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

Trite Science Prize: New science paper tells us air over land “heats more than water”

Is it science or is it a marketing machine?

This press release with psychedelic art tells us land regions will warm by more than the global average, because oceans are slower to heat. No kidding. They use more broken models to breathlessly talk about being locked in to 1.5 °C rise — “more than preindustrial times”. How scared do we need to be about a 1.5C rise — it’s not just locked in, it’s already here.  NASA chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt says so ” 2016 so far is about 1.5 degrees Celsius ( 2.7 degrees) warmer than pre-industrial times.” Since Gavin is talking “globally” the extra rise over land above and beyond that is not so much programmed in, as pre-baked.

The art might be the most original part of the paper.

Let’s redesign those cities:

The results of the new study have implications for international discussions of what constitutes safe global temperature thresholds, such as 1.5°C or 2°C of warming since pre-industrial times. The expected extra warming over land will influence how we need to design some cities.

Human civilization already lives in towns from -50C to +40C. I reckon we’ll manage a 1.5 degree rise (especially one that’s already happened). Can we cope with -48.5 to +41.5,  The UN wants $89 trillion to do it. So give me $88T. I’ll give you a trillion in change.

How much redesigning will these warmer cities need anyway? A move from Sydney to Brisbane  produces an apocalyptic 4 degrees rise. And we have about a thousand years to accomplish a transformation that big.

The inanities just keep coming. It’s like the peer reviewers have missed the last three decades of the climate debate. Here are the two big news flashes.

1. The climate is out of equilibrium (was it ever “in” equilibrium?)

The research team found two main reasons behind the result.

First, even if it was possible to keep carbon dioxide concentrations fixed at their current 400 parts-per-million concentration levels, then the planet would continue to warm towards new equilibrium higher temperatures. At present, the climate is out of equilibrium, with the oceans drawing down very large amounts of heat from the atmosphere. However this will decline as the planet is bought towards a stable climatic state.

2. Wait for it… Land heats more than ocean.

Second, warming rates over land are far higher than those when averaged globally which include temperatures over the oceans. This is a feature observed in meteorological measurements and reproduced across a large suite of climate models.

Not just observed in climate models and meteorological measurements, but observed on the nightly news too. Even at primary school.

Is this the voice of guilt?

Lead author Dr Chris Huntingford from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “It would certainly be inappropriate to create any additional fear over climate change.

This paper wins the Trite Science Prize for 2016 –

That’s the peer reviewed science paper that tells us what we already know.

…what this paper does is re-iterate that the oceans are currently acting as a very strong sink of heat. Even if carbon dioxide was somehow stabilised at current levels, additional warming will occur as we move towards an equilibrium climate state. Furthermore, both data and computer models all indicate enhanced temperatures over land, compared to global mean warming that includes temperatures over the oceans.”

The research was carried out by scientists from the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the University of Exeter, UK.

How much was that grant?

This research was funded by the NERC National Capability fund.

A decade ago the scare was about a prophesy of a 4 – 6 °C rise, now, the words are nearly the same, but the numbers have changed, and hardly anybody notices.

Reference:

Chris Huntingford, Lina M. Mercado. High chance that current atmospheric greenhouse concentrations commit to warmings greater than 1.5 °C over land.Scientific Reports, 2016; 6: 30294 DOI: 10.1038/srep30294

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (79 votes cast)
Trite Science Prize: New science paper tells us air over land "heats more than water", 8.9 out of 10 based on 79 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/j3v6ghn

123 comments to Trite Science Prize: New science paper tells us air over land “heats more than water”

  • #
    Spetzer86

    I’m expecting climate announcements like this to accelerate over the next three months as the US Presidential season goes into overdrive. Fluff and stuff/nonsense that’ll be out and across the globe before anyone bothers to look at the data.

    341

  • #

    star comment The claim that there’s significant pent up warming from CO2 that has not manifested yet demonstrates ignorance of reality. If the climate responded this slowly to change, we would not notice any temperature difference between night and day, or even between summer and winter. Where is the heat hiding in January when the planet is about 3C cooler than it is in June? If seasonal swings in the average can be this big, including significant swings in the average global ocean temperatures, the planet is certainly responding much faster to change than they need to support their ludicrous conclusions. This fact is obfuscated by anomaly analysis which cancels out seasonal variability, which more than anything else tells us how quickly the planet actually does respond to change.

    533

    • #

      Can go further by pointing out that it was much warmer early in the Inter glacial time,that was called the Holocene Optimism.

      Review of Holocene ‘Climate Optimum’ shows Temperatures 2°C hotter than Present

      A new peer-reviewed paper Climate change between the mid and late Holocene in northern high latitudes reviews 110 temperature proxies of the past 6000 years in the northern high latitudes and finds “A large majority of the here investigated temperature reconstructions indicate that temperatures were warmer at the mid-Holocene [6000 years ago] compared to the preindustrial period [500 years ago], both in summer,winter and the annual mean. By taking simple arithmetic averages over the available data, the reconstructions indicate that the northern high latitudes were 1.0°C warmer in summer, 1.7°C in winter and 2.0°C warmer in the annual mean temperature at the mid-Holocene (6000 years ago) compared to the recent pre-industrial.”

      LINK

      160

    • #
      Rick Will

      If you go down to the average depth of the oceans around 3.6km you will not notice night and day. The temperature is constant within human perception to sense differences. So what goes on at the surface of the earth has little bearing on the heat stored in the Earth system.

      Presuming there is some means of a trace gas in the atmosphere causing 3W/sq.m increase in heat input at the ocean surface it will take quite a few lifetimes to reach equilibrium in the Earth system. As an example con side a water column with an area of 1sq.m and a height of 3600m, which is average ocean depth, it will take 160 years to warm 1C with a 3W increase in heat input; providing there are no additional heat losses of course.

      An extra 3W/sq.m over Antarctica would take 7000 years just to melt the 2000m high average ice column before there was any increase in temperature there.

      Water imbues Earth with tremendous thermal inertia in addition to its surface/atmospheric properties that dominate over any radiative properties of trace gases with radiative properties.

      Sea level is one of the best proxies for heat stored in the oceans. It needs to show an acceleration in rate of rise if atmospheric CO2 is capable of increasing Earth’s temperature. The sea level record for at least the past 150 years shows a slight upward trend over the record. So the oceans have not been in equilibrium for at least that period. Given the thermal inertia they are likely still recovering from the last ice age and will be recovering until the next ice age arrives, whence they will begin a protracted cooling phase and sea level ail fall.

      30

      • #

        Rick,
        You are forgetting one important thing, which is that cold water sinks and as long as there is winter darkness at the poles, there will always be a source of cold water to sink to the ocean depths, thus the cold water at ocean depths will never get warmer unless the poles stop freezing which will not happen until the Sun reaches its red giant phase in a few billion years.

