off, so this was a very clever use of word semantics again, and typical journalists with no clue as to how things work just assumed they were turned off.

      Turned off does not mean shut down.

      Tony.

      40

      • #
        Analitik

        Tony, did you look at the links I put up on the Qld 50% renewables scheme before Pat carpet bombed them?

        I really think this is a serious matter that deserves followup by you and other Qld sceptics – you need to have your say in a submission because the greenwash have obviously had their voices heard.

        10

        • #

          I’m not certain if there’s anything I can do. Every time I even attempt to rationally explain things, I’m censored out of of it. They don’t even show up. I’m actually astonished that I got a submission put up at the Senate Enquiry into Wind power, (at this link) and again, nothing was even mentioned about it. Mine was the second of almost 500 submissions. Just nothing.

          I can explain the truth of the matter, but no one wants to even hear it.

          The fact that Queensland wants to go to 50% renewables is laughable. I can point that out, explain it perfectly, and I will end up being the one laughed at. Water off a duck’s back to me, but it’s not what those running this want to hear.

          Currently here in Australia, we have around 85% of our total power from fossil fuel sources, and here in Queensland, it’s closer to 92%, probably even more than that. The problem is the vast distances to be covered here, and the inherent losses. Renewables on any scale, and of any type will never be anything more than costly and boutique in nature.

          I can write all I like, but it falls on deaf ears. There is no chance they would even get back to me, let alone take it seriously.

          Not 20Km as the crow flies from where I sit is Stanwell Power Station, which has a Nameplate of 1460MW.

          The home directly across the road from where I live has 20 solar panels on the roof, so it’s an 8KW system.

          To generate the same power as what Stanwell delivers, you will need to cover 1,277,500 homes in Queensland with that same sized system, which is a large one.

          Or build nine huge wind plants of 500MW Nameplate, so 4253MW Nameplate total. The total currently in Australia is only 3669MW. And all of that just to equal the output from ONE coal fired power plant, which generates only around a third of Queensland’s power, if that.

          I can say exactly that, and the ONLY response I would get is that I just made all that up.

          They don’t want facts, and even the facts are just so far over their heads, they emit vapour trails.

          Tony.

          30

          • #

            Incidentally, one Unit at Stanwell holds a World record for the longest continuous run time. They turned it on after maintenance, and it ran, delivering its full power of 365MW for 1,073 days, almost three years non stop, delivering 9.4TWH to the Queensland grid in that time.

            To equal that sort of power delivery, well that’s EVERY wind plant in Australia (3669MW, so wind has TEN times the Nameplate of this ONE unit) at normal operation delivering for 13 Months.

            The difference between any renewable and coal fired power.

            Sorry! No contest.

            Tony.

            30

          • #
            Analitik

            Well, at least look at the “Engagement Hub” and see if the Rockhampton public forum is at all convenient to attend

            http://www.qldrepanel.com.au/engagement-hub

            If I were a Queenslander, I’d register and make a submission if nothing else.
            I’ll be an active dissenter if the Victorian government goes so far as to put up a proposal in this manner.

            You have loads of stuff on your “site” that you could choose to put in a submission. Picking the most easily understood with maximum impact is the challenge.

            10

  • #
    pat

    10 May: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: UK’s attractiveness for renewables investment plummets to all-time low
    UK routinely topped annual league table run by Ernst & Young but has slid to 13th place due to government’s ‘non-committal approach’
    Investors in renewable energy are being put off the UK by political posturing hostile to renewables and green efforts, and the slashing of government support for clean power supplies, in favour of potentially more expensive alternatives such as shale gas and nuclear power…
    The turn against green energy in the government’s rhetoric began in the later days of the coalition government, when ministers began to voice anti-green sentiments, in contrast to the environmental commitments made by David Cameron when in opposition and in the early days of his first premiership.
    From claims to be “the greenest government ever”, the prime minister went on to be reported in 2013 as ordering ministers to “cut the green crap”…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/uks-attractiveness-for-renewables-investment-plummets-to-all-time-low

    more crap:

    ***like Lee, i was “unmoved”. CarbonBrief, on its home page, brags the GIF was retweeted 2000 times – big deal – probably by people on its mailing list!

