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

Pause-deniers finally get busted by mainstream media

It’s been a rotten week for Pause denial

David Rose and the Daily Mail let rip, telling the world that retired NOAA insider, John Bates, was blowing the whistle on how global warming was being exaggerated by scientists to score political points. The hallowed pause-buster paper (Karl et al) broke practically every rule: it was based on misleading “unverified” data processed with a highly experimental, unstable program.  There were bugs in the software, the results changed with every run, the data wasn’t archived, and no one could repeat it. They tripled the previous rate of warming by using old-bad-data to adjust better but still-not-very-good-data. They ignored the much better data from ARGO buoys and the satellites (see below) which showed they were wrong. (Rose didn’t even mention that the error bars on the magical adjustment were 17 times larger than the adjustment itself. Too many errors….)

It’s hard oo believe it could be worse, but then the one sole computer holding the program broke, and apparently (what bad luck) none of the eight authors had their own copy either. Nor did the reviewers. The Planet is going to hell, but no one thought to back up the data.

It all got a bit much for Dr Bates when he heard melodramatic news reports that a few triggered scientists feared Trump might trash their climate data.

The NOAA scientists have nothing to hide (especially not data since it’s gone) but when the subpoenas came for their emails, they refused to hand them over.

Then on Sunday Rose fired out part II: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth.

The man deserves a medal. (Both men Rose and Bates).

NOAA told Obama and Congress that there was no pause in warming. If only Congress had access to Google…  they could have downloaded the satellite data:

Trend, Global temperatures, Satellite, graph, pause, 2000-2015, Karl et al, pausebuster.

Graph thanks to Dr David Evans

The black line of best fit is for the same period, and shows a warming trend that is essentially zero (0.01 C per decade). That is, satellites say it didn’t warm from 2000 to 2014 — the exact same period that the NOAA team refer too.

Yet here is the graph that NOAA presented to Obama and Congress, saying “the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century.” Sure.

Karl et al, Global Temperature, Pause, 2017, Graph.

For the record, there are two independent satellite sets, but the UAH data matches weather balloons better than RSS, and the RSS adjustments includes a likely calibration drift error that probably causes spurious warming. (And if Roy Spencer’s site doesn’t behave, there’s a copy of all his reasoning here).

I’m guessing NOAA knows what the satellite data shows.

Here’s the ARGO data, Hadley, GISS and UAH:

Hadley, ARGO, datasets, The Global temperatures Pause, Karl et al.

….

The Pause shows the models don’t understand what drives the climate

If you can’t explain the pause, you can’t explain the cause.

– Hockeyschtick

Even if the rate of warming was the same in the 1950s as the 2000s, it wasn’t supposed to be. CO2 emissions have risen more than expected, and all the predictions missed the side of the barn totally. Let’s not forget how abject their failure was in the first assessment report in 1990, the IPCC predicted an average rate of global warming of 0.30 C per decade over the ensuing decades. Their lowest possible estimate was 0.2C and yet we didn’t even get to that. (See also here.)

For the record — the full satellite temperature series shows the world warmed. It doesn’t show that this had anything to do with CO2. The timing is all wrong, the correlation pathetic. The more CO2 we emit, the slower the warming.

REFERENCE

T.R. Karl; A. Arguez; B. Huang; J.H. Lawrimore; M.J. Menne; T.C. Peterson; R.S. Vose; H.-M. Zhang  (2015) “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” by at National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC; J.R. McMahon at LMI in McLean, VA.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (132 votes cast)
Pause-deniers finally get busted by mainstream media, 9.3 out of 10 based on 132 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jldb3yj

200 comments to Pause-deniers finally get busted by mainstream media

  • #

    Even if the rate of warming was the same in the 1950s as the 2000s, it wasn’t supposed to be. CO2 emissions have risen more than expected, and all the predictions missed the side of the barn totally. Let’s not forget how abject their failure was in the first assessment report in 1990, the IPCC predicted an average rate of global warming of 0.30 C per decade over the ensuing decades. Their lowest possible estimate was 0.2C and yet we didn’t even get to that. (See also here.)

    This is what warmist bigots ignore over and over. Even the so called pause buster paper fails to get above the low end of the .20C per decade warming trend.

    They have been wrong now for decades now,yet persist on continuing the delusion. The AGW conjecture is a long dead idea,that needs a deep burial.

    786

  • #

    From Tallbloke Talkshop , is a claim that the newest ERSSTv5,doesn’t appear to support Dr. Karl’s paper:

    It is an interesting paper that claims that ERSSTv5 shows a lower rate of warming than the previous ERSSTv4 which was used by the now famous Karl et al paper in 2015 which claimed that — contrary to the IPCC — there had been no slowdown in the rate of temperature increase in the past 15 years or so – the so-called Pause.

    The data set in the above link, has been published showing the drop.

    194

  • #
    Yonniestone

    For all those poor bastards in journalism that have had to stay silent on this warmist crap for career or financial reasons now is the time to launch a truth revolt against the UN hive mind consensus birthed straight from the Marxist playbook, the threat was created to never be solved.

    [This was found in moderation. I approved it as is. Please do not continue to argue "Marxist" because it's off topic unless Jo specifically mentions it and we don't like to see it.] AZ

    344

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yonnistone does have a point re: the Leftist thing, namely Saul Alynski had a saying “The issue isnt the issue” – what this translated to was creating an artifical issue as a “carrier wave” for inserting the real trojan horse, namely overthrowing democracy. The “issue” of the day was just a mechanism to move forward the larger agenda. Like Obama, Alynski’s speciality was “community organizer” what we’d call now a “leftist ratbag”.

      The problem is that you have trouble spearating the CAGW agenda from politics because it *is* a purely political beast…..

      Now the hope is that the pause has been shown to be true publically, we need to keep it on the boil so the lamestream media dont bury it….

      252

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        I agree, Yonniestone and OriginalSteve. The “issues isn’t the issue” but a distraction for inserting the “real trojan horse,” overthrowing democracy.

        185

      • #
        Annie

        Surely the Trojan horse was visible and itself was used to hide the soldiers from view, so ‘the issue du jour’ IS the Trojan horse.

        30

  • #
    Gary H

    Even Michael Mann, et. al, took a stand against Karl and comrades.

    tid-bits from the report:

    It has been claimed that the early-2000′s global warming slowdown, or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been understated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

    Our results support previous findings of a reduced rate of surface warming over the 2001-2014 period — a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively constant rate.

    Although satellite TLT datasets also have important uncertainties, they corroborate the slowdown of GMST increase and provide independent evidence that the slowdown is a real phenomenon.

    Here: Making sense of the early-2000′s warming slowdown.

    91

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Of course, none of this will find its way into the broadcasts of the ABC and the BBC, where the scary tales on climate are hard fact and hard fact is treated as sceptic ranting.

    Most of us have known of the incredible manipulation of NASA/NOAA data, where it became routine to cool the past and warm the present with almost every ‘revision’ of the climate data. The name of NASA was once a hallowed one in science leading the world in space exploration, albeit with a monstrous expensive bureaucracy. Donald Trump is 100% right in saying that is what it needs to go back to doing and leave the climate stuff to a very much smaller group of independent real scientists, who are politically motivated by no one.

    It is long overdue for ‘climate science’ to rejoin the ranks of real science, where everything is open and available for verification.

    As for me, watching the Glodal Warming Gravy Train crash and burn will be one of the highlights of my life.

    524

    • #

      I know, the world is freezing over, except that the Arctic is unusually warm and ice continues its retreat and Greenland continues to melt.

      Also, lots of heat records tumbled on NSW over the last few days.

      This blog is real Alice in Wonderland stuff, LOL!

      [I don't want this showing up so early in the comments either. But Maxine, you're one of those who make this site into Alice in Wonderland. Without you and some others where would all the fun go? So have at it.] AZ

      451

      • #
        Robber

        Are you a cherrypicker Maxineq? We like to see evidence presented.

        173

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Also, lots of heat records tumbled on NSW over the last few days.’

        A few days of hot weather marks the high point of our Modern Climate Optimum, but its all over now.

        233

      • #
        Rick Will

        Maxine
        The Arctic temperature always varies widely. The ice insulates and the air is very dry:
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_1976.png
        Compared to the dramatic cooling in the oceans and cool winter over a large portion of the land in the northern hemisphere it is inconsequential.

        Also the stories that come out about reduced sea ice is highly selective. In reality the extent has hardly changed. Here is the actual sea ice data since records began:
        https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgVr59PXA_67TgnYA

        Greenland has by far the HIGHEST ever recorded ice accumulation this year:
        http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

        The record temperatures in NSW come about through the ACORN data base implemented by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology whereby the past temperatures have been adjusted downward through a process widely known as homogenisation. The raw temperature data is available so you can see actual trends. This is just one I selected at random:
        http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=065034&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
        But anyone can do this rather than rely on the adjusted data that the BoM offers. You can also find information on temperature records in old newspapers.

        Perth has just had its COLDEST February day ever recorded there:
        https://thewest.com.au/news/weather/perth-shivers-through-its-coldest-february-day-ng-b88382112z
        Variation is the nature of weather. Climate is fundamentally stable with a very slight underlying warming trend that has been apparent since the cold of the mid 1800s.

        The press does a fair job of making people aware of a topic but there is far too much opinion presented as fact and a great need too sensationalise to sell their story.

        344

      • #
        peter

        Maxine,
        Some local records were broken in rural towns that have had limited temp. records since, say 1970, but the heatwave (only 2-3 days, what happened to the BOM definition of 4-5 days, at least, at temp > 38oC?)still didn’t exceed the heatwave conditions in 1939 or 1896. So was there global warming in 1939 and 1896?

        I won’t go into your misconceptions about Arctic warming and Greenland melting. But I will warn you, people on this site know a lot about this subject and will tear you apart without mercy if you repeat alarmist newspaper headlines. :-(

        312

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘I won’t go into your misconceptions about Arctic warming and Greenland melting.’

          There is a rumour going about that Greenland has mass balance equilibrium, because of the unusual weather there’s been a buildup of snow.

          Max raises and awkward question, but I’m confident my colleagues have all the answers.

          https://sunshinehours.net/category/arctic-sea-ice/

          101

        • #
          el gordo

          To answer my own question, the heat transport from the Arctic is producing an increase in snow further south.

          Is this trend because of global warming or global cooling?

          https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/nhland_season4-2.gif

          52

          • #
            sophocles

            … The second half of the twentieth century has seen the Greenland ice sheet consistently growing, at least since 1942. The story of Glacier Girl shows the there was no melting, but ice cap accretion.

            “Our thoughts were that the tails would be sticking out of the snow,” Taylor says with a grin. “We’d sweep snow off the wings and shovel them out a little bit, crank the planes up, and fly them home. Of course, it didn’t happen.”


            In retrospect, it seems obvious that the airplanes would be buried under a good deal of ice. But no one was prepared for how much. “That year the tail wasn’t sticking out, so they were ten feet under,” Pat Epps says, recalling the team’s confidence. But they didn’t find them on their second visit to Greenland later that year, or their third, or their fourth.


            Still Epps, Taylor, and ever-growing group of volunteers remained undeterred. They continued to research the problem, and in 1988 arrived on the ice cap armed with two different sophisticated sub-surface radar systems and crews to operate them.

            The shifting ice had carried the airplanes about two miles from their original location. And a high-pressure steam probe revealed that they lay beneath 264 feet of solid ice.

            [Note: the quotes are from pages 3 and 4 of the article linked to above.]

            That 264 feet is almost 80m of ice. So, far from melting, the Greenland Ice Cap was very healthily growing. In the four or five years between locating the aircraft [1988] and bringing one of them to the surface [1991-1992], Greenland buried them 4 metres deeper.

            So, dear little Maxineq, you can forget your “Greenland continues to melt” mantra. It isn’t. It’s ice cap, even in these supposedly warming times, is not melting; it’s doing what respectable ice caps do and growing.

            That’s hard physical evidence, Maxineq, not supposition, not assumption, not interpretation from inaccurate and unvalidated computer models, but incontrovertible on-site actual measurement — 92m of ice over 50 years, almost but not quite, + 2 metres per year..

            Sounds like a healthy ice cap to me.

            91

      • #
        Hivemind

        Australia this week had exactly the same sorts of temperatures that it had in the ’80s and many other times. This week wasn’t even particularly bad for bushfires, or had you forgotten:

        VIC, 14 February 1926, Black Sunday (31 dead)

        Vic, 13 January 1939, Black Friday (71 dead)

        TAS, 7 Feb 1967 Black Tuesday (62 dead)

        SA, 16 February 1983, Ash Wednesday (47 dead in Vic and 28 dead in SA)

        VIC, 7-8 Feb 2009, Black Saturday (173 dead)

        124

        • #
          ian hilliar

          February 2017, one dog dead, thousands at risk!!!