        It’s also important to recognize that the ocean consists of two, mostly independent thermal systems. The warm surface waters that are above the average temperature and and the deep cold water below average which are separated by the thermocline, that the two parts roughly cancel and that the relevant energy stored by the ocean is stored as this temperature difference and not as the absolute temperature of the water. I you examine the properties of water in more detail, you will see that water at a sufficient thickness can act as an insulator and the thermocline is the right thickness and exhibits the necessary linear temperature gradient.

        BTW, the surface of Venus also exhibits no diurnal or seasonal variability just like the deep ocean cold and shares more in common with the Earth surface at the bottom of the ocean than it does with the Earth surface whose temperature we actually care about. Note as well that the mass of the Venusian atmosphere is the same order of magnitude as the mass of Earth’s oceans and the bottom few hundred meters of the Venusian atmosphere is supercritical CO2 which acts more like a fluid than a gas.

        The extra 3 W/m^2 in Antarctica will do nothing to melt ice. The average temperature is so far below freezing that even after adding 30 W/m^2, those temperatures will still be well below freezing and ice will only sublimate (which it does anyway) and not melt.

        40

        • #
          Rick Will

          No I am not forgetting that. It is irrelevant to the thermal inertia of the water. No one knows how the mixing occurs in the oceans. The nature of heat input to the earth causes currents and consequential mixing. The time frame is over thousands of years and will never be in equilibrium.

          10

  • #
    Reasonable Skeptic

    I wonder if these people have heard of the Urban Heat Island Effect. Now I am not great intellectual, but I thought that the UHI was far greater than a small 1.5 deg. Don’t let them find out, or they will ask for more money to redesign our cities.

    333

  • #
    TdeF

    “with the oceans drawing down very large amounts of heat from the atmosphere”.

    Cut phrasing. This used to be called cooling?

    If the air does not get warmer, how and why would the oceans ‘steal’ the heat? Are they just greedy?

    Oceans utterly control climates. All rain comes from the oceans. There is virtually no other water (roughly Great Lakes 20%, Lake Baikal 20%, Antarctica 60%). Fresh water, maybe 2%. Apart from dust storms, all weather is about water.

    At 340 x the weight of the air the giant, mobile oceans have something like 340x as much heat capacity.
    In other words the 1.5C rise in the air would mean a 0.005C rise in the sea temperature.
    Ultimately you have to heat the entire ocean as well as the air to get warming but for the first 20 years of this, the idea was the air heated on its own.

    Then 2/3 of the sunlight hits the oceans not the land. We are talking about CO2 here. What does CO2 have to do with ocean temperature? The ocean never gets as hot as the land and never radiates as much infrared nor in the same frequencies.

    Finally, when you consider there is 50x as much CO2 in the oceans as in the air, who thinks CO2 increases warming and who thinks warming increases CO2?
    The naive argument that mankind must have unilaterally increased aerial CO2 is in contradiction of Henry’s law. Mankind cannot change CO2 levels long term. Even the IPCC admits that, buried in the reports with a fantasy half life of 80 years instead of the known 14 years.

    Still the popular new lament is ‘the oceans stole my warming’.

    363

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      At 340 x the weight of the air the giant, mobile oceans have something like 340x as much heat capacity…

      It’s more like 1100x, allowing for the higher specific heat for water (“Cp,” BTU/#mF.)

      232

      • #
        TdeF

        Thanks. Air is 1.0 Kjoule/Kilogram/Degree. Water is 4.2, heating water is much harder than air so even 1400 more significant.
        For those who argue only the surface is involved short term, if only the top 10 metres of the oceans were heated, it would take 4.2 times as much energy for 1C.
        Our world air temperatures are controlled by ocean temperatures, as if we didn’t know that. Storms, monsoons, Hurricanes, Tornadoes. All our weather comes from the oceans. CO2 concentration is controlled by man though. It’s obvious apparently.

        181

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          And that’s before you evaporate it or freeze it.

          41

          • #
            TdeF

            Good point. The latent heats are significant and much of the world goes though OC, which is why most human populations live near water, to buffer their climates to tolerable. The fascinating area is the North Pole in Summer which has an average of 0C. A movement of 0.1C in this average either way would have a huge impact on ice extent so warmists have decided to focus on this as self evident proof of runaway warming. It isn’t.

            60

          • #
            RB

            Something to remember when there are claims of 3m rise in sea level because of melting ice. To warm 3m of ocean one degree takes as much energy to warm the atmosphere 1 degree. This water comes from ice well below zero and as it spreads along the surface (fresh water) it warms to an average of 17 degrees! You need 80 times the energy to melt the water as to bring it up one degree so that’s a hell of a lot of energy that can’t warm the surface more to cause the ice to melt more.

            20

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Yes. Very odd phrasing. How, exactly, do the oceans “draw down” heat? Is this “drawing down” a new phenomenon? With all this heat been “drawn down”, how hot are the oceans becoming? Also, with the atmosphere suffering the new phenomenon of its heat being “drawn down” out of the atmosphere, why is the air not getting cooler? Is this going to lead to a new ice age? We should be told! Think of the chiiiildren!

      Also, when in history – or even pre-history – has the system been in equilibrium?

      132

      • #
        george

        One possible Theory, The heat is DRAWN DOWN by Children WITH Crayons. Well it makes as much sense as anything else and just thinking about it UPSETS MY EQUILIBRIUM.

        180

  • #
    doubtingdave

    Below , is my favourite cartoon of the American election so far , but you could easily see this as a representation of how climate scientists and their compliant media ignore the mountain of natural climate evidence , whilst focusing on the miniscule effects of CO2 ; http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/4017/327/original.jpg?w=800&h

    192

    • #
      TdeF

      Miniscule, unproven, hypothetical and even disproven alleged effects of the extra CO2 supposedly caused by man, this also without proof.
      All the fault of democracy, farmers, factories and the motor car. The solution is to tax everyone until the guilty are punished. Do not ask what happens to the money.

      You get the money waffle with the Clintons. They really needed the tens of millions in speaking fees according to Hillary as they were in debt when they left the White House 20 years ago? Destitute ex legal firm partners. Really? Maybe staying out of jail with Whitewater ran down their savings? Or being impeached? Barely able to cope on pensions as the Ex President and now ex Secretary of State. Tragic without the odd million dollars cash a year plus Bill’s million dollar travelling allowance from the government. The US government needs to look hard at how much they are paying these people if they have to beg billions a year from the foreign governments just to survive. As opposed to those other people peddling power and influence in government for mountains of cash. Those other people are evil.

      353

    • #
      Annie

      That’s a brilliant cartoon Dave….thanks for that.

      00

  • #
    TdeF

    Cute phrasing.