    10 May: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Can a GIF change the way we think about global warming?
    Head of UN’s IPCC climate science panel promises radical new approach to climate comms as simple warming graphic takes twitter by storm
    It’s the GIF that keeps giving.
    A day after tweeting his representation of global temperatures from 1850 to 2016, climate scientist Ed Hawkins has gone viral.
    Like an avalanche gathering pace, Hawkins’ graphic threatens to blow its own boundaries before it stops in March this year, pixels away from a line marking 1.5C warming…
    Mesmeric yet terrifying, given its implications, the GIF will continue to make waves on the internet for a while yet. But will it change policy?…
    Communication consultants are coming on board, says (IPCC head, Hoesung) Lee, as the IPCC seeks to spread its message beyond the science community and small band of journalists covering the environment.
    He seems interested in Hawkins’ work, but appears ***unmoved as I describe the flickering temperature records on the GIF as they near 1.5C…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/05/10/can-a-gif-change-the-way-we-think-about-global-warming/

    10

  • #
    pat

    “crusade” indeed:

    9 May: Politico: Andrew Restuccia/Elana Schor: Exxon scrambles to contain climate crusade
    Interviews with advocates on both sides of the feud reveal how quickly the anti-Exxon movement has sprouted, to the point that it’s now consuming op-ed pages, airwaves and courtrooms across the country. Once merely intent on shaming the oil giant into better behavior, environmentalists are pursuing a strategy to discredit the company, weaken it politically and perhaps make it pay the kinds of multibillion-dollar legal settlements that began hitting the tobacco industry in the 1990s…
    “Exxon’s been able to work its political will for a quarter of a century — they shouldn’t be able to,” said climate activist Bill McKibben, a leader of the fight against Keystone. “They should be a toxic political brand.”…
    The industry is even exploring the idea of launching a counter-probe: A lobbyist for one of Exxon’s industry rivals told POLITICO he has reached out to red-state attorneys general to gauge their interest in probing where environmental groups are getting their funding. No takers have emerged so far…
    Heritage Foundation fellow Hans von Spakovsky has denounced Schneiderman’s probe as a “Soviet-Style investigation,” while conservative columnist George Will called it an example of “gangster government.”
    “Instead of honoring legitimate academic and scientific inquiry, the far-left has gone to extremes to silence those who disagree,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said Wednesday…
    Activists plan to make a public stand at Exxon’s annual shareholder meeting May 25, where several resolutions intended to force the company into acknowledging the climate threat will come to a vote…READ ALL
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/exxon-climate-campaign-222920

    WWF not attending because ***organising resolutions and lobbying also takes a lot of time!

    9 May: Reuters: Statoil to get rare respite from green criticisms at AGM
    Grandparents’campaign submitting critical resolutions
    WWF, Greenpeace give Statoil a break after greener shift
    By Alister Doyle and Camilla Knudsen
    OSLO- Norwegian oil company Statoil will face only muted criticism of its environmental record at an annual general meeting (AGM) on Wednesday, in a rare respite caused by a small shift towards green energy…
    On Wednesday, the only critical environmental resolution will be by the Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign, urging Statoil to halt oil and gas exploration worldwide and to pull out of projects such as tar sands in Canada…
    “We do see a shift in Statoil that we wanted to acknowledge by not pestering them at this year’s AGM,” said Nina Jensen, head of WWF Norway.
    “They have still got a huge way to go,” she said, adding that ***organising resolutions and lobbying also takes a lot of time…
    “There’s been a shift since Eldar Saetre took over as CEO” in February 2015, said Martin Norman of Greenpeace. “He’s doing things that (former CEO) Helge Lund would never have done.”
    Saetre welcomed the relative lack of criticism…
    Halfdan Wiik, a retired librarian who chairs the Grandparents’ Climate Campaign, said Statoil was not doing enough. “You have to keep on annoying them,” he said. “We have heard nice words before.”…
    “So far the renewable business in Statoil is a very small part of the overall picture,” said Kjetil Bakken, an analyst at Carnegie. “My guess is that it obviously helps when it comes to the public image.”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/statoil-environment-idUSL5N1832MB

    call me cynical, but why do i think WWF & Greenpeace might simply be allowing the innocent-sounding “retired librarian’s” Grannies to do their work for them this time? after all, the innocent-sounding Grannies are seasoned protesters…and extremely politically partisan:

    2012: CitizenActionMonitor: Norwegian grandparents spearhead demand for Statoil to withdraw from Harper’s tar sands
    Climate scientist James Hansen posted a copy of the grandparents’ letter here, and it is cross-posted below.
    Open letter to the Board of Statoil ASA
    From: Grandparents Climate Campaign Leader, Halfdan Wiik, Norway
    The Board of Statoil must withdraw the company from Canadian tar sands…
    At Statoil’s general assembly on May 15th, we expect that board members and representatives of the committee on health, environment, security and ethics issues, will be present and available for questions from shareholders regarding the above-mentioned matters…
    Signatories include reresentatives from:
    ***WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Norwegian Green Party, Red Youth, The Liberal Party of Norway, The Red Party (far left), The Socialist Youth League of Norway, The young liberals of Norway, ETC
    https://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/4532/