          51

        • #
          ROM

          “BLACK THURSDAY” BUSHFIRES 1851

          One quarter of Victoria was burnt in this fire and the evidence of the fire is still visible apparently according to a research botanist on the bark of a very few of the grand old relatively fire resistant Bulokes trees found in western Victoria.
          The university botanist is in charge of an area of native forest which was donated by one of my farming brothers a few years ago to one of the low key genuine environmental groups for them to preserve into the future. It is adjacent to the Melbourne / Adelaide highway, a couple of kilometres on the Melbourne side of the turn off to Dimboola.

          [ I wonder if Maxineq or Frank or Silly Filly or Harry Twin trotters would ever donate $30,000 worth of good Wimmera farming land [ at current farming land prices now about $120,000 worth of land] from which the native timber had never been cleared to an environmental group under any circumstances.

          Thats the difference between those ignorant peasants out there in the”Bush” who don’t know anything of the real facts around climate and the environment and the concrete dwelling elitist latte sipping greens of the inner city who lecture everybody, particularly those ignorant “deplorables” in the”Bush” on the evils of CO2 and their “denying” of something that has only appeared in climate models and which the scientists are still arguing about and can’t agree on, then jump into their monstrous SUV’s, drive to the airport and fly to Europe for their holidays in jets that are emitting tonnes of CO2 every couple of minutes [ contemp+ ]]

          Bushfires were but one of many hardships faced by our pioneering ancestors. However the fires of 6 February 1851 were so extreme that they led this day to become known as “Black Thursday.” Thomas McCombie recorded the scene in Melbourne on that day:

          “For two months preceding, the country had been under the desiccating winds, which appeared to be highly charged with electricity. The herbage was parched up, and everything that the eye could rest upon was dry, dusty, and disagreeable.
          The 6th of February dawned much as very hot days generally do; the roseate tints of the horizon were rather brighter and more lurid than usual – the glassed glare over the sky more vividly perceptible. The north wind set strongly in early in the morning, and by eleven o’clock in the fore-noon it had increased to almost a hurricane.

          In the streets of Melbourne the heat was intense, and the atmosphere densely oppressive. Clouds of smoke and dust hung over the city.
          The fires which blazed in the surrounding country no doubt increased the suffocating sensation which was generally experienced. It was hardly possible to go abroad; the streets were nearly deserted; and a few of the persons who were compelled to make the effort to traverse them stalked along with their faces closely enveloped in cloth; no man, however bold, appeared able to face the furiously-suffocating blast, which seemed to wither up their physical energies.
          By noon, the inhabitants, generally, had shut themselves up in their various dwellings, too happy to have got out of the reach of the overpowering blast.
          They continued to sit until night listening in terror to the howl of this real sirocco.
          Had any portion of Melbourne ignited the whole of the city must have been reduced to ashes, as no effort of the inhabitants could have prevented the conflagration from extending and becoming general. The citizens were providentially preserved from so terrible a disaster.”

          In the early morning the atmosphere was perfectly scorching.
          The temperature at 11.00 am. was 117° F [ 47.2 C ]in the shade. At 1.00 pm. it had fallen to 109° F [ 42.7 C ] but by 4.00 pm. it was at 113° F. [ 45 C ]
          From Melbourne extensive bushfires could be seen to the northward, said by some to have an extent of 40 or 50 miles. In the evening, a cool breeze from the south came down, bringing in its train a light and refreshing rain.

          After the sun went down, a fearful glare was observed in the south-east – one might have believed it was from the numerous residences in the vicinity of the Botanic Gardens but it was from further afield – from the bush around Dandenong, the whole of that portion of the country being in flames.
          &
          At sea, the weather was even more fearful than on shore. Captain Reynolds reported that, when 20 miles from the Laurences, the heat was so intense, that every soul on board was struck almost powerless.
          A sort of whirlwind, on the afternoon, struck the vessel, and carried the topsail, lowered down on the cap, clean out of the bolt rope, and had he not been prepared for the shock, the vessel, he had no doubt, would have capsized. Flakes of fire were, at the time, flying thick all around the vessel from the shore in the direction of Portland.

          Yep! We have “record” temperatures the likes of which have not been known since the records were homogenised a couple of years ago for the BOM’s ACORN temperature data debacle.

          191

          • #
            Albert

            Thanks for your comment, I have read many records from the past and only those who ignore our history become victims of the alarmists. I was at Birdsville on Christmas day in the 1970′s when the official temperature got to 50c and most of the outback was in the mid 40′s
            How quickly some forget that in 1923-1924 Marble Bar in Western Australia set the world heatwave record of 160 continuous days above 100F.
            Alarmists today complain about 2 days above 90F

            111

        • #
          Greebo

          Of course, the thing to remember about those figures is that the number of people living in the areas that burned in 1939 was minuscule compared to 2009. The total area destroyed, however was vastly greater. The Black Friday disaster would have dwarfed the Black Saturday one if populations were comparable.

          20

      • #
        Mark M

        Two Russian icebreakers trapped in “heavy severe ice” until May or June

        “The Siberian Times calls it a “blow to Northern Sea Route.” 24 Jan 2017 – The vessels Kapitan Dranitsyn and Admiral Makarov are ‘marooned’ for the rest of the winter after getting trapped off Chukotka.The icebreakers and the two bulk carriers they were escorting became stuck about 24 miles from Pevek, Russia’s northernmost port, earlier this month.”
        https://www.iceagenow.info/two-russian-icebreakers-trapped-may-june/

        Perhaps MaxineQ can release sprinkle some carbon (sic) over those ice-breakers ’cause they sue look like they could use some of that ‘global warming’.

        211

      • #
        Mark M

        “… and Greenland continues to melt.”

        Vikings grew barley in Greenland

        “Researchers from the National Museum in Copenhagen say the answer to the question is ‘yes’.
        In a unique find, they uncovered very small pieces of charred grains of barley in a Viking rubbish heap on Greenland.”

        “The find is final proof that the first Vikings to live in Greenland did grow barley.”

        “The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today, and the southernmost tip of the great island was luscious and green and no doubt tempted Eric the Red and his followers.”

        http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
        . . .
        Thanks to mods for allowing MaxineQ’s comment.

        193

        • #
          ROM

          Despite all the posturing, posing, planet saving and etc by the alarmists re Greenland’s ice cap melting of which there is a lot of hand waving and not much hard evidence, we can go back a heck of a lot further in Greenland’s history and find that temperatures were probably much warmer in the near polar regions and the Arctic ocean than they are today.

          Back some 4400 years ago, around 2400 BC a Paleo Eskimo culture now called the Independence Culture 1 arose in the Independence Fjord in the far north east of greenland and only around 850 kilometres from the North Pole.
          The culture survived in the Independence Fjord until around 1000 BC .

          Around 600 years later a second Independence culture, the Independence 2 culture reappeared in the Independence Fjord which from the paleo evidence were the same peoples.
          This second phase of the Independence culture lasted in the Independence Fjord in far north eastern Greenland until around 60 BC before disappearing as the Dorset peoples arrived from the west out of Canada and Siberia .

          The furtherest north town in Greenland today is Quaanaaq , a town of around 660 people [ 77degrees 29 N ] which is located on Greenlands west coast, some 30 plus kilometers north of the Thule Air Force Base and about 1390 kilometres from the North Pole.

          [ Quaanaaq is not the furtherest north permanent settlement / town on the planet; that title is held by Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard and its 35 population at 78,degrees 55 north,]

          Quaanaaq today of course has a lot of the advantages of civilisation in housing, clothing energy and etc.

          And yet Quaanaaq is 1390 kilometers from the North Pole and is the furtherest north of any permanent settlement in Greenland today.

          The Independence cultures were only some 850 kilometeers from the Pole and yet the Independence 1 culture survived for some 1400 years in that far north Independence Fjord region.

          The Independence 2 culture survived in the same area for over 500 years before presumably being driven out of the area by the newly arrived Dorset peoples and becoming another lost culture.

          When we consider that today with all our technology and energy supplies that are needed to make surviving and living in these extremely harsh conditions tolerable enough for a small town to exist, we have to look at the highly likely proposition that the Polar areas, the Arctic ocean and North East Greenland were a lot warmer some 2000 to 4000 years ago than they are today.

          The only real world conclusion that can be drawn from the long term survival and prospering of these Independence cultures is that through out that long extended period it was warm enough around the Arctic ocean and North Pole regions in fact to enable the creation of a culture of a people who were able to live and survive, procreate, bring up families, make tools and boats and survive as peoples without any of the modern technologies to mitigate what today is an extremely hostile climate for some 1400 years in what is today, one of the most hostile environments on the planet abutting the Arctic ocean and only some 850 kilometres from the North Pole.

          30

      • #
      • #
        Dean

        NSW =/= global temperatures

        Unless you can explain how those temperatures fit into the AGW hypothesis you are just clutching at straws.

        62

      • #
        Rick Will

        Canada is using the current situation on their border to build a wall to prevent the hordes from the south moving into their territory:
        https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/f6/56/f9f656f5c562f6a4ab6617bf180b9197.jpg
        https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/5e/db/8f/5edb8f1d5ac96791793ce6b05e61cd69.jpg
        http://i1.wp.com/www.lifetimesentences.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/canadas-wall.jpg?fit=681%2C511
        It has only taken two months to build and cost a lot less than Trump’s wall.

        30

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Maxine,

        You really are completely out of touch with reality.

        Arctic is unusually warm and ice continues its retreat and Greenland continues to melt

        Reality is just a click away …

        82

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Maxine makes a very good point.

        The Maori even have a word for it – they call it “weather”.

        60

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          And before some pedant pulls me up on it, the actual Maori phrase is ahua o te rangi – “the appearance of the sky”. Very logical.

          There you go, Maxine. You may have learnt something today.

          80

          • #
            ROM

            AW! Come on Rereke!

            “the actual Maori phrase is ahua o te rangi – “the appearance of the sky”. Very logical.”

            There you go, Maxine. You may have learnt something today.

            Thats a bit of an oxymoron.

            “Learning” and “Maxine” do not appear to be compatible.

            11

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Speaking of Alice in Wonderland…..down the rabbit hole….

        Kool Aid has been sent out by the truckload…the fix is in….

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/energy-australia-boss-worried-about-power-bills/8267070

        “One of the country’s largest operators of coal-fired power stations has joined the chorus of big business, unions, welfare and environmental groups calling for an end to Canberra’s blame game over renewables.

        Key points:

        •Energy Australia takes out full-page newspaper advertisements calling for non-partisan push for clean energy

        •Says renewables may be more expensive now but cheap generators are old and will retire over next 20 years

        •Policy uncertainty makes it difficult for businesses to commit to new renewables projects

        Energy Australia took the unprecedented move of taking out a full-page advertisement in a national broadsheet declaring its support for a non-partisan push for clean energy.

        “I am worried about our customers and what will happen with their bills,” Energy Australia’s managing director Catherine Tanna told The Business.

        “We’ve seen that customers over the weekend in some places in Australia used 25 per cent more than usual.

        “In a couple of months when these bills turn up they are going to get a surprise and I am worried about that because I know that the cost of living is a concern for them.”

        The solution to high prices, she said, was a national plan to transition to the future of energy into renewables.

        Why was South Australia’s power shut off during the heatwave?

        We take a look at the process of load shedding and why it takes place.
        While renewables are more expensive now, Ms Tanna told The Business they were the better option in the long-term.

        “As at today, newer forms of energy are more expensive than some of the older forms of energy, but over the next 20 years those older, cheaper forms of energy are going to retire,” she said.”

        31

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Actually this bit troubles me – I read it as “hey renewables are cheap now, but when we shut down coal wait till you see what it will cost you then…assuming the sun is out of course…”

          I get an uneasy feeling like weve been stiched up on all sides.

          50

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Sorry…meant to incluse this bit…late afternoon slump…

          “While renewables are more expensive now, Ms Tanna told The Business they were the better option in the long-term.

          “As at today, newer forms of energy are more expensive than some of the older forms of energy, but over the next 20 years those older, cheaper forms of energy are going to retire,” she said.”

          I read this as “Super expensive unreliable renewables will be the norm in the future”

          There is a shell game going on, seems the energy industry is seriously brown nosing the govt….

          30

      • #
        AndyG55

        “This blog is real Alice in Wonderland stuff”

        Well stop taking those magic mushrooms you are obviously so fond of, Maxie.

        25

      • #
        Dave in the States

        The Arctic ice extent is recent years is not at all unprecedented.

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

        Some even called Dr. Christy a liar for stating the known fact that during WWII both Allied and Axis operated warships and merchant ships in Arctic seas normally locked up in pack ice during those months of the year.