    Also Fresh water is only 2% of total water and this largely in the Great Lakes, Baikal, Antarctica. River and dam water would be 2% of 2%.

    My point about the alleged solo warming effect of hothouse gases without which our world would supposedly be a frozen blob. Rubbish. This argument ignores the the oceans, far more than the significance of air itself. Ocean heat capacity itself is far more significant, 340x as much. Without water in the air, it would be a very different world, without clouds. All the land would be baking. So when you talk about hot house gases which have an effect on global temperature and climates, the major one is water vapour, whether as humidity or clouds or rain, all of which are the major controllers of all climates. Water’s light absorption spread is also much more than CO2 and of course, there is vastly more of it. We call them clouds.

    152

    • #
      TdeF

      As written before it is fascinating that the oceans are very deep but tiny in depth compared to the molten planet below, the thickness of the skin on an inflated balloon. Even so, the water on top of Antarctica, frozen though it is, is as deep as the ocean, up to 4km. Antarctica is underwater. The climate is very different for the largely uninhabited Southern 22-90 latitudes region than the North where you can get abundant wildlife, even huge cities at 60 North. So this ‘global warming’ over 100 years is a puzzle, when people quote the world temperature in 1916. Where did anyone measure that?

      Another observation which has puzzled me for years and for which I have to make up my own explanation is the question of why the poles are 40km closer to the centre of the earth than the equator or my importantly, why the water is not 40km deep. A 40km mountain would be something. Our highest mountain is 9km.
      This confirms something obvious, that centrifugal forces of spinning once a day forced the shape of a once molten surface. The water which is free to move adopts exactly the same shape. For one thing, the polar satellites over Antarctica would be 40km higher than over the equator.

      So while hungry scientists are still trying to prove an old hypothesis about man made CO2 driven runaway global warming, there is a great deal about our world which no one can pretend to understand. You can only assume this is propaganda, not science. Qui Bono?

      80

      • #
        GrahamP

        “puzzled me for years and for which I have to make up my own explanation is the question of why the poles are 40km closer to the centre of the earth than the equator or my importantly, why the water is not 40km deep”

        TdeF. You might like to wade through this:

        http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/108/why-is-earth-not-a-sphere

        30

        • #
          TdeF

          Thanks. Yes, apparent gravity is less at the equator. A the poles, you are not moving at 1200km/hr as the equator, circle the earth in 24 hours.
          However my point is the exact value of the bulge. Water and the planet totally agree. There are no 40km deep oceans. My conclusion is that at some stage the surface was liquid when it cooled, forming the mantle. Another suggested is that it is still liquid and we are floating, which is continental drift.
          I guess it is all part of the frustration at the non science in man made global warming.

          There are so many real and interesting questions and world has been spending $1,000,000,000,000 a year ‘fixing’ a problem which is not even a proven problem with solutions which do not make scientific or economic sense?

          I cannot imagine being one of the 350 scientists at the CSIRO tasked with proving man made global warming. You need the job, but being asked by politicians to prove the moon is actually made of Green Cheese? Seriously? Saddest are those like these authors who enthusiastically embrace the inane.

          100

  • #
    F. Ross

    “Land heats more than ocean”

    WAY, way back when I was still in school, we used to use the expletive “No sh_t Sherlock!” for such discoveries. Perhaps there is still some applicability here(?).

    202

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Followed by “…What was your first clue?”

      182

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Sorry, I am just a jobbing climate scientist, and I don’t have one …

        162

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Noting that the dog did not bark would be well and truly beyond their assessment capability.

        Their clue trail would be more like Cludo. Fry Pan, Cook, Kitchen, ummmmm *scratches head*.

        61

    • #
      toorightmate

      These same people may be about to discover that temperature decreases with altitude!
      Wont that finding be a blockbuster?

      100

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        What? My head always seems warmer than my feet. Could this have something to do with which hemisphere one lives in?

        80

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That is rubbish. Everybody knows that the closer you get to the sun, the warmer it must be.

        40

        • #
          sophocles

          It’s not entirely rubbish. It could be true if he lived in the southern hemisphere. Perigee (closes approach to the sun) occurs on or around january 3rd to 5th, in the SH summer.
          So if he’s Down Under, in summer, it’s a cloudless day and he’s not wearing a hat, then that statement could be true.

          60

  • #
    diogenese2

    Dear God, this is an analysis of climate models which have already been discredited as severely overstating outcomes.
    Also;
    “In Fig. 1 we first present in green for each model the contemporary global warming projection, ΔTGlobal, 2015 (°C). This is under rcp85 scenario, and calculated as the time-average value over 15 years centred on year 2015. The emissions implied by the rcp85 concentration scenario are presently near to the actual levels of fossil fuel burning”

    they are using the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario (Not RCP 85 – might this explain a degree of magnitude error?).

    Indeed;

    “This allows a scaling by radiative forcing to derive, with knowledge of the climate sensitivity of each model13 ΔT2 × CO2, a set of GCM-dependent estimates of global committed temperature rise for current levels of atmospheric GHG changes.”

    The climate sensitivity ASSUMED by the model is adopted as the basis of their whole deductive enterprise.

    Like TdeF I have a great difficulty with;

    “These projections remain, even when normalising to account for the observation that the past decade has seen warming rates lower than estimates by most climate models. Thermal inertia due to oceanic draw-down of heat implies that the current level of global warming is less than that of an equilibrium “committed” climatic state at contemporary GHG levels.”

    when the evidence is that the oceans draw heat from the sun and transfers (some of) it to the atmosphere.
    I can’t though fault their final conclusion -

    “Unfortunately determining the equilibrium GHG concentrations compatible with any prescribed warming levels, either globally or over land, remains difficult. This is due to large model differences in estimates of planetary climate sensitivity.”

    Note “model differences” NOT actual physical measurements.
    Well imagine that! Of course , if they had said that first – I wouldn’t had to read the whole bloody paper!

    173

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Gavin Schmidt says so

    Ah! Gavin Schmidt says so. That must make it about 97% probable then. No wonder the last 7 or 8 days have been completely normal for summertime.

    I bet if we could all panic at the same time and do it convincingly enough, the end of the world prophesies would all come true at once and then we would be over them and free to go on not believing them.

    What say you? How about a group panic like the world has never seen before and then we’ll be free of all this climate change fear once and for all.

    Ready… 1… 2… 3… EVERYONE PANIC AT ONCE.

    There, see how easy that was :-)

    153

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      But the prophesies are not coming true. Look how long I’ve waited. Surely there wold be disaster after disaster by now. What can be wrong here? I’m s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o disappointed.

      163

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Don’t laugh about it Roy or the Collective Thinkers will be on to you. :)

        And yes the link is real and these people walk amongst us. :(

        161

        • #
          toorightmate

          She’s at ANU – our resident coral experts!