    10

  • #
    pat

    10May: UK Independent: Ian Johnston: Physicist claims Hinkley Point deal means UK taxpayer could get £53bn bill to supply cheap nuclear energy to France
    It is a claim that, if true, would mean Britain is about to make one of the biggest economical mistakes in its history, a blunder that would damage our country’s finances for decades and almost inevitably cause the Government to fall.
    For, according to Keith Barnham, an emeritus professor of physics, the total subsidy paid to the planned Hinkley Point nuclear power station by the British taxpayer could reach a staggering £53 billion over its lifetime – and the main beneficiaries will be French.
    He argues that such is the likely growth of renewables that the UK will not actually need the Hinkley’s electricity, so it will be sold abroad. And, he says, the most likely customers are in France, home of energy giant EDF, which is expected to build the plant…
    But, in an article for The Independent, Professor Barnham, of Imperial College London, argues that the expansion of renewables will mean that by 2029 there will be “no demand for continuous and expensive nuclear power in the UK”…
    “The nuclear price guarantee could be a vote loser at the 2020 general election, when it will be clearer how soon the UK will have an all-renewable electricity supply,” he adds.
    ***The figures that Professor Barnham uses to back up his assertions are sufficiently complicated that an energy market expert at a leading think tank declined to comment, saying it would take “several days of consultancy time” for them to meaningfully enter the debate…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-france-edf-subsidy-53bn-professor-keith-barnham-a7021161.html

    10 May: BusinessInsider: Bob Bryan: Jim Chanos is Elon Musk’s worst nightmare
    Jim Chanos is taking Elon Musk on, and so far, Chanos seems to be winning.
    The founder of Kynikos Associates and legendary short-seller Chanos has made bets over the last few months against two of Musk’s major endeavours — SolarCity and Tesla — and they’re both tumbling…
    Additionally, Chanos followed those comments up with a mention at last week’s Sohn Investment Conference that “a flood of people” have left Tesla in the last few years, and when senior management departs a firm that usually spells trouble.
    It was reported on Wednesday that two of the company’s top engineers would leave the company, the same day that Musk announced he wanted to ramp up production from 50,000 a year to 500,000 by 2018, two years ahead of his original plan…
    Chanos has been critical of SolarCity’s leasing model for its solar panels, comparing the business practice to subprime lending. He also has said that the capital-intensive nature of the business will make it nearly impossible for the company to make money…
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/jim-chanos-is-elon-musks-worst-nightmare-2016-5?r=US&IR=T

    10 May: NY Post: James Covert: Elon Musk’s SolarCity technology is getting burned
    The dimmed outlook singed SolarCity shares, which tumbled 21 percent Tuesday, to close at $17.82. The stock is down nearly 70 percent over the past 12 months…
    SolarCity’s “credibility is likely at an all-time low,” analysts at Roth Capital said in a research note…
    http://nypost.com/2016/05/10/elon-musks-solarcity-technology-is-getting-burned/

    10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The only way to shut these 100% renewables people is to make them live with it. Unfortunately it means many others would have to suffer as well. We can only hope that by the end of 2017, global cooling along with blackouts in Scotland, the UK, Germany and South Australia will show up this nonsense and cause those politicians who remain in office to change course.

      20

      • #

        Unfortunately, that’s the ONLY way this renewables fad will die off.

        While ever the constant huge supply from those coal fired plants exists, renewables will always gain traction, because it gives the impression that it can supply.

        While power still comes out of the proverbial hole in the wall, people will always think renewables can do the job, and it only does that because of the huge power supplied by coal fired power.

        Tony.