        Nonetheless, Christy was absolutely correct in his assertions. In the first week of March 1942, the Royal Navy redirected a convoy of merchant ships to the west of Bear Island and operated warships in vicinity of Bear Island to counter a possible attack on the convoy by the German warships. Bear Island is normally encased in pack ice during the first week in March. Moreover, during these same operations the Royal Navy stationed warships to the west and east of Jan Mayen Island. Once again this was the first week in March, indicating the pack ice extent was significantly less than usual.

        The Soviets were operating convoys to the north of Novaya Zemlya during WWII. In summer months this normally could be possible, but in Autumn 1942 the Germans were forced to send warships to the north of Novaya Zemlya to lay mines to impede this traffic as late as late September. Laying mines makes no sense if these sea lanes were soon to be encased in ice as would be usual. Indeed, during the mine laying operation the German warships intercepted Soviet radio traffic that indicated that Soviet convoy ships were operating even farther north, still that late in the year.

        The Germans had plans to send the cruiser Luetzow into the Kara Sea during January 1943 to attack ongoing Soviet shipping. Usually the Kara Sea is locked up in pack ice during January.

        61

      • #
        AndyG55

        A graph of Greenland Total Ice Mass from 1900.

        Provide a corrected version if you think it is wrong, maxie.

        https://s19.postimg.org/vubfmdf8z/Greenland_ice_mass2.png

        64

      • #

        Maxie,

        Most of the Arctic is in deep freeze:

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/40578-1.png

        It was much colder a week earlier:

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/40605-1.png

        As usual you miss a lot of evidence.

        22

    • #
      Hasbeen

      Some of these people must have believed in global warming by CO2 in the early days. If not they would never have pushed for the satellites, or the ARGO buoys.

      I guess they must have been horrified when they first learnt how wrong they have been.

      If they had come clean then, we could have felt sorry for them, & wished them well. Now all I want is vengeance for the damage they have been prepared to do to everyone for purely selfish reasons.

      82

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        A lot of people were employed in manufacturing, and deploying, the satellites and the ARGO buoys, and doing other related “stuff”, once the whole party hit the road.

        If the original advocates had come clean, as soon as they realised that the hypothesis was not sound, then all of those people would have lost their livelihoods. Either way, the advocates for the scam, will forever be marked as pariahs.

        91

  • #
    Athlete

    Even if Karl testified under oath and admitted he used a trick to increase the trend in global temperatures the usual suspects would just say that “a trick is just a good way to deal with a problem”

    https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/28/i-only-show-the-series/

    202

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Obama and the congress at the time were (multiple choice):

    1. Scientific illiterates who can easily be bamboozled by fancy scientific looking words and graphs.

    2. Like the power that claims of pending catastrophe gives them so they enthusiastically go along without regard to the truth of the matter.

    3. In on the take so are willing to cooperate with the so called climate scientists.

    4. All of the above.

    Considering that politicians are politicians first, last, and always, what are our chances the R party will make a real difference compared to the D party?

    So far the R’s are long on pretty words and depend upon pragmatism to be effective. Pragmatism is not practical because it doesn’t know what works until tried. Even then, they hold, it may not work the next time. This means they think reality is arbitrary and capricious.

    That is not much different from the D’s who hold they that by changing the definitions of their words they they can force reality to go along with their plans.

    I feel a bit like Charley Brown getting ready to kick the football that Lucy is holding. Hoping that maybe this time, Lucy will hold the ball in place.

    Sadly, its the best chance we have.

    121

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    When you miss “the side of the barn totally” the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy becomes inappropriate.

    91

  • #
    johnbuk

    Hi Jo, what a telling comment, “The Planet is going to hell, but no one thought to back up the data”.

    150

    • #
      Harry Passfield

      That is the biggest ‘tell’ in the whole charade. Every professional systems analyst knows the importance of backups – so the conspiracy theorist inside me says they did it on purpose, after all, has anyone ever seen all Mann’s data/code, or Lew’s or John Cook’s? Now we can add Karl’s to the list.

      223

    • #
      AndyG55

      And none of the other co-authors of the Karl paper had code or data.

      That means they NEVER vetted it.

      A truly anti-science situation when the co-authors have no idea what actually went into the paper.

      144

  • #
    Don B

    Matt Ridley’s [London] Times column on the revelations of problems with the global surface temperature record at NOAA:

    Back in December, some American scientists began copying government climate data onto independent servers in what press reports described as an attempt to safeguard it from political interference by the Trump administration. There is to be a March for Science in April whose organisers say: “It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.”

    Well, today they have a chance to do just that, but against their own colleagues who stand accused of doing what they claim the Trump team has done. Devastating new testimony from John Bates, a whistleblowing senior scientist at America’s main climate agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, alleges that scientists themselves have been indulging in alternative facts, fake news and policy-based evidence.

    Dr Bates’s essay on the Climate Etc. website (and David Rose’s story in The Mail on Sunday) documents allegations of scientific misconduct as serious as that of the anti-vaccine campaign of Andrew Wakefield. Dr Bates’s boss, Tom Karl, a close ally of President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, published a paper in 2015, deliberately timed to influence the Paris climate jamboree. The paper was widely hailed in the media as disproving the politically inconvenient 18-year pause in global warming, whose existence had been conceded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) two years earlier.

    Dr Bates says Mr Karl based the “pausebuster” paper on a flawed land-surface data set that had not been verified or properly archived; and on a sea-surface set that corrected reliable data from buoys with unreliable data from ship intakes, which resulted in a slightly enhanced warming trend. Science magazine is considering retracting the paper. A key congressional committee says the allegations confirm some of its suspicions.

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/noaas-pausebuster-study/

    151

  • #
    Don B

    “One of the points raised concerned a paper submitted to the Journal of Climate by Huang et al. It is about the new ERSSTv5 sea surface temperature dataset. It is an interesting paper that claims that ERSSTv5 shows a lower rate of warming than the previous ERSSTv4 which was used by the now famous Karl et al paper in 2015 which claimed that — contrary to the IPCC — there had been no slowdown in the rate of temperature increase in the past 15 years or so – the so-called Pause.”

    http://www.thegwpf.com/data-deflection-and-the-pause/

    71

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    … global warming was being exaggerated by scientists to score political points.

    Now will the truth get recognized in the right places or will it be dismissed with some flimsy excuse to rationalize it away?

    I think the latter is the way it will go, just based on history. :-(

    60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And will Donald Trump stick to his original position about climate change or will he waffle under pressure? Much will depend on the president’s making a sound case, one that isn’t political bluster but good science. And trump by himself hasn’t shown me that he understands enough science to do it, so it will depend on his EPA head and national science advisor.

      80

    • #
      Dennis

      The hacked emails released before Copenhagen Conference exposed the political points scoring, lies and deception, but somehow was quickly buried.

      90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      A boat that makes waves, does not travel as fast as one that does not. If Trump really wants to make a mark, then he will curtail Government spending on climate change research, and related technologies, but make no grand gestures.

      The secret is to get the job done, whilst not giving your opposition any ammunition to fire back at you.

      30

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    On my system the image Deny this … does not animate unless clicked.

    Click to see animation

    30

  • #
    CheshireRed

    Given the UK MO have agreed the Pause is still with us what does that say about the half-life of CO2, which some advocates claim is ‘up to 100 years’. Surely the Pause has busted that theory stone-cold dead, as the past century’s-worth of human CO2 has had precisely no worthwhile impact on atmospheric temps’ these past 18-20 years or so. Yet another massive AGW theory fail.

    112

  • #
    Frank

    It would really mean something if the Pause Deniers got busted by science.
    Instead, the headline currently is ‘ Pausers have no evidence, resort to appeals to public’

    [I would really rather not have this show up so early in the comments. But let's see what readers think. I like fireworks.] AZ

    420

    • #

      AZ. Let me get this clear. Is it now an unwritten policy that posts disagreeing with the premise of the blog in question must;

      a) appear down the page a certain distance in comments or after a certain number of agreeing comments
      b) adhere to a higher standard of evidence and civility than comments that agree with the main post
      c) moderators must issue an apology to the readers for letting dissenting views through moderation

      [No. It's not a policy at all, as you well know, because your own comments get posted anywhere and very quickly. It’s unfortunate phrasing. We post critics at the top at #1 if they get there with a relevant comment and we chop skeptics at the top too. I just moved a whole batch at #1.1.1 up this very thread as it was OT. Frank issues inflammatory baiting comments with no substantiation, no links, no refs. Most bloggers would block him/it entirely as not being here for an honest discussion. — Jo

      812

      • #
        peter

        Gee, from personal experience trying to post onto warmist blog sites;

        a) post will not appear on their page if they realise you’re a climate skeptic.
        b) only evidence that supports climate change theory is accepted
        c) moderators will ban you from the site if you have posted and the regular trolls get upset about what you have posted.

        182

        • #

          great I should change my criteria

          a) appear down the page a certain distance in comments or after a certain number of agreeing comments
          b) adhere to a higher standard of evidence and civility than comments that agree with the main post
          c) moderators must issue an apology to the readers for letting dissenting views through moderation
          d) petulantly apply unfair rules seen on other blogs when we feel like it as we are no better than them and because that is the way Peter does things

          [Define Petulant: Someone who writes 3,568 comments without getting moderated but uses one off hard remark to infer a policy he knows is not the case. - Jo]

          73

          • #
            peter

            Gee is the only one who is petulant. What a response. You’re allowed to post here with repetitively negative comments that would be banned on many other blogs. Give us a break.

            112

            • #

              Is that meant to be a point? Are you repeating your desire for d) for some reason that is not apparent?

              210

              • #
                Bulldust

                General rules I apply to myself using common sense:

                1) Observe topic of OP blog post.
                2) If on topic find a comment similar to the topic I wish to discuss and tack on there regardless of where it is in the list.
                3) If it is on topic and important, such as an update to the story, I will tack it to post #1 for visibility.
                4) If not in discussion or off topic I will attach at bottom, with “O/Topic” at start if that is the case.

                I dunno… common sense stuff. I raised the query at the top of this post because Mr Manuel (sceptic BTW) keeps going wildly off topic and pegging to post number one, which I think is a tad off. Apparently the mods thought so as well. There’s a chance nothing would have happened had I not commented, but I am glad they did (from my perspective) for the reasons stated above.

                Nothing destroys a decent blog like random off topic thread bombing.

                80

          • #
            AndyG55

            “c) moderators must issue an apology to the readers for letting ARRANT NONSENSE through moderation

            They should apologise for all your posts, Gee.

            104

          • #

            Jo… Peter was petulant and I was jokingly adding d) to include his reasoning. I never said that the moderators of this blog were

            00

      • #
        Raven

        C’mon, Gee Aye,

        Frank’s post appeared didn’t it?
        Frank has form and m0derators are just doing their (unpaid) job.

        71

        • #

          agree Raven they do a good job and they do it without pay. I appreciate them and encourage them to keep at it. I was critiquing the “unwritten policy” that appears to be guiding them

          [And on a lot of other blogs, meta-conversation such as this would not be permitted. But here, the Mods have have some latitude, as long as the conversation remains civil. Makes it easier for everyone. - Fly]

          64

          • #
            AndyG55

            Let me ask, if an loathsome visitor came to your place and started smearing dog-doo on your sofa… (a literal equivalent of Fronk’s attitude and behaviour)

            What would you do, Gee?

            32

        • #
          Raven

          Yeah, OK Gee Aye,

          I reckon the “unwritten policy” is usually described as m0derator discretion.
          There’s no actual law against dropping a clanger in an elevator, either.

          It’s also about decorum and how to handle Sh*t Posting.
          I don’t think it’s beyond reason to expect posters to respect that they’re provided with a free forum to express their thoughts.

          And it happens both ways, too.
          Pat regularly posts news from around the globe. He’s also conscious that his posts are better placed down the bottom of a page. If strict guidelines were to be observed, his posts would technically be off topic. That’s been discussed also.

          There’s an element of respect for others in all this too.
          Frank’s relentless inability/unwillingness/failure to make a constructive post probably also has a bearing . . together with a couple of others who do the same.
          In that sense, I reckon he is treated ‘appropriately’.
          If he attempted to make a reasonable point occasionally, I reckon all these issues would evaporate and you’d have more of a case.

          41

      • #

        sounds like you are supporting b) Jo

        25

      • #
        Frank

        Jo,

        I keep “boring” you with repeated requests for explanations why you can’t get your alternative evidence through any serious scientific evaluation. Forget the media, Mal Roberts or any other scientifically illiterate source you uphold. Get back on topic, leave your circle of backslappers and play scientist with the real world please.