          40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Collective Thinkers? Wow, they sound pretty bad. I guess I should be afraid of them… …maybe. After all they may collectively think me out of a job or something.

          Now wait yet another minute, Roy. Don’t go jumping off the cliff just yet. I’m already out of a job, being retired and all.

          Are these the same folks who want to give group assignments in class then grade the whole group the same, regardless of whether some students did all the work while some others just sat on their backside and waited to be handed a decent grade? Sounds just like socialism. And of course, socialism has always worked well everywhere and in whatever form it’s been tried. Right? ;-)

          If you had a chance to watch Hillary’s acceptance speech last night you’ll remember her mentioning her book, IT TAKES A VILLAGE, in which she said in no uncertain terms that two parents are not enough to raise their children. It also takes a cadre of experts to get it right. They are everywhere — groupthink, everyone homogenized into one opinion, one response to being questioned. I’ll bet they even eat the same thing for breakfast every morning. From Collective Thinkers, to collective assignments and collective parents, what have we done to ourselves? :-(

          90

          • #
            Clyde Spencer

            Isn’t “collective thinkers” an oxymoron?

            20

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I am not sure.

              I will have to gather the group together, debate the question at length, and then come to a consensual agreement, one way or another, regarding whether or not, the group is, “an oxymoron”. We will get back to you on that question (if nobody objects).

              50

          • #
            Clyde Spencer

            The other side of the coin, so to speak, is that the Arctic is acknowledged to be warming at a rate 2 or 3 times that of the rest of the planet. And, of course, the global average includes those 2X to 3X rates. The consequence is that the sub-Artic warming, where most people live, is going to be smaller than the global average numbers that are commonly thrown around by alarmists. It may even be measurable.

            10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              … the Arctic is acknowledged to be warming at a rate 2 or 3 times that of the rest of the planet.

              Acknowledged by whom? And what is being measured, and how is it being measured?

              40

          • #
            pattoh

            ” IT TAKES A VILLAGE”- my bet is that village still has a witch dunking chair & a pillory.

            20

        • #
          Owen Morgan

          I followed the link – and now I wish I hadn’t. Welcome to the world of the HumAnt. The assumptions are astounding, definitely from the John Cook school of statistics, for one thing.

          And how about this gem: Collective thinking urges [don't you love that: "urges"?] us to use the whole of our minds.

          So, there you have it. If you don’t accept the proper gander, you’re not only squeezed into the Evil Three Per Cent, but you’re not even using your whole mind.

          30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well, they reference, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”, by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, which is good. But I am not sure that they have read it. And even if they have looked at every word, I am not convinced that they have understood it.

            Wicked Problems can be demonstrated by:
            “a” is dependent upon “b”,
            “b” is dependent upon “c”,
            “c” is dependent upon “a” … [a, b, and c being immutable]

            Having a group trying to figure a solution (which is what having a collective suggests), is no more effective than one person trying to do it. In fact any potential work-around gets kicked further down the street every time somebody feels the need to state an opinion.

            Also, there is a strong tendency, in any collective undertaking, for one, or perhaps two, leaders to emerge from the group, and literally take command. At that point, “the collective” group becomes redundant.

            Caveat: I have not read their book, nor do I intend to.

            30

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          Wicked problems such as global warming…

          A balanced view, there. Of course, in an ice age, would global warming be a problem, wicked or not?

          20

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      In Alberta there is an organisation called the Friends of Science.
      Friends of Science’s Goal: To be free of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming dogma by 2017.
      FoS publications are very informative.

      60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Friends of Science, what a nice sounding name. I’m sure science will never want for company again. No more sitting home because there was no one to go out to dinner with or anything lonely ever again.

        They have a goal too, making it even better. And that’s my goal too, to be free of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming dogma by 2017. Only I would just shut down all the BS factories. There’s no need to try to convince anyone of anything, just pull the plug and all the dogma stops. I like my plan better, don’t you? :-)

        90

        • #

          I like it!
          How much for 6ea dogma stops, with shipping?

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Will,

            The price is free. However the shipping is astronmical since the weight is so high. After all, it has the weight of so much public acceptance to overcome that there’s hardly a crane that can lift it or a truck that could deliver it.

            I’d estimate a price at about $20 trillion, that being the weight of the U.S. public debt at this point. Let me know if you still want 6 each. ;-)

            20

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Roy
          A little context around my post.
          The Province of Alberta elected an extreme Left political party into office in May of 2015.
          The government of Rachel Notley has sent a wrecking ball through the economy, with the usual nonsense of vilifying fossil fuels and praising so-called “renewables”.
          The FoS organisation grew out of that putsch.
          Rather than the usual nastiness associated with today’s politics, FoS produces some first rate information in the hope that things can be turned around, in Alberta at least at the next election which will be no later than May 2019.
          I drew your attention to it only because the FoS literature is a gold mine of ammunition to use against the Leftist Loonies.

          20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            It does provide ammunition alright. But I could wish that Donald Trump was reading it instead of you and me. The donald may know his way around in politics about how to get a project approved and completed but he strikes me as more than a little naive about how the rest of it works.

            00

    • #
      tom0mason

      Roy,

      From it’s opening line, Gavin has made it obvious this is a piece addressed to politician, AGW campaigners and the many media advocates, etc., –

      The recent Paris UNFCCC climate meeting discussed the possibility of limiting global warming to 2 °C since pre-industrial times, or possibly even 1.5 °C, which would require major future emissions reductions.

      It is squarely aimed at trying to add to the pressure on politicians to keep to their commitments of the Paris agreement. Coerce the reluctant to ratified the agreement. With President Duterte of the Philippines getting major media coverage in saying he rejects Paris climate accord.

      With the implied assumption of being a top rate agenda setter, Gavin sticks the alarm in early with —

      However, even if climate is stabilised at current atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, those warming targets would almost certainly be surpassed in the context of mean temperature increases over land only. The reason for this is two-fold. First, current transient warming lags significantly below equilibrium or “committed” warming.

      Noted is the simplistic language used to capture the intended audience. And so tries to deliver the second punch …

      Second, almost all climate models indicate warming rates over land are much higher than those for the oceans. We demonstrate this potential for high eventual temperatures over land, even for contemporary GHG levels, using a large set of climate models and for which climate sensitivities are known.

      This last line is alluding to the some kind of science or should that be scientism.
      If any politician has a brain they would also note that the whole paper is about models, a demonstration that Gavin has a bunch of computer models.
      He is indirectly admitting that the real world can not be used (for what ever reason), and this virtualized version must be evoked.
      If that impresses anyone then they would probably read more.
      If however they are sane, and have any amount of knowledge and intelligence they would stop reading, and with the full understanding that the climate model are very faulty, dismiss this trivial egoistic paper to the trash can.