        30

  • #
    pat

    10 May: The Federalist: Elon Musk Is Revolting
    By Robert Tracinski
    Elon Musk, the PayPal co-founder who used his fortune to start a trio of “visionary” companies—Tesla, Solar City, and SpaceX—recently went beyond pitching the supposed virtues of his own technology and called for a broader social revolt aimed at taking down his rivals. Complaining that a “carbon tax” intended to fight global warming was being blocked by the machinations of the industrial-industrial complex, he declared “we need to appeal to the people and educate them to sort of revolt against this and to fight the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry.”
    It’s worth pointing out that, depending on where you charge your Tesla, it may very well be powered by fossil fuels, just at a distance…
    But notice his big rationale for vilifying fossil fuels: “The fundamental issue with fossil fuels is that every use comes with a subsidy. Every gasoline car on the road has a subsidy, and the right way to address that is with a carbon tax.”
    That’s pretty rich for a guy whose own businesses have been supported by $4.9 billion (LINK) in government subsidies. That’s according to a tally by the Los Angeles Times. It’s worth reading the whole rundown, because it’s an extraordinary list of government loans and tax breaks, along with Musk’s personal role in demanding and negotiating them. It includes this real gem…READ ON
    But the biggest Musk subsidy is the global warming crusade itself, which he uses to push people into over-paying for his cars…
    What I object to is having him lecture us about other people’s subsidies while we’re paying for his experiments.
    That’s because if the public ever rejects the global warming hype and figures out how much they’ve been paying to subsidize Musk’s “visionary billionaire” lifestyle, they might start revolting at that.
    http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/10/elon-musk-is-revolting/

    11 May: Bloomberg: Liam Denning: The Existential Angst of SolarCity
    If you’re involved in the running of a company called SolarCity, one question you really don’t want to hear on your earnings call is: “What is SolarCity?”
    The existential dread raised by that particular inquiry from an analyst on Monday evening was no doubt heightened by the fact that SolarCity’s stock was plummeting 20 percent in after-hours trading.
    Nasty, Brutish, and Short
    Apart from coal, few things are less popular in solar circles than cutting growth estimates…
    In the past three years, its selling, general and administrative costs jumped almost 6-fold, according to figures from Bloomberg…
    Overhead Ache
    Nevada was indeed harsh. SolarCity’s bigger problem, though, is its waning credibility…
    The same analyst who questioned SolarCity’s identity warned the company on Monday evening’s call that “Wall Street thinks this is way too complicated.” Some things are clear enough, though: SolarCity’s debts are mounting, its costs are stubborn, and its growth targets are negotiable.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-05-10/solarcity-shares-plunge-amid-existential-angst

    10 May: CNBC: Fred Imbert: SolarCity is in a ‘first-class crisis,’ Jim Cramer says
    SolarCity needs to wake up and face reality, especially after it horrendous first quarter, CNBC’s Jim Cramer said Tuesday.
    “This is a company that I regard in a first-class crisis that acts as if everything is fine,” Cramer said on “Squawk on the Street” Tuesday. “You know I’m an aficionado of conference calls. You may have found the bottom. Yes, [this is] the worst conference call of 2016.” …
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/10/solarcity-is-in-a-first-class-crisis-jim-cramer-says.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    a final post on Keith Barnham, who told UK Independent by 2029 there will be “no demand for continuous and expensive nuclear power in the UK” because of the growth of renewables.

    btw “scientists say” in the Tele headline is actually just Barnham at the Hay Festival:

    May 2014: UK Telegraph: Sarah Knapton: Petrol stations will die out as drivers plug electric cars into homes, scientists say
    Solar panel technology is improving so rapidly that petrol stations could be replaced in the near future by drivers plugging their electric cars into their homes, Keith Barnham, emeritus Professor of Physics at Imperial College, says
    Keith Barnham, emeritus Professor of Physics at Imperial College, said he and his colleagues were already producing solar panels, which were three times as efficient as current models.
    And they do not need to be fitted on roofs. The new materials work vertically and can be inserted into windows or made into blinds, which can be pulled down on a sunny day…
    “Free fuel for life from your rooftop. Even the most fervent opponents of electric cars like Jeremy Clarkson couldn’t argue with that.
    “We need to spread the word that we have got the technology already, we just need to use it.”
    Prof Barnham said if the UK followed Germany’s example and switched to renewable energy, ***bills could be reduced by more than 20 per cent…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10859036/Petrol-stations-will-die-out-as-drivers-plug-electric-cars-into-homes-scientists-say.html

    Barnham the revolutionary crusader:

    Dec 2014: Imperial College: Talkin ’bout a revolution: Interview with Professor Keith Barnham
    by Andrew Czyzewski
    Keith Barnham seems something of a reluctant revolutionary. Unassuming and polite to a fault; yet brimming with zeal for his chosen field of photovoltaic research and green technologies in general, whilst raging against misinformation spread by the fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies. At 71 he has finally gotten around to publishing his manifesto, titled The Burning Answer: A user’s guide to the solar revolution (see panel, right).
    Keith’s story does have the pull of destiny about it and he even recalls a Damascene moment of conversion back in 1979. He was working as a particle physicist in CERN Geneva, serving as spokesperson for a five-nation, 30-physicist collaboration. An even larger project was looming and the strain of being 800km from family in the UK was taking its toll. Heading to the CERN library for some solace, he stumbled upon a research paper that was to completely change his future direction. The paper attempts to set out a history of the world from 1979 to 2079 – dominated by struggles over energy resources and the environmental impact of fossil fuels.
    “I was captivated, slumped to the library floor and drank in every word,” writes Keith…
    http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_19-12-2014-10-57-43

    00

  • #
    pat

    meet Ghassan:

    Wikipedia: Ghassan Hage: Ghassan Hage is a Lebanese-Australian academic serving as Future Generation Professor of Anthropology and Social Theory at the University of Melbourne, Australia…
    Hage grew up in Beirut, Lebanon, as part of a Maronite Catholic family. He moved to Sydney in 1976, aged 20. His maternal grandparents and mother had previously lived in, and were citizens of, Australia…
    He divides his time between Melbourne, Sydney and Paris, and is fluent in French, Arabic and English…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassan_Hage

    MIT: Is ISLAMOPHOBIA accelerating global warming?
    Monday, May 9, 2016 – 5:00pm
    The Ecology and Justice Forum In Global Studies And Languages Presents: Ghassan Hage
    Ghassan Hage is Future Generation Professor in the School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry, University of Melbourne
    This talk examines the relation between Islamophobia as the dominant form of racism today and the ecological crisis. It looks at the three common ways in which the two phenomena are seen to be linked: as an entanglement of two crises, metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation. The talk proposes a fourth way of linking the two: an argument that they are both emanating from a similar mode of being, or enmeshment, in the world, what is referred to as ‘generalised domestication.’
    Ghassan Hage has held many visting positions across the world including in Harvard, University of Copenhagen, Ecoles des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and American University of Beirut. He works in the comparative anthropology of nationalism, multiculturalism, diaspora and racism and on the relation between anthropology, philosophy and social and political theory. His most well-known work is White Nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society (Routledge 2000). His is also the author of Alter-Politics: Critical Anthropology and the Radical Imaginary (Melbourne University Press 2015). He is currently working on a book titled Is Islamophobia Accelerating Global Warming? and has most recently published a piece in American Ethnologist, titled: “Etat de Siege. A Dying Domesticating Colonialism?” (2016) that engages with the contemporary “refugee crisis” in Europe and beyond.
    The talk is free and open to the public…
    https://mitgsl.mit.edu/news-events/islamophobia-accelerating-global-warming

    the end of the road for CAGW?

    [Commenters thanks to 18C it's difficult to moderate a discussion on this topic. Sorry. I'll post these links only. -- Jo]

    00

  • #
    Grumpy

    Why Climate Models Cannot Work
    1. They attempt to predict turbulent flow over a vast volume
    2. The data density is infinitesimally small as compared to the volume being considered.

    In my brief exposure to fluid mechanics in pursuit of an engineering degree, I learned that whilst lamellar flow could be predicted to an acceptable degree in a number of situations, turbulent flow was effectively unpredictable. Even without consideration of the various energy factors discussed at some length above, the flow characteristics of the atmosphere would defy any analysis in the short to mid-term, let alone the long term.

    If the volume under consideration is the layer 50 km above the earths surface, and the number of valid observation points is 2000, then there is about 1 observation point for every 3,000,000 cubic kilometres. This is an unbelievably small amount of data given the task at hand. Those working with computers are familiar with ‘BS in, BS out’. Using the world’s best supercomputers, manned by the world’s best BS artists, the warmists have managed to increase the BS output levels for any computer to unprecedented highs.

    Ten blind men struggled to adequately describe an elephant.

    What climate models are attempting to do is describe is more difficult than 10 blind fleas trying to describe the aforementioned elephant.

    20

    • #

      Yes, trying to predict the LTE climate by attempting to predict the chaos of state transitions consequential to some change is foolish, especially since predicting the chaos requires far more information then is available. The better path is to predict the LTE result itself by applying the basic laws of physics to the modified system. Of course, the later doesn’t get the result they need to support CAGW and the route of predicting the chaos has a lot more wiggle room to curve fit to any desired result.