        [See? Proves my point. Unsubstantiated bluster. No scientific evidence. No argument. Just the fallacy of "authority" mixed with delusional or faked condescension. - Jo]

        414

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Get back on topic,”

          Quite frankly, Fronk, I’m pretty sure that you neither know or care what the actual topic is, let alone have the slightest idea of any science related to anything.

          51

      • #
        Dean

        Gee, it could be like the warmist blogs where any comment which questions things is moderated out.

        81

    • #
      tom0mason

      “The slowdown hasn’t gone away.” –Peter Stott (Met Office), The Sunday Times, 12 February 2017

      100

      • #
        sophocles

        Tom0Mason:
        [ O/T for this post but interesting.]

        I came across this interesting snippet of information/speculation on Tallbloke’s Talkshop. Dansgaard’s discovery of a 178-184 year cycle he attributed to Solar influence on this planet’s climate, through his late 1960′s Camp Century Greenland ice core analysis, is discussed here. It seems to be right on the money.

        Enjoy.

        50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Plenty of evidence for TWO pauses, one either side of the 1998 El Nino.

      … you need to get the tilt out of your neck to see them, Fronk.

      75

    • #

      Frank,

      does this mean you have no objection to Jo’s post?

      You didn’t dispute anything she wrote…..

      53

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Another check of the Pause is the Rutgers Snow Lab dataset:

    NH snow area anomalies graph

    It is pretty obvious there’s been no trend up or down since the mid 1990s. Snow doesn’t lie. It melts when it is warm and doesn’t when it is cold. If there is ever a graph which is completely damning of NOAA and GISS this is it.

    141

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    When do the criminal prosecutions start?

    101

    • #

      Yes, that’s the proper question (and, to me, reminiscent of Cleavon Little’s character in “Blazing Saddles”, trying to lure the bad guys into the bushes with “Where are all the white women at?”)

      Where are all the criminal prosecutions at?! I am ready for that.

      82

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      criminal prosecutions
      I don’t expect any. What’s the crime?
      My cousin says “Not everyone makes chocolate pie the way we do.”
      If it cooled in the ’70s, is it a crime to write about it?
      If it warmed in the ’80s, is it a crime to write about it?
      If adjusting raw measurements is botched, is that a crime?
      Is being stupid a crime?

      Someone on every climate post comes up with this criminal issue. It is not going to happen. Let it go. Make popcorn. Drink a beer.

      60

  • #
    Neville

    Can Jo or David or anyone else help me with this problem? In 2010 Phil Jones had an interview Q&A with the BBC and listed the warming trends from 1850 to 2009. This during their Climategate fiasco.
    First trend was 1860 to 1880 0.163 c/ decade
    Second trend was 1910 to1940 0.150c
    Third trend was 1975 to 1998 0.166 c
    Fourth trend was 1975 to 2009 0.161 c.

    But now using the York uni tool the trends are——-

    1860 to 1880 0.113 c/dec
    1910 to 1940 0.129 c/dec
    1975 to 1998 0.172 c/dec
    1975 to 2009 0.188 c/dec

    Why have the two earlier trends dropped and particularly the first trend 1860 to 1880 has dropped from 0.163 c to 0.113c ?
    I’m using HAD 4 L&O, but there is a global HAD 4 Krig and that shows a higher trend for 1860 to 1880 of 0.167 c.
    Just for interest I checked the trend from 1910 to 1945 and found it to be 0.140 c/dec or higher than Jones’s second trend is now. BTW HAD 4 global Krig was 0.151 c/ dec for 1910 to 1945. What is going on?
    I just wish Jo, David or somebody would write a summary of the temp since 1850 or 1880 and of course since Dec 1978 as well? But just for now will someone give me an answer to Jones’s HAD temp warming trends since 1850?

    Here’s Jones’s 2010 BBC Q&A link.

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

    And here is the York Uni data-base tool. Note that Cowton etc allowed RSS V4 TTT but not UAH V6, but only UAH V 5.6. Of course RSS V 3.3 TLT included.

    http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

    91

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Very interesting….but not funny.

      10

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      The Met Office got a new supercomputer, costing £97m and weighing 140 tonnes.
      See:
      http://master-your-computer.com/images/AbacusChineseModern.jpg

      It is more accurate than the old one that looked like a washing machine and ran on wind energy.

      51

    • #
      ROM

      Neville, You are way, way out in front of myself on the technical matters..

      But one item that Bates mentions which really caught my attention was his references to the algorithm used by the NOAA to adjust the temperatures for UHI and changes in location and etc and perhaps homogenise temperatures as well.
      As that algorithm is probably a fairly complex bit of programming, more so in complexity and a computerised version of a Rube Goldberg / british version ; Heath Robinson machine if a number of not numerically well equipped climate modellers and other climate experts have had inputs to the algorithm over time.

      Which is highly likely to be the case as alarmist climate science is not known for it’s scientists mastery of any statistical matters or any programming discipline or adherence to standards and protocols [ Ask "Harry" of the Climate Gate mail debacle ]

      As with any complex system that has to be built and then developed and debugged why invent your own when you can borrow or steal somebody else’s algorithm in this case. So HADCRU and other global temperature data banks are probably using a version of the NOAA’s algorithm with some simple tweaking to adjust their own temperature data with a corresponding failure to have similar and consistent Global temperature data across all of the various global temperature data bases.

      Now as we all know the past temperatures from the 1930′s have been cooled quite considerably.
      The temperatures for the 1990′s have been warmed but the adjustments don’t seem to follow any real pattern except they are long term consistent in cooling the past and warming the present.

      What Bates pointed out was very interesting;
      The NOAA algorithm used is in his words is “unstable”.

      And it seems to be very much so when new data is entered such as a new set of temperature data into the Historical Network temperature base.

      From Bates description, every time such new data is entered, the algorithm throws up a new set of figures throughout the whole data set of recorded temperatures.

      It doesn’t just take the new data and adjust it in a very minor fashion but goes right back through the entire data set and makes all sorts of adjustments, admitted to be on a daily basis according to Zeke Hausfather and Mosher in a past post on Climate etc, which seems to bear a somewhat corrupted relationship to reality and to the previous data set.

      And then when rerun, the algorithm doesnt just provide an identical output as it should if it was stable but throws up another set of barely compatible and slightly different figures which have been changed in an unpredictable and non standard way all over again.

      Bates also claims that Karl and the NOAA are aware of this but as it suits the warming agenda they haven’t done anything to try and redevelop or correct the current algorithm used to make adjustments to the global temperature set.

      We all assumed in the past that those adjustments were deliberate but maybe it is a case of hubris and deliberately not so benign neglect as the temperature adjustments algorithm was giving the desired results and reinforcing the agenda of the ideologically fixated climate alarmist scientists that were at the helm of the NOAA.

      31

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Mother nature has made it a hobby to prove the alarmists wrong. Sometimes to the detriment of the innocents. Eventually the public is going to have to learn that you do not get frost bite when the alarmist claim it is 40 degrees outside, but the lake is frozen.

    (Or when they claim it is impossible for a lake to be refilled in one winter)

    91

  • #
    tom0mason

    No need to hide the truth as most people will not read what is published….
    For example back in March 2016 this was published

    Schneider, D., and D. B. Reusch, 2016: Antarctic and Southern Ocean surface temperatures in CMIP5 models in the context of the surface energy budget.
    Journal of Climate, 29, 1689-1716, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0429.1.
    Date: 2016-03-01
    Resource Type: article
    Title: Antarctic and Southern Ocean surface temperatures in CMIP5 models in the context of the surface energy budget

    Abstract:
    This study examines the biases, intermodel spread, and intermodel range of surface air temperature (SAT) across the Antarctic ice sheet and Southern Ocean in 26 structurally different climate models. Over the ocean (40°–60°S), an ensemble-mean warm bias peaks in late austral summer concurrently with the peak in the intermodel range of SAT. This warm bias lags a spring–summer positive bias in net surface radiation due to weak shortwave cloud forcing and is gradually reduced during autumn and winter. For the ice sheet, inconsistencies among reanalyses and observational datasets give low confidence in the ensemble-mean bias of SAT, but a small summer warm bias is suggested in comparison with nonreanalysis SAT data. The ensemble mean hides a large intermodel range of SAT, which peaks during the summer insolation maximum. In summer on the ice sheet, the SAT intermodel spread is largely associated with the surface albedo. In winter, models universally exhibit a too-strong deficit in net surface radiation related to the downward longwave radiation, implying that the lower atmosphere is too stable. This radiation deficit is balanced by the transfer of sensible heat toward the surface (which largely explains the intermodel spread in SAT) and by a subsurface heat flux. The winter bias in downward longwave radiation is due to the longwave cloud radiative effect, which the ensemble mean underestimates by a factor of 2. The implications of these results for improving climate simulations over Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are discussed.

    Peer Review: Refereed

    Copyright Information: Copyright 2016 American Meteorological Society (AMS). Permission to use figures, tables, and brief excerpts from this work in scientific and educational works is hereby granted provided that the source is acknowledged. Any use of material in this work that is determined to be “fair use” under Section 107 or that satisfies the conditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law (17 USC, as revised by P.L. 94-553) does not require the Society’s permission. Republication, systematic reproduction, posting in electronic form on servers, or other uses of this material, except as exempted by the above statements, requires written permission or license from the AMS. Additional details are provided in the AMS Copyright Policies, available from the AMS at 617-227-2425 or amspubs@ametsoc.org. Permission to place a copy of this work on this server has been provided by the AMS. The AMS does not guarantee that the copy provided here is an accurate copy of the published work.

    OpenSky citable URL: ark:/85065/d75b0417
    Publisher’s Version: 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0429.1
    Author(s):
    David Schneider – NCAR/UCAR
    David Reusch

    So what is it telling us?

    The researchers report that their work revealed that –
    Most models and the ‘ensemble mean’ are warm-biased over the Southern Ocean during late summer,” as a result of “excessive shortwave radiation in early summer and midsummer,”.
    This also shows “in winter, all models have a strong negative net longwave radiation bias over the AIS,” thus “most models have a modest negative longwave radiation bias over the ocean,”
    Therefore “in both domains, the deficit in net longwave radiation is mostly accounted for by a similar deficit in downward longwave radiation,” which can be described by “insufficient cloud radiative forcing.”

    Commenting on their findings, Schneider and Reusch write that the net longwave radiation bias over the AIS suggests that “the lower atmosphere is too stable in CMIP5 models, similar to reported biases for the Arctic,” as described by Pithan et al. in their 2014 report, Further noting that “cloud radiative forcing biases could reflect the fact that “most global atmospheric models have not been optimized for the unique meteorological conditions of Antarctica.”
    That said they all hope that this latter problem may soon be resolved.

    So problems with warming bias, incomplete understanding of clouds, and can not handle climate over the ocean correctly (a lack of knowledge again)

    Apart from that other reports tell of deficiencies in regional precipitation and snow, sea currents, glaciers, and ….

    80

    • #
      tom0mason

      Oops, Forgot the attribution, it can be found at http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/citedby/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1 where it is among the many, many links highlighting the failings of so many models.

      I suppose they get something right sometime.

      10

    • #
      sophocles

      Someone needs to tell them that the “downward warm radiation” just isn’t there in winter. The place is dark, dark and dark. For a whole six months. That “sub-surface heat flux”—in ice?—then, would be responsible for the temperature being around -52 degrees C?

      Pure bafflegab.

      10

  • #
    Amber

    When scientist just make stuff up and lie knowing their lies have serious financial and social costs they are no different than armour robbers and deserve the same fate .
    Over 10,000 fuel poverty deaths per year in Europe that are a direct result of scientific fraud and politicians
    prompting a scam .
    The equivalent of three 9/11′s per year and politicians are still promoting this population genocide . Unbelievable .

    102

  • #
    Neville

    Ken Stewart has completed his pause update for Jan 2017. Plenty of graphs and global/regional warming trends using the UAH V 6 TLT data.
    See OZ cooling trend for about last half of the record and cooling trend since DEC 1978 for South Polar region or close to 0.4 of a century. Well worth a look.

    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/the-pause-update-january-2017/

    82

  • #
    PeterS

    Finally we are getting somewhere. May this trend continue and voters soon wake up to the fact that both major parties have been telling us fibs all along and not to vote for either of them. Here is our chance to stop the move to more renewables pushed by them and start building new coal fired power stations without feeling guilty anymore. Besides many other countries are going ahead and building them (such as Japan, India, China, Germany, etc.) with the total being several hundreds worldwide so us building a couple or so to provide essential base load power should not even be an issue. First party who promises to do so will get my vote.