      How many of our leaders will pay any attention to this distracting sciency fluff?
      None I hope.
      Unfortunately because of its simplistic style the media will probably enjoy reusing large chucks of it.

      51

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Tom,

        I tried to ignore everything that was in any way serious and stuck to a little ridicule just for fun. Otherwise I’m getting near the point where my unrestrained comments about all this stuff would probably never be allowed to show up, perpetual moderation if you get what I mean. And some of my more frank comments have already been moderated so I know Jo’s site has some sort of filter looking for certain things. So far each of my moderated comments has been approved and finally showed up. But I think I would never get my true opinion of this past Jo.

        That anyone in this world who claims to be an adult could believe any of this simply blows every fuse in my head. Models, models and more models. Evidence, none, good judgment, none. Dumb blind acceptance, everywhere.

        60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Maybe I’ve been reading Jo Nova for too long and have watched the arguments get more and more ridiculous over time. I suppose I should take a vacation from it. But then there are the people like you, RW and others, not to mention Jo and David from whom I learn something now and then and I would miss that too much.

          50

    • #
      sophocles

      a group panic

      Isn’t that a Greenie Protest March? It sounds like one … :-)

      10

  • #
    AndyG55

    “University of Exeter” CLIMATE TROUGHER HEAVEN !!

    Did you know that this university has more contributors to IPCC propaganda than any other University in the world !!!

    https://www.exeter.ac.uk/postgraduate/taught/climatechange/

    153

  • #
    sceptic56109

    Surely by now we should have global warming enthusiasts actually measuring fuel savings achieved by utilities that are blessed with high contributions from wind power. I’ll bet no-one can measure the savings.

    I was under the impression that the recent 16 consecutive months of record world monthly temperatures relied on El Nino-affected ocean temperatures. How will temperatures go up from here when the El Nino is dissipating? Of course ocean temperatures had to be adjusted to reduce the influence of the Argo buoys (Why don’t we use bucket samples from ships because they read higher?)

    103

  • #

    If you went back a few decades and asked those who knew a bit, you would be told that Holocene temp is not a line but a dropped spaghetti. All ups and downs, no straight bits. Nobody has ever denied or refuted this simple fact in as many words, but the whole climate scam relies on not mentioning this simple fact.

    It’s why they don’t hold ice fairs on the Thames any more but also why you can’t paddle a canoe into the ancient ports of Ephesus and Ostia. Some changes are due to human engineering, siltation etc…most are due to climate change, duh.

    But where do you find a climate change expert these days who actually understands that the climate changes?

    151

  • #
    el gordo

    This recent post from Ken speaks for itself, three-quarters of variation in temperature over the past 20 years is down to ENSO.

    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/temperature-variation-due-to-enso/

    Its the elephant in the room.

    81

  • #
    Gymmie

    so now all is clear to me, the air over land warms more than over water, it’s called the Jones/Mann adjustment enHANSONing effect!!!

    82

  • #
    Ruairi

    A warming of some more degrees,
    Is better by far than a freeze,
    Which cooled many climes,
    Pre industrial times,
    Bringing man’s way of life to its knees.

    221

  • #

    OT. Meanwhile the rapid temperature change along the equatorial Pacific may be related to another large earthquake, 7.7 between the Phillipine sea and Pacific ocean (Northern Mariana Islands). Will there be a Tsunami?

    31

  • #
    Neville

    The World is recovering from one of the coldest periods for 10,000 years, called the LIA.
    And Concordia Uni study shows just 0.7 C of warming since 1800. ( 2.16 centuries)
    The HAD 4 data set shows about 0.8 C of warming since 1850 (1.66 centuries)and the Lloyd study shows that the average 100 year variation in temp over the last 8,000 years is about 1 C per century. Note the above examples of 0.5 C and 0.32 C per century above. Here’s the WFTs HAD 4 temp trend since 1850. HAD 4 is used by IPCC.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/trend

    61

  • #
    Neville

    Nobody on the planet believes in NATURAL climate change more than I do, because nearly all the PR studies attest to it. I even concede that there might be some AGW since 1950 although it is difficult to find in the data.
    I think Roy Spencer is correct when he says that ocean oscillations like the PDO, clouds, UHIE etc have a lot to do with changes in temp and climate.
    Here’s the PR Concordia Uni study link showing just 0.7C warming since 1800. See page 6 for OZ presumed to be blamed for 0.006 C of that warming over the last 216 years. Their total blame for warming is a little over 0.3 C per century. Just dreadful isn’t it?

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/1/014010/pdf;jse ssionid=7452CF9C7135E5CE0070EEEF21762EF7.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

    Here’s one of the longest PR instrument studies from Greenland that shows most of the warming is not forced by AGW. Note too that Briffa and Phil Jones are part of this study.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-deb ate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/#more-18

    50

  • #
    bobl

    When any alarmist trots out the old “The oceans ate my global warming excuse” I say, well it’s all over for global warming then, a 1 degree atmospheric temperature rise translates to less than a 10^-4 degree rise in the ocean because of the difference in thermal capacity.

    Warmists seem to think that this energy once dissipated in the ocean as a 0.0001 degree water temperature rise can bound out as a 1 degree atmospheric rise in the future. Nonsense, once lost to entropy it is gone, at best a 0.0001 degree water temperature rise can contribute a 0.0001 degree atmospheric temperature rise and ONLY WHEN the ocean temperature is greater than the air temperature – which means in winter and at night (tempering minimums by 0.0001 degree)

    Might as well call the emergency off if the heat goes into the ocean. The stored heating capacity is at least 1/10000th that of the atmospheric temperature that stored it.

    Some REAL SCIENCE:
    For the warmists among the audience, here is a real science experiment for you.

    Get a 10 litre (2.5 Gal) bucket of cold water measure its temperature. Take a cup of hot water from the kettle(Calculate delta T by Subtracting the cold water temp from the hot water temp). Add the cup of hot water to the cold water wait just 5 minutes and measure it’s temperature again in different places. Calculate the delta T by subtracting the new bucket temp from the old.

    *Tell me, what is the delta T of the heat source (cup) VS the bucket?
    *How much does that influence the bucket temperature when added to the bucket?
    *How does the temperature vary around the bucket?

    Now, big prize for the winner, tell me, without using any further heating inputs, tell me how you can recover the cup of hot water from the water in the bucket?

    This is effectively what the Ocean Storage believers think can happen. That the cup of boiling water can be spontaneously recovered from the bucket of now mildly warmer water.

    Heat goes into the ocean = Global warming is a myth

    140

  • #
    Neville

    Here is the abstract of the Lloyd study.

    AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF
    GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
    Philip J. Lloyd
    Energy Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town
    P.O.Box 652 Cape Town 8000 lloydp@cput.ac.za
    ABSTRACT
    There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global
    temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the
    magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a
    century. To address this question, 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 ± 0.27 oC.
    This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the
    20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood
    that the major portion was due to natural variations.
    Keywords: Global temperatures, natural variation, ice core, Holocene.

    40

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    “… how we need to design some cities.

    At this time there are a considerable number of cities and, it is reported, there are a number of recently designed cities (ghost cities) in China.
    Most cities are in the process of continuing (mostly) with what they are. For example, Seattle is digging a tunnel to replace a damaged overhead highway. So, the city becomes a bit nicer in the process but not much will have changed (if it is ever finished).
    Dreamers can design all they want but not much will change because existing cities are not going away. Okay, maybe New Orleans.
    The phrase “hardening of the arteries” was used many years ago to describe the change from village, to town, to city (think concrete, steel, and property ownership). Much of the world’s urban landscape will grow, adapt, and change very slowly.

    40

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    “… how we need to design some cities.

    At this time there are a considerable number of cities and, it is reported, there are a number of recently designed cities (ghost cities) in China.
    Most cities are in the process of continuing (mostly) with what they are. For example, Seattle is digging a tunnel to replace a damaged overhead highway. So, the city becomes a bit nicer in the process but not much will have changed (if it is ever finished). Most such changes lock in current patterns.
    Dreamers can design all they want but not much will change because existing cities are not going away. Okay, maybe New Orleans.
    The phrase “hardening of the arteries” was used many years ago to describe the change from village, to town, to city (think concrete, steel, and property ownership). Much of the world’s urban landscape will grow, adapt, and change very slowly.

    30

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    My wife and I have just returned from six glorious weeks in Europe, mainly Provence.

    When we left the Blue Mountains in June the minimum overnight temperature was about 2C. When we returned last week we have been exposed to minus 2C. In between we were exposed to a range of 16C to 33C daily (hard to take

    70

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Whoops! Don’t know what happened to the rest of that post. What I wrote was -

      - (hard to take, but a 12 metre swimming pool in the villa garden helped) and we have worked in 40+C in Chenai – not pleasant but doable. Humans can cope with a huge range of temperatures and the availability of cheap, plentiful power from coal or oil fired power stations will allow everybody to cope with the extremes.

      This “research” is just so much nonsense and an absolute waste of time and (taxpayers’) money.

      30

  • #
    RexAlan

    ” 2016 so far is about 1.5 degrees Celsius ( 2.7 degrees) warmer than pre-industrial times.” Thankfully; and that’s if were true. Who in their right minds would want to live in the cold climate of the pre-industrial era.

    I know it only supposed to be summer in Scotland and that’s only weather anyway, but my niece who lives in Glasgow has been visiting her sister in Barcelona an awful this year. It’s apparently been an absolutely abysmal summer so far.

    60

  • #
    RexAlan

    Sorry, an awful lot this year.

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    The mass/gravity/pressure theory is good to go and CO2 has no part to play.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/jupiters-giant-red-spot-is-red-hot.html

    All the planets with atmosphere in our system tell the same story.

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Here is Phil Jones’s 2010 interview with the BBC after the Climategate email revelations. In this Q&A he listed the 3 warming periods since 1850 and added the 1975 to 2009 period as well. You’ll note that all the warming trends are within 0.01 C or no stat significant difference at all. That’s one hundredth of one degree C.

    So where is the impact after 1950? Below I’ve shown all of Jones’s HAD 4 trends and added the 1998 to 2016 trend as well. Here is Phil Jones’s ( head scientist) link and the WFTs data. Note the 1998 to 2016 trend is much lower.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/h adcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1998/tr end/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2016/trend

    40

  • #
    Ross

    Slightly O/T but Tony Heller ( aka Steve Goddard)has produced a list of “talking points” for Donald Trump to counter the Democrats climate change push. All his points are made using US Govt. data.
    I hope Trump reads it.

    http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/climate-talking-points-for-trump/

    100

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Thanks Ross – great post. I have saved it because it is provides great talking points for any conversation with the warmistas.

      30

  • #
    Neville

    In this video Lomborg explains why AGW should come last on a list of the world’s biggest problems. It is simply a bloody awful investment and we can make SFA difference to temp or climate etc by 2100. See 6 minutes 10 secs on video. Since this video he has looked at Paris COP 21 and found that these donkeys hope to waste 100 trillion $ by 2100 for PERHAPS 0.05 C to 0,17 C drop in temp.
    IOW NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE OVER THE NEXT 84 YEARS.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

    60

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Press Release:

    “At present, the climate is out of equilibrium, with the oceans drawing down very large amounts of heat from the atmosphere.”

    Heh. Yes Jo, was it ever “in” equilibrium?

    The TOA imbalance was only 0.6 W.m-2 in the last IPCC AR5 report, and trendless. Meanwhile total theoretical effective radiative forcing (ERF) was reported to be 2.33 W.m-2. Theory is 4 times actual.

    And “the oceans drawing down very large amounts of heat from the atmosphere” is mere speculation. It is also attribution-by-speculation in IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution.

    In Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean they found no evidence of this.

    Their earth’s energy budget in Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere which was Stephens et al (2012) has no net enrgy flux DOWN except solar. Net longwave infrared is a COOLING flux from the surface )-52.4 W.m-2) i.e. heat from the ocean transferred UP.

    BTW Jo, I can’t find the link to the Press Release (different to the paper link). “This press release” is not hotlinked. The URL is here:

    Press Release
    http://www.ceh.ac.uk/press/high-chance-current-atmospheric-greenhouse-concentrations-commit-warmings-greater-15-°c-over

    20

  • #
    thingodonta

    A note about equilibrium calculations with regards to climate papers.

    I had a good look at this a few years ago, and my conclusion was as follows:

    They don’t have all the parameters required to make the calculations, so they insert modelled numbers into equilibrium calculations using IPCC estimates. However, the modelled numbers from the IPCC are derived from assumed parameters from the models themselves, meaning the parametres, models and equations are circular.

    Other researchers then take these modelled numbers and write external papers on them. But nowhere is it ever stated that the parameters are assumed from outputs from models, that they are estimated, and not calculated, and that the models are not working properly in any case.

    So to come up with a statement that the ‘climate is not in equilibrium’, requires taking modelled parameters assuming disequilibrium conditions from one source, doing the calculations, and then saying wella, see, we have done the calculations and we have disequilibrium.