      00

    • #
  • #

    Monkton still has trouble in picking the most useful end points for his analyses. The millennial temperature cycle peaked in about 2003.This is the inflexion point between the warming and cooling trends. See Figs 1,5,and 5a at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-imminent-collapse-of-cagw-delusion.html
    Climate prediction is reasonably obvious and straight forward on the basis of the millennial and 60 year temperature cycles and the solar “activity” as measured by the neutron count and 10 Be data Figs 7 and 8.There is a 12 year delay between the solar activity peak and the RSS peak in Fig 5. There is a 21 year delay between the solar peak and the Arctic ice volume minimum in 2012.We do not need to completely understand the mechanisms involved in order to make useful predictions
    For a more complete discussion see :
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    “NOTE!! The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.

    Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
    a) the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)

    b) the changing EUV radiation – top down effects via the Ozone layer
    c) the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales.

    The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.

    Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”

    01

    • #

      Dr. Page,
      Others have remarked that significant drivers are the Lune-solar effects and the JEV beats. To me it still seems to me that such effects remain indirect and much moderated by Solar tidal delay! Do you have constructive opinion of such conjecture? Can you recommend a good reference work explaining the effects of planetary orbital inclinations upon the now obvious amplitude and phase modulations and beats of Earth’s temperature? Thank you.

      10

      • #

        I’m sure that other beats, both longer and shorter can be extracted from various data sets over different length time series covering different areas. Fortunately at this time it appears likely that we can derive forecasts of climate covering the next several hundred years with sufficient accuracy (but not precision) to advise governments that their entire UNFCCC circus is a waste of time and money and is in fact damaging to global prosperity.
        At this time we are a very long way from tying planetary orbits to global climate even though such connections must be active,

        10

    • #

      Mr Page, as ever, is wrong. I have not the least difficulty in choosing the periods over which I make comparisons. There must be at least 15 years’ data (NOAA State of the Climate Report, 2008); there must be clear predictions by IPCC’s various reports covering the entire chosen period (IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports all provide predictions for the 15 years 2001 to 2015 and beyond), and there must be temperature measurements covering the entire chosen period (RSS and UAH both provide full monthly coverage throughout the chosen period). It is as simple and straightforward as that.

      Do not ignore the elephant in the room, which is that the discrepancy between exaggerated prediction and harmless real-world observations is enormous. IPCC and the models were wrong, and that is that.

      20

  • #

    Monckton Your chart purports to show the rate of warming between Jan 2001 and April 2016.If,as I believe I have demonstrated in the Figures linked above that there is an inflection point in the millennial cycle at about 2003 then your rates have no connection to the real world – they are simply mathematical artifacts with little significance.
    As to your second point we agree completely – the first link says

    “Figure 1 above compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu paper forecast and with the simple but most economic working hypothesis of this post (green line) that the peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle so obvious in the temperature data.The data also shows that the well documented 60 year temperature cycle coincidentally peaks at about the same time.

    The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.
    A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.”

    11

  • #

    Mr Page is, as usual, wrong. It matters not whether there is a real or imaginary “inflection point” in the temperature data. The rate of global warming that is observed to have occurred in the first 15 years 4 months of the millennium is, on all measures, very substantially below the rates of warming predicted in the IPCC’s first three ASSessment reports. It is as simple as that.

    The models’ predictions were exaggerated, for profit. They have been exposed as exaggerated, and they will continue to be exposed as exaggerated until those responsible for what has become the greatest fraud in history are brought to book. Expect the first prosecutions shortly.

    20

  • #

    I think it matters considerably whether the earth is in fact warming dangerously as the establishment proclaims as a basis for the entire UNFCCC scam or is cooling as indicated in Figs 1, 5, and 5a at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-imminent-collapse-of-cagw-delusion.html
    I think the data and arguments presented there and at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    provide a substantial empirical basis for the inflection point at about 2003.
    The Agenda 21 project has been brilliantly designed by the Strong mob to motivate to action governments and NGO’s. Much of the Agenda 21 success relies on the simple minded acceptance in the minds of the politicians and the public at large of Al Gores iconic hockey stick graph. Most are incapable of thinking outside of that mental box.
    I believe that Fig 1 above could be promoted as a possibly iconic image to try to dethrone the hockey stick in the climate conversation. It is hard to beat something with nothing. The conceptual divergence between the IPCC forecast and the cooling reality appears here in its most glaring form.
    If you could find the time to read the links through carefully you might even see your way clear to joining the effort. To my mind, given the temperature and solar data in these links,a millennial peak at about 2003 appears little more than basic common sense.

    11