    41

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Sorry PeterS,
      Last night I watched the world expert say that China was CLOSING its coal fired power stations. Surely I have to believe his words, supported by his mate’s cartoons. After all he did build a hockey stick for us.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rfjBM_BB-ic

      OK, I confess, I only got about 40 mins into the 1hr 34 mins of Mann’s session at Uni Sydney last Wed night. And decided not to attempt any analysis of his “consensus science”.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      42

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes they are closing coal fired power stations – the ones that are highly polluting and inefficient. Instead they are switching over to new ultra-supercritical ones that are more efficient, almost pollution free and have lower CO2 emissions. Their goal is to drastically reduce their pollution output by 2020 by building more of them. The only thing stopping us doing the same is the religious cult of AGW pushed by both major parties.

        80

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          I agree PeterS,
          I left out the new construction bit, just as Mann did. But I did it to emphasise his obfuscation, not to support his position. I thought about puttinng in /sarc, but didn’t think it necessary.
          Cheers,
          D

          40

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    There is an article in the Hobart Mercury at the moment composed by a gelding that is an executive officer of the Tasmanian Renewable Energy Alliance”.
    In this article is found the assertion ”Hopefully no one will be suggesting that taxpayer-funded “clean coal” investment is the solution in Tasmania”. Unsurprisingly his solution to the problem of energy security is “more renewables”.
    Interested parties here, such as Tonyfromoz might wish to respond.

    61

  • #
    Ruairi

    The Pause-busting finds can’t be trusted,
    As their data is wrong, then adjusted,
    While the great warmist cause,
    To deny the long Pause,
    Can by ARGO buoys data be busted.

    180

  • #
    Albert

    The BOM forecast above average cyclones for the current period yet with both high temps and moisture I believe we had only 1 overnight cyclone some weeks ago
    The alarmists have a too simplistic view of weather. when I was younger we had about 5 cyclones every year and the current heat period is nothing new

    141

  • #
    TdeF

    The genius of the creators of the IPCC in 1988 was to tell politicians that they controlled the weather, possibly the single most important aspect of our lives.
    This appealed to their egos, even megalomania.
    So in 2007 our future Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd announced that “global warming is the greatest moral challenge to a generation”.

    As opposition leader “Speaking at the National Climate Change Summit, Rudd said the dimensions of the climate change challenge were so great that “climate change should be beyond politics”. In a separate statement, the ALP’s Environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, says “we must act now”. Garrett said Labor would introduce a carbon trading scheme, ratify the Kyoto treaty and develop renewable energy.

    So we had a son of a dairy farmer who spoke Chinese and the lead singer from a rock band announcing that they would fix the planet, no matter what it cost everyone.

    This has to stop now. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the problem, politicians and not scientists and all dedicated to the proposition that Climate Change exists, is a world ending change and is caused solely by coal, oil and gas. All they had to do was prove it. 30 years later, it is nonsense. Close the IPCC. At least Donald Trump could order this.

    The world needs a list of all those scientists who encouraged the trillions upon trillions misspent and all fame they enjoyed spreading alarm. Consider all the terrible problems of the world which could have been fixed with this ocean of money. This waste is the greatest tragedy since WW2 while all the very richest countries are covered in forests of useless windmills. Meanwhile Tree Ring Circus Mann is in Australia telling us Trump is the problem. No, he and his friends are the problem.

    171

    • #
      TdeF

      An afterthought. In the back of my mind for a decade now has been the Rudd statement

      “global warming is the greatest moral challenge to a generation”.

      It has been the word moral. Now Rudd was given like Turnbull to pompous and meaningless Churchillian oratory and word packing, sometimes
      speaking for five minutes without actually saying anything, but the word moral made sense to him.

      It might be a technical challenge to change the weather. A financial challenge. A political challenge. A world coordination challenge, but a moral challenge?

      So what can he have meant or was it meaningless drivel? Across the internet “Inequality might just be the defining challenge of our time. However, is it a moral challenge? ”
      According to one blogger this is “sustainable living”, no religion, personal freedom against wealth, no nuclear and “global human rights”. Who make this stuff up?

      These are fantasy ideas and the personal freedom one rankles. It means taking other people’s stuff which is apparently justified by global human rights without a religious injunction about stealing or loving your neighbour and they had it coming because they were not living in your sustainable poverty.

      So this was Rudd playing pompous paternalistic philosopher with other people’s stuff, the new whole earth person. It looks like as with Malcolm, they live in a fantasy that because they are both incredibly wealthy, they can tell other people how to live. Without electricity, fuel or food. Who needs politicians like this?

      Please bring back Tony Abbott, the closest to a man of the people we have had since John Howard and Bob Hawke.

      42

      • #
        AndyG55

        ““global warming is the greatest moral challenge to a generation”.”

        Rudd was totally correct.

        Do scientists and other people in climate related subjects have the INTEGRITY and FORTITUDE to challenge the fake AGW “consensus”… or not.

        It certainly is a challenge of morality.

        35

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Bearing in mind that the objective of this deception is to rape and pillage Western Civilisation, it is interesting to consider the objectives of the Fabian Society.
        The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” favours the gradual modus operandi of Fabius Maximus.
        Geoff posted a Hawke speech from 1984 presented at a Fabian Society function that I found quite compelling.
        As Geoff suggested, the speech itself ought to have been enough to have had Hawke at the dock for treason. It is a thinly veiled call for overturning the culture and means of governance of the entire country.
        It is interesting to note that nearly all of our Prime Ministers, beginning with Hawke, have been members of said organisation. Notable exceptions are Rudd, Abbott, and possibly Turncoat.
        I believe that Rudd is far too simple to envisage the sinister goals of the Fabian Society. He is so obsessed with his own grandiose ego, on a scale truly psychopathic, that philosophical discussion of collectives and technocracy is beyond his mindless character. I suspect that he heard that morality concept somewhere, and decided that it rang well in obedient media sound bites.

        30

        • #
          tom0mason

          As the old Fabian George Bernard Shaw said

          “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

          Advocates for the ultimate Nanny State, with no free will or right to choose; you are owned by the elites and mercilessly discarded when you are no longer any use.

          20

    • #
      GD

      Magnificent comment, as usual. When are we going to see TdeF on Sky News alongside Ross Cameron and Peta Credlin? Or read TdeF in the Australian instead of PVO?

      30

  • #

    Like flawed man’s action-climax in Greek tragedy,
    cli-sci tipping-point nemesis-analogy,
    by IPCC’s ARS4 god’s-eye, – (satellite really,)
    exposure, linear models’ clash with reality.

    https://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

    70

  • #
    John Michelmore

    Jo, Sorry but where is the Argo graph from, it’s source I guess, I,ve been watching the NOAA ocean heat content graphs for years and the graph you present shocked me in that it is basically flat, compared to the NOAA published heat content which only ever appears to increase! Can you help me understand?

    40

    • #
      crakar24

      Its simple John, the NOAA graphs are a guess, a stretch of the imagination, a projection of ones own belief, a fabrication, a manipulation, a homogenisation, a graph designed to increase funding, a graph manufactured to show ones toeing of the line, a graph to support the politics of the day, a graph to appease ones masters, a graph designed to dupe society into believing a falsified hypothesis, a graph designed to give its designer the feeling of morality and therefore be one step closer to their chosen creator.

      63

    • #
      RB.

      That doesn’t look like the Argo data but the actual buoy data that was adjusted. could you check up on it, Jo?

      20

    • #
      AndyG55

      They have only been able to have a very rough guess of OHC since the ARGO buoys were have established around 2003. (even ARGO data has nowhere near the accuracy they claim, totally bogus)

      Notice the units used… converted to degrees they are in the 3rd decimal place. The ARGO buoys cannot measure to that accurately.

      Before 2003, there was far, far less coverage than even the surface station data, and any so-called data before that was forced from assumption driven models.

      Here is a figure that give the approximate coverage of oceans, over time.
      Notice just how little coverage there is before 2003.

      https://s19.postimg.org/46xcg7377/figure_42.png

      55

  • #
    crakar24

    I dont see what all the fuss is about, I dont understand why they dont just acknowledge CO2 changes lag temperature changes by approx 800 years then explain basic math like 2016-800 equals 1216, MWP 950 to 1250 and thus why our CO2 levels are climbing.

    Then explain CO2 levels would natural begin to lower in the near future due to the LIA so best we emit what we can now to keep CO2 levels high for agriculture etc………sorry I forgot where was I going with this?

    141

  • #
    David Maddison

    Off topic, apologies.

    I want to make a submission to the Finkel inquiry, due Friday, but I want to focus on the fact that there is no CAGW. I expect my submission will be rejected because the Chief “Scientist” thinks unscientifically that “the science is settled”.

    What do you think and do you have any suggestions for approaches to this?

    50

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      David I wish you well.
      It seems to me one has to get past the initial “We don’t want to read this” test, and then latch on to something “they” might know, or can find easily. So, as a possibility consider taking the IPCC numbers for climate sensitivity and show how they have decreased over the various years, and suggest, ever so gently, that they might find it necessary to decrease them some more. ( I think I’d leave out my own idea of it’s being zero here.)
      Another might be to present some of the evidence to show that atmospheric CO2 concentration increases with increasing temperature (and mention Henry’s Law, with an explanation, as it wasn’t, maybe isn’t, taught in high school physics).
      On wind turbines, I’d mention their automatic cut out at high wind speeds (90km/h from memory), and their short life compared with coal fired. And and maintenance costs.
      Also, it’s probably worth including a few paragraphs reminding their learned sels of the role of CO2 in life via photosynthesis, and that it is NOT a pollutant.

      Hope this helps
      Dave B

      50

    • #
      Robber

      David, I am also going to make a submission, but focused on the following:
      Conclusion: There should be a moratorium placed on achieving Australia’s 2020 23.5% renewables target until electricity supply security can be guaranteed.
      To achieve the target, wind/solar must go from its current average 7% of supply to 18%. That is an enormous and rapid change impacting the entire network. With the current market forces in place, it is likely that the owners of further coal stations like Hazelwood will decide it is uneconomic to continue operating as their average utilisation declines. For when the wind blows hard, those wind generators will be able to deliver over 50% of demand (assuming 35% capacity factor), forcing shutdowns of base load supplies.
      But when wind’s share drops to 1-2%, all of the coal and gas stations must be available, else we will have more and more instances of “load shedding (ie blackouts).”
      Governments must take action NOW.
      To be relevant, make sure that you address some of the Panel’s 40 or so questions from their preliminary report:
      E.g. What role should the electricity sector play in meeting Australia’s emissions reduction targets?
      What are the key elements of an emissions reduction policy to support investor confidence and contribute to a low emissions system?
      I think that you will find that the objective of emissions reduction is a given.
      “The heart of the Review’s task is to find solutions to address the so-called energy trilemma – policies that simultaneously provide a high level of energy security and reliability, universal access to affordable energy services, and reduced emissions. This is easier said than done. There is a tension between these three objectives”.
      “The transition to a lower emissions economy is underway and cannot be reversed.”

      So one strategy you could adopt is to argue that the short term crisis is all about energy security and reliability. Therefore decisions on emissions reductions should be deferred.

      20

    • #
      bobl

      Firstly Finkel is pro nuke. I’d not broach AGW at all rather I’d show that unreliables can’t address it or are less effective that HELE coal or gas or bi/trigeneration or nuke strategies that reuse waste heat. The best way to do that is to show the lifecycle footprint of renewables is energy negative and then add in the reliability and low baseload equivalent delivery.

      20

  • #
    pat

    ABC definitely not interested in this topic.

    however, with multiple State elections on the way, & Liberals hoping to capitalise on the SA renewables fiascos & Labor RETs, theirABC is desperate to prove renewables have nothing to do with grid instability, or higher electricity prices.

    multiple sites have links to an ABC article, headlined: “Energy Australia boss ‘worried’ about customers’ upcoming power bills”.
    at the following, “after heatwave” has been added:

    Energy Australia boss ‘worried’ for customers over power bills after heatwave
    renewablesnaps.com

    however, when u click on the ABC link, u get the much more renewables-friendly:

    14 Feb: ABC: Energy Australia boss says a national plan for renewable energy is the solution to high power prices
    Exclusive by business reporter Elysse Morgan
    ***VIDEO: 12mins58secs: Extended interview with Catherine Tanna (The Business)
    Energy Australia has joined the chorus of big business, unions, welfare and environmental groups calling for an end to Canberra’s blame game over renewables.
    “I am worried about our customers and what will happen with their bills,” Energy Australia’s managing director Catherine Tanna told The Business.