    40

  • #
    pat

    researching CAGW this week, I got the impression the number of studies being published is decreasing.
    however, there was this:

    29 Jul: Bloomberg: Amrith Ramkumar: Zombie Carbon Emissions Haunt the Planet
    Decomposing trees release a huge volume of lagging CO2, killing species and hobbling efforts to fight global warming.
    “No one has ever accounted for this time lag between habitat destruction and the species getting extinct,” said Isabel Rosa, one of the authors of the study and a researcher at the Imperial College of London. “That’s what we aimed for with this study, to understand not only how many species have we lost already as a result of habitat destruction, but also how many more have we committed to extinction due to those fast changes in forest cover.”…
    As trees, which keep temperatures cooler, die, tropical areas will get even warmer and come to resemble a different climate, said Jeff Horowitz, the founder of the nonprofit Avoided Deforestation Partners.
    “The report is incredibly interesting to those of us trying to stop deforestation,” Horowitz said. “It pretty much says things are not just bad, they’re worse than what we thought.”…
    Rosa and the other researchers used a model that took into account how land use changed over time to measure the losses due to tropical deforestation…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/zombie-carbon-emissions-haunt-the-planet

    Current Biology: The Environmental Legacy of Modern Tropical Deforestation
    Open Access
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.06.013
    Open access funded by European Research Council
    Acknowledgements: This article is a contribution to Imperial College’s Grand Challenges in Ecosystems and the Environment initiative. I.M.D.R. and R.M.E. were supported by European Research Council project number 281986. We thank three anonymous reviewers who provided important feedback on our research and Dr. David Orme for helping to produce the final figures.
    Published: July 28, 2016.
    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30625-X

    20

  • #
    Robber

    “warming rates over land are far higher than those when averaged globally which include temperatures over the oceans”.
    I have a new trite finding nomination for them to add to their paper: Cooling rates over land are far higher then those when averaged globally which include temperatures over oceans.
    And I have proof, having just flown from 36 degrees in Shanghai to 10 degrees in Melbourne. Sea temperatures off China about 28 degrees, off Melbourne about 14 degrees.

    60

  • #
    pat

    not sure this has been posted here either:

    29 Jul: ABC: Stephanie Small: Earth’s ability to absorb CO2 reduced by global warming, arctic study finds
    CSIRO researchers extracted ice bubbles in pre-industrial polar ice to measure the planet’s sensitivity to changes in temperature.
    They found that for every degree Celsius of global temperature rise, the equivalent of 20 parts per million less CO2 is stored by the land biosphere.
    CSIRO principle research scientist Dr David Etheridge said the research confirmed the relationship for the first time and revealed how it impacted the cycles of carbon between land, ocean, and the atmosphere…
    The finding is a result of a collaboration between CSIRO, the Seconda Universita di Napoli, University of Melbourne, British Antarctic Survey, University of East Anglia, Australian Antarctic Division, University of Tasmania, and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-29/global-warming-reduces-earth-co2-absorption-arctic-study/7673032

    26 Jul: British Antarctic Survey: Polar ice reveals secrets of carbon-climate feedbacks
    In a paper published this week in Nature Geoscience the researchers have verified and quantified the relationship for the first time and shown how it impacts the cycles of carbon between land, ocean and the atmosphere. Up until now, this relationship has been assumed…
    https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/polar-ice-reveals-secrets-of-carbon-climate-feedbacks/

    plus this is worth a read:

    30 Jul: ABC: Consumers warned after complaints surge against solar companies
    By Sarah Jaensch and consumer affairs reporter Amy Bainbridge
    Consumers are being warned about signing up to expensive solar power systems after a surge in complaints about shonky solar companies and unscrupulous sales methods.
    In December last year Peter Georgopolous signed up for a $13,800 solar system on the roof of his Greenvale home after a sales representative from Ires Asia Pacific promised he would never pay for electricity again.
    Seven months on it is still not working…
    Each state has an energy and water ombudsman, but their scope does not include new energy businesses like solar so consumers must take the matter to court…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-30/surge-of-complaints-against-solar-companies/7666816

    40

  • #
    AndyG55

    “the air over land warms more than over water”

    And it COOLS more as well.

    Everybody knows that seaside towns have a less moderated climate.

    41

    • #
      AndyG55

      typo. and a bad one. !!! :-(

      Everybody knows that seaside towns have a MORE moderate climate.

      Penrith gets much warmer and much colder than Bondi.

      51

      • #
        el gordo

        Its generally around ten degrees cooler in the Central Tablelands than Sydney, height matters.

        20

        • #
          AndyG55

          Not just height.

          You generally get much larger diurnal swings slightly inland compared to right on the coast. I’m about 10km inland, at about 10m AHD, lower than many places right on the coastal cliffs, and we get hotter in summer, and colder in winter.

          30

          • #
            PeterPetrum

            We are at 1063m, at the top of the Blue Mountains. Despite the height (which can lead to about a 10degC difference to land areas at sea level) our temperatures in Summer are often above 30C while the coastal areas are in the mid 20′s. At the same time, Penrith (20m above sea level and about 70k from the coast) can be getting up to nearly 40C. But then at night our temperatures drop to about 10C (on a clear night) while the coast stays a balmy 18C.

            So what on earth are they talking about. These temperature differences are just the normal and based on geography.

            20

    • #
      RoHa

      Back when I was in school, in geography lessons we learned about land and sea breezes. These were, we learned, a result of the phenomenon of land heating and cooling more rapidly than the sea.
      And that was so long ago that we thought the main cause of Global Warming was the fiery breath of the dragons who filled up the blank parts of our maps.

      60

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘…a result of the phenomenon of land heating and cooling more rapidly than the sea.’

        This is clearly evident in Alice Springs, at 6pm it will be 20C and by 3am a chilly 4C.

        30

        • #
          Annie

          Oh yes! I remember the thick ice on our tent at dawn and wearing many layers of clothes to keep warm, then shedding them layer by layer as the day warmed up to the mid 20s. This was Alice Springs in August 1984.

          40

      • #
        toorightmate

        See, you wasted your time learning that rubbish.
        You should have been doing stimulating studies on gender equality and anti-bullying (safe schools).

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Safe schools? Gender equality? Ha!

          At the school I went to, gender equality meant that even the eleven year old girls had knuckledusters.

          They couldn’t hit hard, and they couldn’t hit high, but they could hit with precision.

          30

  • #
    handjive

    Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System

    PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.

    “Apparently it’s gigantic simply because it’s closer to us than any other star,” Kivens said.

    “Which would also account for why we feel this particular star’s heat during the day but are not warmed by the tiny blinking stars we see at night.”

    “The big star heats the earth, and the moon cools it—I get it,” he added.

    80

    • #
      James Murphy

      I don’t agree with these findings at all.

      If this star at the centre of our solar system could really heat things up, then the moon would have melted by now – even if it is made from a cheese with a particularly high melting point.

      30

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    I attended a graduation ceremony at Melbourne University last night for graduand lawyers, doctors amnd various health related areas of study including PhD’s.