    “We’ve seen that customers over the weekend in some places in Australia used 25 per cent more than usual.
    “In a couple of months when these bills turn up they are going to get a surprise and I am worried about that because I know that the cost of living is a concern for them.”
    The solution to high prices, she said, was a national plan to transition to the future of energy into renewables.
    Energy Australia, which is one of the country’s largest operators of coal-fired power stations, took the unprecedented move of taking out a full-page advertisement in a national broadsheet declaring its support for a non-partisan push for clean energy…

    While renewables are more expensive now, Ms Tanna told The Business they were the better option in the long-term.
    “As at today, newer forms of energy are more expensive than some of the older forms of energy, but over the next 20 years those older, cheaper forms of energy are going to retire,” she said.
    “That’s a reality and that’s why we need a plan to transition into those newer forms of energy.”…

    Energy Australia has plans to build a solar power station in Victoria, a wind farm in South Australia and a gas-fired plant in New South Wales, but these are only plans for now…
    The company also has a commitment to underpin up to 500 megawatts of new renewable energy by offering guarantees to take the power…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/energy-australia-boss-worried-about-power-bills/8267070

    Tanna is almost incomprehensible in the video interview & Morgan has cherry-picked quotes to get the above storyline.

    31

    • #
      Dennis

      Are they prepared to stand alone without taxpayer funded profit subsidies?

      40

      • #
        • #
          Dennis

          The report, undertaken by economic consultancy Principal Economics, found that Australia’s renewable energy sector received subsidies (including the Renewable Energy Target, feed in tariffs and other green policy costs) worth $2.8 billion in 2013-14. This dwarfed the public support for research and demonstration projects for low emissions coal technologies being conducted by the CSIRO and other research bodies (and matched by the coal industry).

          On an output basis, these renewable subsidies translated into almost $412 per megawatt hour (MWh) for solar technologies, $42 per MWh for wind and $18 per MWh for all other renewable sources (including hydro).

          By comparison coal fired power received less than $1 per MWh and natural gas less than 1 cent per MWh delivered.

          In 2013/14, these renewable energy subsidies added between 3 to 9 per cent to the average household bill and up to 20 per cent for some industrial users.

          20

        • #
          Ross Stacey

          Denis,
          All of these financial reports are supported by the fundamental truth of CAGW and when coal is considered there has beeen no provision for the cost of Climate Change.
          We will never win an argument on costs unless we can completely show that CO2 is not causing climate change.
          The leader of electricity is correct there will never be any money available for efficient coal plants because of the long term uncertainty.
          There has been 20 years of education that humans use of fossil fuels causes climate change. Until there is solid science to the contrary it is a waste of time trying to argue economics.

          00

          • #

            Ross Stacey February 19, 2017 at 9:28 am

            Denis,
            “All of these financial reports are supported by the fundamental truth Obvious fallacy of CAGW and when coal is considered there has been no provision for the cost of Climate Change. We will never win an argument on costs unless we can completely show that CO2 is not causing climate change.”

            We’uns have already won such argument simply by asking for evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels ‘can somehow’ increase surface temperature at any location. In science; the claimant of some phenomena, or “cause” of some phenomena. Is always obligated to demonstrate at least one repeatable occurrence of said phenomena. All of those\us claiming BS; have no obligation except to continue to claim BS.
            All the best! -will-

            01

            • #
              Ross Stacey

              Will, I agree. However, we can’t get the truth to the ruling elite. The Libs are now trying to make sense of the electricity supply by considering Hele coal plants but are also trying to include Carbon Capture and Storage in the Clean energy finance sort. Labor are opposing even this.
              Can only hope the USA under Trump will show strong leadership.

              00

  • #

    Bates

    The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was

    40

  • #

    while I am having fun with block quotes

    Trends in IHSSTs constructed from buoy and satellite data agree with ERSSTv4 over the 1997–2015 period but are significantly higher (P < 0.01) than the ERSSTv3b trend, supporting the conclusions of Karl et al.

    from this link… no paywall http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full

    33

    • #
      AndyG55

      Zeke’s hallucinogenic rantings have been crushed.

      You do know he is a paid AGW worker ant, don’t you, paid to hallucinate.

      45

    • #

      No so fast,Gee Aye!

      It is an interesting paper that claims that ERSSTv5 shows a lower rate of warming than the previous ERSSTv4 which was used by the now famous Karl et al paper in 2015 which claimed that — contrary to the IPCC — there had been no slowdown in the rate of temperature increase in the past 15 years or so – the so-called Pause.

      LINK

      11

  • #
    pat

    theirABC challenges the Minister, repeatedly, not to capitalise on the instability of Renewables/RETs:

    13 Feb: ABC AM: Problems with incorporating renewables puts power system at risk: Frydenberg
    SABRA LANE: Now, a high-powered alliance says the political games over energy need to end. Will you make sure that happens?
    JOSH FRYDENBERG: Well, less than 18 months ago there was bipartisanship in the parliament around a 23.5 per cent renewable energy target.
    Obviously that wasn’t good enough for the Labor factions and for Bill Shorten, who became too hairy-chested and decided he wanted to take on a 50 per cent renewable energy target.
    SABRA LANE: So, there you go again. You’ve slipped straight into it…

    SABRA LANE: In the immediate aftermath of the South Australian blackouts, you said you wouldn’t politicise this issue in a comment to the ABC, and then you quickly turned around into blaming Labor. Why did you change your mind?…
    SABRA LANE: So, getting back to the starting point – will you put aside the politics?…
    SABRA LANE: You’re smashing the state governments for the renewable energy target, but currently they’re doing the heavy lifting when it comes to Australia cutting carbon emissions to achieve the Paris commitments…

    SABRA LANE: Do you think the market regulator itself is doing a good job?…
    JOSH FRYDENBERG: Well, obviously there are differing views, and the Labor Party has sought to blame the operator…
    ***SABRA LANE: I’m challenging you not to talk about that…
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4618686.htm

    in case ABC audience didn’t get the message:

    13 Feb: ABC AM: Bipartisan energy policy essential for economy, security and Paris targets: BCA chief
    Guest: JENNIFER WESTACOTT, BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA

    13 Feb: ABC AM: Industry, green and community groups want bipartisan energy policy
    The Business Council, the peak union group the ACTU, the Australian Council of Social Service, and the Clean Energy Council are among those to sign a joint statement urging change…
    Featured:
    Kelly O’Shanassy, Australian Conservation Foundation
    Miles Prosser, Aluminium Council of Australia

    13 Feb: ABC Breakfast: Solar farms lead renewables boom
    2017 is shaping up as a watershed year in Australia’s embrace of renewable energy with more than 20 large scale wind and solar projects worth $5bn under construction…
    Guests:
    Kane Thornton, Chief executive, Clean Energy Council
    Charlie Prell, Interim co-Chairman, Farmers for Climate Action
    Giles Parkinson, Founder and editor, RenewEconomy.com.au

    no argument with Butler, more like some ABC assistance instead:

    14 Feb: ABC AM: ENERGY INTENSITY SCHEME needed in Australia: Mark Butler
    SABRA LANE: In Canberra, the call for the politics to be put aside in discussing Australia’s energy policy and securing the national grid has been ignored…
    SABRA LANE: Imagine you are the Energy Minister today. What would you do right now to ensure Australians don’t have to go through another week like the one we’ve just had, next summer?…

    MARK BUTLER:… We would also have put in place an EMISSIONS INTENSITY SCHEME, which would finally send a long-term investment signal to the electricity industry about renewing our infrastructure. I mean, one of the very serious challenges we face here is that three-quarters of our coal and gas-fired generators across the nation are operating beyond their design life, and they simply need to be replaced over the next 10 or 15 years…

    Now, you can have a debate about whether they should be replaced with new coal-fired generators or renewable energy, but what you do need underpinning that debate is a long-term investment signal. And that really is an EMISSIONS INTENSITY SCHEME…

    MARK BUTLER: …But what we are finding at the moment is that these old generators – Hazelwood was built in the 1960s – are closing with no planning and very little notice, particularly the privatised generators, where the nation is left waiting for an announcement from a board of directors on the other side of the world about a very, very important piece of infrastructure…
    SABRA LANE: It will keep closing, like you say, and Hazelwood goes next month…Again, can you think of a solution right now – not a plant that will be constructed – from today? Is there a solution right now?

    MARK BUTLER: Well, you need better interconnection between the states…
    But as I said, the most urgent thing we need is a long-term investment signal that the industry can start planning on now, on next week, to start to build the new generation of infrastructure. That was the scheme that was recommended to the government, and to all state governments by the CSIRO, by the Energy Markets Commission, the Chief Scientist, all of the industry, back in December, and Malcolm Turnbull walked away from it. We think that that is …

    SABRA LANE: And Professor Finkel is working on a plan that will be delivered to the government later this year.
    MARK BUTLER: Well, that’s right, and that will deal with a whole lot of issues about how the market works. But what everyone in the industry and among big business groups agree upon is that you need something like an EMISSIONS INTENSITY SCHEME at the centre of our electricity policy over the coming years, and the sooner you get it, the sooner you reintroduce some investor certainty so that we can start building the new infrastructure for the 21st Century…
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4619380.htm

    31

  • #
    Raven

    The worst (best?) part of this whole saga goes right back to the beginning.

    When Karl et al was first published, it was explicitly stated that the IPCC got it wrong. Now, if that’s the case, then the much publicised prior “mountain of evidence supporting AGW” referencing IPCC consensus papers becomes invalid . . or at least thrown under the bus.

    Soon after the release of Karl et al, there were stirrings over the controversial findings among scientists who had contributed to that “IPCC mountain”. Even some prominent figures spoke out, but that soon died down.

    So . . NOAA update their records and carry on.
    If the scientific community is to accept Karl’s work then they must also accept that anything prior is now outdated and/or wrong.

    There can be no argument that Karl et al added to the “mountain of evidence supporting AGW”.
    Karl et al explicitly refuted it.

    61

  • #
    TdeF

    Also you might note that it was the retirement of Dr. Bates which was the trigger. Not only are people like James Hansen retired, after thirty years of this, senior scientists inside NOAA and more are retiring and being able to comment. Expect this trickle to become a flood very quickly. This will be the end of political science, politicians like Obama really thinking they control the weather itself. Shades of Mount Olympus with Obama as Jupiter and Gore as Hades.

    83

  • #
    Bruce

    Thank you Jo, for more sanity, in a sea of mendacious delusion.

    62

  • #
    philthegeek

    ooooh much exitement!!

    But on the other hand. :)

    That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people,” he says.

    31

    • #
      Raven

      ooooh much exitement!!

      Crikey, Phil, no one is excited about the prospects of bucketometers taking over from thermometers.
      What? . . next you’ll be recommending we go back to using windmills to grind our grain.

      30

    • #
      RB.

      Here is the original blog post. See if you can reconcile what was written with what has been reported in your link.

      So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.

      https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
      I don’t know if he is back tracking or his replies to the journalist not being in context.

      21

      • #
        philthegeek

        RB, seems to me from what i’v been reading on this that Bates is on one side of some kind of “dispute” within NOAA about how long it should take for a data set to be defined as “operational”. Apparently it can take up to 7 years under the protocols he considers should have applied.and i can understand where an active researcher would consider that OTT and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

        I think the AGW Deniers really need to take stock of their reaction to this one and tone down their attacks on Pause Deniers, Too much froth an hysteria too soon.

        01

  • #
    David Maddison

    Lately, I’ve noticed very intense bombardment by the enemedia on the wonders of “renewables”.

    What’s behind this?

    Are they trying to further embed renewables before Trump dismantles the whole scam and influences other Western nations to do likewise?

    31

    • #
      Dennis

      At least one source calling for certainty and an energy policy are businesses that have invested in so called renewables and they are worried that, as Germany did not long ago, the taxpayer funded subsidised profits will be banned and how to explain that to shareholders. How to explain that their investment was not commercially viable without subsidies.

      50

  • #
    peter

    Good response Jo but we have been down this path so many times and it seems to have no effect on the public perception of what is happening with climate. Bates’ expose looked like another Climategate but sites such as ARSTechnica have posted total rebuttals of everything Bates’ claimed. see :
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

    Do you have any comment on their denial?

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      The 130 year time scale hides the critical shenannigans in the last ten years. These are the basis of Bates’ claims. These recent changes which were seen as critical to COP21 in Paris and the idea that there was no pause. So if you look closely under the thick lines the recent divergence is actually large. By presenting data all the way back to 1880, the idea was clearly to hide the recent changes in dropping the Argo buoys and lost data, lost programs and broken computers and unreproducible graphs which were prepared for a purpose. These defensive games with the zero point and using thick lines is the old, nothing to see here folks technique. I just wonder how they obtained the (accurate) world temperature for 1880?

      51

    • #
      joseph

      And the article posted above by philthegeek is worth a read . . . . .

      20

    • #
      Frank

      Fly,

      Not vitriol, just simple observation – like the sky is blue, grass is green, you know, empirical evidence .

      [Empty bluster. Again. - Jo]

      48

      • #

        Ha ha ha, Frank.

        You are a funny guy who waste time posting NOTHING,that relates to what Jo posted. She talks about the Pause Buster,you somehow can’t talk about it.

        How old are you? Really……

        34

      • #
        philthegeek

        Interesting that the word “deniers” now seems to be floating through moderation here….if used in the “right” context. :)

        (How about staying on topic instead?, but first read comment #15) CTS

        32

      • #
        AndyG55

        Yes, we know you are very simple,

        All you have is one-eyed AGW fabrication.

        ….

        We are still waiting for Fronk to back up anything he says has one tiny fragment of evidence.

        35

        • #
          philthegeek

          So Andy, how do you feel about how the “name calling” and use of the D word as regards this post?

          Is it now appropriate to use the term that has been so disparaged on this blog??

          (It’s been a rotten week for Pause denial) CTS

          23

          • #
            philthegeek

            It’s been a rotten week for Pause denial

            not so much actually. Its all a bit like the “Climategate” stuff. Out of context “gotcha” circle whipping by people seeking confirmation of their particular “bent”. Good for a laff though. :)

            02

  • #
    pat

    this entire ABC page is an advertisement for solar (multiple links). 7,000 turns into 10,000,000!

    14 Feb: ABC: Solar batteries ‘exploding’ in popularity with uptake tipped to triple in 2017, audit finds
    By consumer affairs reporter Amy Bainbridge and the National Reporting Team’s Rebecca Armitage
    The first national audit of batteries that store solar power shows almost 7,000 were installed in Australian homes last year — and that’s predicted to triple this year.
    Warwick Johnston from solar consultancy SunWiz carried out the audit by speaking to manufacturers and suppliers…

    He said with South Australia battling blackouts, batteries would eventually be a “game changer” for Australia’s energy networks.
    Solar batteries are expensive, but intense competition has brought prices down…
    About 20 manufacturers are producing around 90 products for sale in Australia, with the cheapest battery retailing for $1,200.
    Many larger batteries still cost between $8,000 and $10,000.
    Mr Johnston said batteries held benefits for the entire community, not just homeowners…

    Sydney resident Alan Jones was one of the first Australians to have a Tesla Powerwall battery installed in his home in December 2015…
    “So it’s worth the investment if you don’t want that [a blackout] to happen to you.
    “You need some roof space or some land without trees and some capital, maybe $10,000 or $15,000, the money you might spend on a pool or a new car.”…
    (Energy Networks Australia (ENA) chief executive John Bradley) said the ENA’s two-year study with the CSIRO also found customers could provide up to half the energy that is produced instead of conventional generators in the future.
    “We could see up to 10 million participants in the market at this micro scale, all receiving incentives and payments for allowing their technology to support the grid, and that would mean that you had a much more efficient grid but a much more stable grid,” Mr Bradley said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/solar-batteries-like-tesla-exploding-in-popularity/8259830

    14 Feb: ABC: Fact Check: RMIT and ABC News partner to relaunch award-winning service
    The ABC’s Fact Check Unit is back in business — with ABC News and RMIT University partnering to relaunch the award-winning news service.
    The newly-branded RMIT ABC Fact Check will return in March to once again test and adjudicate on the accuracy of claims made by politicians, public figures, advocacy groups and institutions engaged in public debate…
    RMIT ABC Fact Check will be based in Melbourne at RMIT’s new media precinct, which will open in March.
    Dean of the University’s School of Media and Communication, Martyn Hook, said the nonpartisan, non-profit collaboration aimed to reduce the levels of deception and confusion around public policy issues and debates.
    “This partnership with the ABC builds on RMIT’s reputation for producing journalism graduates with integrity, credibility and commitment to the highest standard and principles of media practice,” Professor Hook said in a statement.
    “In a time of ‘post-truth’, ‘alternative facts’ and ‘fake news’, it is ever more critical to hold public figures to account and ensure that public discourse — the basis of democracy — is based in fact…
    ABC Director of News Gaven Morris said the innovative partnership would bring great value to audiences…
    Content will be published by the ABC and on a dedicated RMIT portal…
    Content will be subject to all the ABC’s Editorial Policies and its normal complaints handling procedures.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/rmit-and-abc-news-partner-to-relaunch-fact-check/8268168

    and who will fact-check the fact-checkers?

    41

    • #
      Dennis

      Ooops, speed reading, I thought it was batteries exploding.

      20

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        Yeah I got that too .
        Wonder what the stats are for SA and Victoriastan, the former having had regular blackouts the latter soon to get blackouts when Hazelwood closes and demand is high .
        Basically if you need power 24/7 you’re forced into a battery storage system or generator backup , if power was plentiful , reliable and cheap why on earth would you fork out for solar , wind and or battery backup .

        30

        • #
          Dennis

          And if there is a need for backup a portable generator is a far less expensive option.

          20

        • #
          Rick Will

          Basically if you need power 24/7 you’re forced into a battery storage system or generator backup , if power was plentiful , reliable and cheap why on earth would you fork out for solar , wind and or battery backup .

          The penetration of renewables in SA has now achieved the point where the supply is unreliable. Anyone with a well stocked freezer could lose the value in food covering a few percent of the purchase price of an off-grid solar system. If it a few times in quick succession, with no prospect of it getting better, then it is strong incentive to take control.

          Adelaide gets enough winter sunshine to achieve better then 99.9% off-grid reliability at a cost of just under 50c/kWh without subsidy. The cost with subsidy is competitive with current unit costs when the supply charge is included and capital comes from low interest bearing TDs rather than bank loans.

          What I see is electricity consumers with low energy intensity being incentivised to get off-grid. There is a huge mark up on grid prices; from 5.7C/kWh wholesale to the 30+c/kWh by the time it passes through distributers and retailers. Fundamentally there are zero benefits to scale with wind and solar. The energy is ubiquitous, albeit intermittent, but with no benefit of scale. Teslas 21700 can used in the Power Wall is the same as the 6 million cans used in their 80MWh grid battery in California. The solar panels on any rooftop are the same as the panels in the semi-desert near Broken Hill that total 53MW. There are potential siting benefits but they are not significant when compared to the margins on the wholesale price.

          So the rats that can are leaving the sinking ship. AEMO will find it increasingly difficult to balance supply and demand. The costs will continue to climb because there is so much money being spent or already sunk that is seeking a return from a diminishing customer base. The dispactchable coal fired generators are being squeezed and cannot operate at sufficient capacity to make a profit so they will shut down.

          There are benefits in diversity of supply and demand but anyone who pays out for a solar/battery system will not be happy if their battery goes flat quickly if it is being drawn down by neighbours because the wind turbines are all out on safety override. They may appreciate the grid connection on the two days in June when the sun did not shine but they are more inclined to complain to the supplier who will recommend another panel or two and battery upgrade. I do not know if the PowerWalls can safely island a house if the grid is down. If not, that would be an immediate reason to go off grid; meaning none of those batteries are available for stability control.

          I was involved in the formation of the National Grid. I get the impression it is approaching its use by date with the present political and technical forces at play. The development of the National Grid with concurrent elimination of State monopolies on power supply was beneficial for the economy. The extravagant salaries of some players in the supply chain has made rorting now as bad as the union dominated monopolies of the 1980s. The difference is they wear suits and live in leafy suburbs of capital cities rather than Gladstone, Ipswich, Toronto, Morwell and Leigh Creek.

          With the chief scientist, unfamiliar with the needs of heavy industry, leading an inquiry into the power supply industry, the scene is set for the gradual unravelling of the National Grid. Heavy industry is already disappearing. If energy intensive users wish to remain they will need to come up with their own power supply arrangements. At least the elimination of monopolised supply enables that.

          40

          • #
            Rick Will

            Just checked – the PowerWall does not have an Island Mode but high end SMA inverters do. No doubt this function will become more common and in demand. Could be on the PowerWall 2.

            20

  • #
    Mark M

    CO2-induced crop devastation update hottest year evah edition:

    14 Feb, 2017: Australia’s winter crop harvest: all mainland states set to achieve record highs

    http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications/display?url=http://143.188.17.20/anrdl/DAFFService/display.php?fid=pb_aucrpd9aba_20170214_Sn9Dg.xml

    World grain glut set to enter fourth year http://on.ft.com/29uGswt 

    https://twitter.com/ft/status/752462455528419328

    10

  • #
    clipe

    On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Hi Tom
    How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!
    It is a travesty!

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130203111544/http://di2.nu/foia/1255532032.txt

    20

    • #
      tom0mason

      Of cause they do not understand Earth’s energy balance as they leave out nature and its many methods of retaining energy for hours, days, weeks, years, centuries and longer, and then release it back to the environment over similar timescales and in odd amounts.
      E.g. a tree grows converting solar energy to the chemical bonds in its structure. Centuries later it dies, is covered over in the stinking mass of a slowly drying bog that has overwhelmed it. It lays there for a few thousand years being very slowly changed to coal. Eventually man finds it and burns it in his furnace, finally releasing that thousand year old solar energy.

      Kevin please explain the earth’s energy balance, accounting for all the oil, peat, coal, fossils, etc that are currently on there way to being made. Items that have lock the sun’s energy into their structure of chemical bonds. All that buried ‘rubbish*’ is lost solar power. Understanding that so many of those chemical bonds will not be broken for hundreds or thousands of years.

      Earth’s energy balance idea is a mirage, a dumb story that climate scientist tell each other to cover over their ignorance.

      *Rubbish is a resource in the wrong place. Resources are not ‘used up’ only misplaced.

      10

  • #
    pat

    12 Feb: GWPF: American Thinker: Tully Borland: New York Times Manipulates NOAA’s Climate Science Scandal
    If you were only to read the New York Times’ latest article on the most recent Climate Change scandal first reported by the Mail and the Daily Mail, you would never know that there was any scandal to speak of in the first place.
    Headline: “No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say.” …
    http://www.thegwpf.com/new-york-times-manipulates-the-climate-science-scandal/

    12 Feb: Paul Homewood: (Christopher) Booker On The NOAA Scandal
    Booker weighs in on the latest NOAA scandal:

    Headline: Will Donald Trump and the Republicans bring an end to the costliest scare story ever known?
    Two years ago last week, I wrote a column given the provocative heading “The fiddling of temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. It was the second of two articles which attracted a record 42,000 comments from all over the world…READ ON
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/booker-on-the-noaa-scandal/

    14 Feb: Sky News: Repealing carbon pricing was nuts: Rudd
    Former prime minister Kevin Rudd says all the world leaders he speaks to think Australia’s is ‘nuts’ for dropping carbon pricing.
    Mr Rudd told Sky News he is completely disillusioned with where the energy debate has ended up since his time in office, labelling the current discussion ‘dumb, dumb, dumb!’…
    The starting point in terms of this massive debate on the energy price is having a carbon price,’ Mr Rudd said.
    ‘Every government I run into around the world thinks that we are nuts for having repealed the carbon price.’…
    ‘It’s not a statement of ideology on where you stand on climate change…it’s a very practical guide for markets,’ he said…
    Both the Labor and Liberal parties are expected to debate energy policy in their party room meetings on Tuesday.

    11

  • #
    clipe

    Mr. Lorrie Goldstein (a lukewarmer for professional reasons, I believe)has never bought into the policy prescriptions and has been banging on for years on the uselessness of green energy.

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html

    Track record?

    http://www.torontosun.com/author/lorrie-goldstein

    20

  • #
    PeterS

    Pause deniers will not give up so easily because they worship the wind and the sun gods. If countries like Poland can build ultra-suerpcritical coal fired power stations to replace their existing older less efficient coal fired power stations in the name of base load energy security then why can’t we? They cost far less than nuclear plants and we have a plentiful supply of cheap coal so the decision should be obvious to all except of course to the gloabl warming alarmists.

    31

    • #
      Dennis

      As you know, according to Greens and their fellow travellers Australia’s emissions count includes exported coal emissions regardless of where coal is burnt. So following the same logic, considering that fossil transport fuels are imported Australia must have zero emissions from transportation.

      40

    • #
      TdeF

      Poland? Try little Slovakia with a population of 5.4Million.

      “Nuclear Power in Slovakia(Updated October 2016)
      Slovakia has four nuclear reactors generating half of its electricity and two more under construction.
      Slovakia’s first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1972.”

      Are we really the Clever Country? Windmills?

      51

      • #
        PeterS

        No we are certainly not the clever country – we never were. We were the lucky one but all our luck has run out. Time to suffer the consequences of our own stupidity for still voting for either major party because most people still either don’t care or refuse to use their brains to think and see the truth.

        20

    • #
      toorightmate

      Tanya P on the Bolt Report tonight said a coal fired power station would cost $28 billion.
      It would have platinum handrails or be the world’s largest power station (about 100 X 375MW generators). This would also require about 75Mt/annum of coal. That is some big coal mine.
      People sit in front of their TV sets and believe this garbage.