    The opening speech was very informative and carried a direct warning about the potential for the vested interests of scientist, lawyers and other professionals to influence and even corrupt their work by deflecting their efforts from the objective and vigourous pursuit of the facts and the truth of matters towards mer self promotion, influence and social/professional advancement or power. This is a risk in all social organisations and networks from religious orders to politicians to the core professions.

    Promotional boosterism or alarmism was one dimension of such behaviour but covering up truths uncomfortable to the insiders was another aspect of the speech and numerous examples were given from the effects of radiation to mad cow disease.

    This disgustingly shallow, marketing driven papers eeems to me to be the epitomy of such risks given form.

    71

    • #
      Len

      The “doctors” you are probably referring to are double pass bachelor degree medical practitioners. The dentists and the vets are now calling their bachelor degree holders “doctors”. This is to go along with the Mercans (Americans). A medical practitioner recently told me he rang his dentist’s rooms. He asked to speak to the dentist and referred to the dentist as Frank.
      The receptionist said you mean Doctor ……. The medical practitioner said no I want to talk to Frank much to the horror of the dental receptionist. The Medical practitioner told me his father in law had studied and passed the Australian Doctor of Medicine degree which was quite an achievement and hard work. Now the word is that our universities are changing the bachelor degrees to doctorates. So what is going to replace the proper doctorates?
      In comparison, the Mercan tradition, their buck sergeant is equivalent to our lance corporal. I don’t think we will be calling our lance jacks “sergeant”.

      30

  • #
    pat

    the usual insanity from Yale/Geoge Mason:

    26 Jul: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: Global Warming, God and the “End Times”
    By Connie Roser-Renouf, Edward Maibach, Anthony Leiserowitz and Seth Rosenthal
    Some reject the evidence that humans are causing global warming because they believe God controls the climate. Others believe that global warming is evidence that the world will be ending soon, and that we don’t need to worry about global warming in light of the approaching apocalypse. To assess the level of acceptance of these beliefs among Americans, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,204 American adults in March, 2016…
    Funding Sources
    The research and report was funded by the 11th Hour Project, the Energy Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation.
    http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warming-god-end-times/

    29 Jul: National Center for Science Educaton (NCSE) : Glenn Branch: Polling climate change and God
    “One in seven Americans think it is definitely (7%) or probably (9%) true that ‘God controls the climate, therefore people can’t be causing global warming,” according to a July 26, 2016, note from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication…
    Those more likely to agree included evangelical and born-again Christians (30%), people who believe that Earth was created in six days, as described in the Bible (26%), Republicans (26%), and people who do not believe that humans evolved from earlier species (24%). Those least likely to agree included agnostics and atheists (1%), Democrats (9%), people who believe humans evolved from earlier species (9%), and those with a college education (11%).
    The data presented derive from a study conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication…
    https://ncse.com/news/2016/07/polling-climate-change-god-0018324

    20

    • #
      Len

      The length of a “day” was not established until the Sun was created on the so called third day. Genesis 1:16. Some commentators have said there could be billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and1:2.

      30

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Yale is also the center of “skull and bones” i.e. satanism,

      10

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    The max temperature here in Brisbane tomorrow is forecast to be 23C. I think I can handle that. If however, the full apocalyptic AGW forecast were to eventuate, I don’t know how we can deal with 24.5C. Can you imagine the horror? Should we sell up and move south? Perhaps I should hoard water?

    Any suggestions would be welcome.

    51

    • #
      TdeF

      Tomorrow you will have to deal with perhaps 6 increases of 1.5C, each more horrific than the last.

      40

  • #
  • #
    Just Thinkin'

    I learnt about this in Primary School in Queensland in the 50s.
    It was part of Social Studies.
    Heaven help our kids and grand-kids.
    They’ll get no help from the people who are
    supposed to help them.

    30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    30 Jul: ABC: Former Greens leader Bob Brown calls on Senator Lee Rhiannon to stand down
    By Matt Wordsworth and Myles Wearring
    Mr Brown blamed the poor vote for the NSW Greens at the last election on the “old guard”, and said it was time for fresh blood…
    Asked directly if he thought Senator Rhiannon should step aside, he said:
    “That would be my advice. I think we should have two senators in NSW, not one, and so I think when the change comes we’ll see more senators in NSW, not just a replacement.”…
    “I’ve been approached in the streets in Sydney by people saying, ‘I’m a Green but I’m not going to vote for the candidates you’ve put up here in Sydney.’ That’s not the feedback I get in Melbourne or elsewhere around the country. We need a change…
    “The result in NSW has been a long-term disappointment to me. That was the state which first registered the name Greens back at the start of the 80s, and it’s ostensibly or potentially the greatest Green field, if you like, in politics in Australia. But it lags right behind.”…
    Lee Rhiannon told 7.30 she would not resign…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-29/bob-brown-says-nsw-greens-old-guard-should-quit/7673340

    20

  • #
    Richard

    THIS is a job for:

    OBVIOUS-MAN!!

    10

  • #
    Rich

    I still do not understand why the “Government” wants to spend more to prevent something, that may not happen, than the actual cost of the damages.
    Whom in their right mind would spend $100,000 to repair a wrecked auto that only costs $50,000 brand new off of the show room floor? Why are we spending 10 times the potential costs of even the worst case CAGW outcome?

    60

  • #
    Garry

    Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but it is relevant to the idea of the atmosphere being in ‘equilibrium”.

    Carbon dating of organic materials relies somewhat on the assumption the atmospheric carbon isotopes such as C14 are in equilibrium, which enables the dating “clock” to be accurate enough to give reliable inferences about the age of the artifacts being tested. However, the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, and the C14:C12 ratio has been shown to be slowly increasing.

    This has the effect of giving dates that are older than reality. It requires adjustments based on the current consensus on ‘known ages’, and is important to support ideological anthropological hypotheses.

    With a changing proportion of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, there can be no equilibrium possible, either from a carbon isotope ratio or greenhouse temperature response. So, to make a big deal about some sort of temperature disequilibrium in the atmosphere is nonsense on many different levels.

    20

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Want real science?..if the experiment or EVIDENCE proves you wrong — you ARE wrong.
    “Global warming started long before the “Industrial Revolution” and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age– a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.”
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
    ““There is literally no significant correlation of temperature and CO2 over the Phanerozoic.“Temperatures seem to plateau with abrupt descents and recoveries that may or may not fall near changes in CO2 trends.“The present planetary state most closely resembles the later Permian – immediately prior to the largest extinction event in the geological record.”
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png – 7% CO2 levels. Of course theres no effect, theres NO GH effect!
    Also on another graph is was far hotter than today in the dinosaur times! probably they needed the extra heat being (possibly cold blooded).

    20

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    To make some balance it also holds that air over land cools faster than water.
    See how easy it was to remove the alarm.

    30