      31

      • #
        Dennis

        She often said that Minister for Health Abbott removed one billion dollars from Health but failed to say that he did not do that, it was Treasury. But they reallocated the money to other areas from the Forward Estimates of future spending, not current account spending. It was reallocated because GST revenue to the state and territory governments well exceeded Forward Estimates and therefore, as agreed, the states would get less in federal grants monies.

        Tanya has no problem twisting figures and facts.

        01

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/Topic: The Nationals are preferencing the Greens ahead of the Libs in some WA seats:

    https://thewest.com.au/politics/state-election-2017/nats-relegate-libs-to-go-green-in-the-bush-ng-b88386184z

    If anyone can make political sense of that (in terms of shared ideology) I am all ears.

    30

    • #
      Dennis

      Desperate times causes desperate measures, according to Pauline Hanson Labor QLD has approached One Nation to exchange preferences.

      Today in the Daily Telegraph former Labor Leader Mark Latham condemns both sides for being look alike and controlled from outside.

      20

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      The nationals preferencing the greens , talk about an own goal .
      Are they seriously that stupid in WA , the nationals have no one to blame but themselves for the current preference arrangement between the Libs and one nation , the mining tax is dead let it die in peace .
      It’s unpopular particularly in WA and highly on the nose , I don’t blame the Libs for doing that deal , who wants to be associated with a mining tax in a mining state .

      20

      • #
        el gordo

        Its in a state of flux, perhaps the agrarian socialists can convince the Greens that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.

        00

  • #
    el gordo

    Judith Curry was pivotal in getting this story out and now she is hoping for a part time job with the Trump Administration.

    ‘With the election of President Trump, my ‘role’ is potentially elevated. I have been contacted by several different transition teams in the Trump administration. I have made it very clear to all that I have no interest in a full-time position or in living in Washington, DC. However I would be happy to serve in advisory roles. We will see if any opportunities materialise.’

    30

  • #
    pat

    Fake News. it began in FT:

    India optimistic of being coal-free by 2050
    Financial Times – ‎Feb 12, 2017‎

    This Country Could Get Rid of Coal Entirely by 2050
    Fortune – ‎22 hours ago‎

    13 Feb: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: India may never need another coal plant: TERI
    India has enough coal plants running or under construction to meet demand until 2026, according to a leading Delhi-based research centre.
    By that point, renewables and energy storage could be cheap enough to provide all new capacity, the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) reckons.
    It raises the prospect that one of the world’s fastest-growing carbon emitters may stop adding coal power stations within years and ***close the last plants around 2050…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/13/india-may-never-need-another-coal-plant-teri/

    13 Feb: World Coal: World Coal Association reacts to Teri report
    by Angharad Lock
    The World Coal Association says it is not credible to suggest that India can achieve universal energy access and develop its economy without coal in the next 10 years, regardless of the country’s investment in renewables. The comments are in response to a report by the Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) claiming that India will need no coal power plant after 2025.
    WCA CEO, Benjamin Sporton said: “India’s energy needs are too huge for any suggestion that it will not need coal in the future. In a country where 244 million have no electricity and 819 (million) no access to clean cooking facilities, it is impossible to find a solution without coal being part of the energy mix – coal is essential to global efforts to achieving universal energy access.” The World Coal Association commented:
    “Renewables have an important role to play but coal will remain the driving force behind electrification and industrialisation and according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), coal will continue to make the largest contribution to electricity generation in India through to 2040.”…
    India has huge development and energy challenges, and the government has been clear that all sources of energy will be needed to power up the economy, including coal…
    https://www.worldcoal.com/power/13022017/world-coal-association-reacts-to-teri-report/

    11

  • #
    pat

    must read all:

    13 Feb: Boston Globe: David Abel: Mish Michaels isn’t alone: Many meteorologists question climate change science
    Meteorologists are more skeptical than climate scientists, and that division was underscored by the recent departure of Mish Michaels from WGBH News.
    Michaels, a former meteorologist at WBZ-TV, lost her job as a science reporter at WGBH’s show “Greater Boston” last week after colleagues raised concerns about her views on vaccines and climate change. She had previously questioned the safety of vaccines and the evidence that human activity was causing global warming, both widely held views in the scientific community…

    A national survey last year by researchers at George Mason University in Virginia found that just 46 percent of broadcast meteorologists said they believed that climate change over the past 50 years has been “primarily or entirely” the result of human activity. By contrast, surveys of climate scientists have found that ***97 percent attribute warming to human activity…
    “Weather forecasters are people, too, and their political ideology plays a role in their views,” said Ed Maibach, who directs the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason and oversaw the study. ***“So conservative forecasters tend to be more skeptical than liberal forecasters.”

    Among those skeptics is Tim Kelley, who has issued weather forecasts on New England Cable News since 1992. He describes himself as a “student of climate change,” but says his experience with the variability of computer models has made him skeptical that anyone can predict how greenhouse gases will change the environment in the coming decades.
    “How can their computer models be better than ours?” he said. “We look at computer projections all the time, and we know how off they can be.”
    Kelley acknowledges the climate is changing, but like many skeptics he questions whether rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the reason. He believes most of the changes are natural, not man-made…
    “I’m much less alarmed by global warming than most people,” he said. “I’d rather it be warmer.”
    Kelley said he was deeply concerned by what he sees as Michaels’s firing.
    “It’s alarming that you can be scapegoated or branded as a denier,” he said…

    In a statement last week, Michaels said her “personal beliefs as a private citizen have been positioned inaccurately,” and maintained that she never claimed not to believe in vaccines.
    “Scientific consensus does not equal complacency. It is a challenge to scientists to verify the science or push it forward,” she said…

    Maibach, whose study was funded by the National Science Foundation, said that while broadcast meteorologists are generally more skeptical of human activity causing climate change, nearly all — 99 percent of the 646 broadcast meteorologists he surveyed — acknowledged that the earth’s climate is changing, whatever the reason.
    Meteorologists have grown more accepting of the scientific consensus on climate change, surveys show. A study he just completed, though not yet published, found an increase in the percentage of meteorologists who attributed climate change to human activity.
    In a separate survey of members of the American Meteorological Society (LINK), Maibach found that 67 percent said they thought climate change is entirely, largely, or mostly caused by human activity. About 20 percent of the group’s members work for broadcast stations…

    “It’s definitely concerning,” said Bernadette Woods Placky, director of Climate Matters, a New Jersey program that seeks to help meteorologists reflect climate change in their reports. The group provides broadcast-ready graphics and educational materials to 375 of the nation’s 2,200 TV meteorologists.EEAD ALL
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/02/13/why-weather-forecasters-question-climate-science/h93iEPs3YSwxPLJ58gWCxJ/story.html

    ***Maibach, how come plenty from the progressive left have doubts about CAGW and questions about vaccines, in particular additives, multi-dose vaccines, and the ever-increasing number of vaccines mandated or recommended for children?

    CDC: Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger, UNITED STATES, 2017
    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent-shell.html

    BBC carries WGBH’s “Boston Calling” ultra-left broadcast every week:

    Wikipedia: WGBH is a public radio station located in Boston, Massachusetts. WGBH is a member station of National Public Radio (NPR) and an affiliate of Public Radio International (PRI) and American Public Media (APM)…
    The station, dubbed “Boston Public Radio”, renamed “Boston’s Local NPR”, broadcasts a news-and-information format during the daytime (including NPR News programs and PRI’s The World, which is a co-production of WGBH, PRI, and the BBC World Service)…

    11

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Frank
    The sky is blue , the grass is green , the oceans are not becoming more acidic , man made Co2 is not causing climate change , you know that sort of Empirical stuff .

    82

  • #
    Cassiopeia

    I’ve just run the monthly temperatures over the same period (2000-2014) through a statistics package for the four series shown below. The regression trend plus the 95% confidence limits for the trend is shown, so 95% of all possible trends could be drawn between these lines.

    For UAH over the 14 year period, I obtain the same regression equation as mentioned in Jo’s text. Not surprisingly, this is not significant at the 95% level. However, for the other three series shown (and indeed six of the main seven data sets) there is a statistically signioficant increase in temperatures over these dates (e.g. Since the P-value in the ANOVA table is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant relationship between BEST and Date at the 95% confidence level).

    Therefore I raise two issues here.

    Does lack of significance of a trend for the UAH series imply a pause? It most definitely doesn’t! Statistically all what we say is that the data is too variable or noisy to show anything beyond the 95% confidence level, so it doesn’t prove a pause any more than an increase.

    The second issue is what are scientists referring to when they refer to a pause (or lack of)? I doubt if they are talking about inferred temperatures at altitude such as UAH, but temperatures measured more directly by thermometers at ground level where it affects the biosphere and ice directly.

    Now I’ve no doubt you are wary of many of these, so I have included analysis of the Berkeley Earth data which was overseen by a Contrarian sceptical of the official temperature data (Richard Muller), of which no other than Antony Watts said ‘I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong’.

    Note also that Carl Mears, lead scientist at RSS, has also argued that the surface temperature records are more accurate than satellite-based data when trying to estimate surface temperatures. However, I’ve included the new RSS Total Tropospheric Temperature data in the analysis, which have been adjusted for stratospheric interference for comparison.

    So I think we can conclude two things: first, over the majority of data sets between 200-2014, there WAS a statistically significant increase in temperatures at the 95% level. Secondly, I’ve never seen any statistical proof of any pause over any period, since the statistical hypothesis tests commonly used are technically incapable of doing this. However, over restricted periods with certain datasets with high variability and a lower rate of increase over the long term, mainly UAH, it is possible to show no statistical evidence of an increase. However, this is not the case over longer periods, especially when surface temperature data is used.

    30

  • #
    Crakar24

    Just had a thought…..(waiting for laughter to die down)……Jo should have her very own doomsday clock where the minute hand strikes 12 at midnight 31 March so people like me who live in SA now how long we have until the 3rd world begins.

    40

  • #
    pat

    ***Peter Gleick makes an appearance:

    14 Feb: AP: Lake Oroville critical to California’s complex water system
    by ELLEN KNICKMEYER and ELLIOT SPAGAT
    Lake Oroville is the starting point for California’s State Water Project, which provides drinking water to 23 million of the state’s 39 million people and irrigates 750,000 acres of farms…
    Oroville’s storage capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet of water is enough to supply urban California for up to six months, said ***Peter Gleick, president emeritus of the Pacific Institute, a water research organization based in Oakland, California.
    “The risk of losing Oroville is very, very low” he said. “The consequences would be catastrophic.”…
    BESIDES OROVILLE, WHERE DOES CALIFORNIA GET ITS WATER?
    It includes Shasta Lake, the only reservoir in California that’s larger than Oroville…
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/q-wet-winter-damage-dam-combine-threaten-cities-205228732.html

    funny thing is AP mentions Shasta, but doesn’t say:

    14 Feb: KCRA: Shasta Lake nears capacity as water releases increase
    Releases from Shasta Dam at 20-year high
    The lake stood at 96 percent of capacity and 137 percent of the historical average, as of midnight Monday, according to the California Department of Water Resources.
    Water officials are releasing 70,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Shasta Dam as the lake stands just 5 feet from the top of the reservoir, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office said…
    The reservoir holds 4,552,000 acre-feet and added nearly 4,400,000 acre-feet in Shasta Lake, as of early Monday morning, DWR records show…
    http://www.kcra.com/article/heart-shaped-islands-and-lakes-around-the-world/8778265

    13 Feb: LA Times: Veronica Rocha: Crumbling levee triggers evacuations for small farming community in the Delta
    Evacuation orders were issued Monday for a small farming tract in the Sacramento River Delta after a compromised levee posed a risk of flooding the area.
    Battered by recent storms, the levee in Tyler Island, an area about six miles south of Walnut Grove in Sacramento County, began crumbling after a nearly 70-foot-wide hole developed within the structure, said Matt Robinson, a spokesman for Sacramento County Water Resources…

    The recent storms have replenished water in most of the state’s major reservoirs so much so that some are near capacity…
    ***GRAPH: Levels of California’s major reservoirs (#1 Shasta Dam, #2 Oroville)
    On Monday, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released more than 74,000 cubic feet per second from the Shasta Dam, increasing flow into the Sacramento River, according to the Shasta County Sheriff’s office…
    “The releases are necessary in anticipation of the upcoming storm systems and to ensure adequate flood storage in Shasta Lake,” the sheriff’s office said in a statement…
    Sheriff’s officials have closed access to the river due to the high water levels.
    “High releases have caused localized flooding in many areas, as well as road closures throughout the county,” the sheriff’s office said. “The closure will be lifted as soon as it is safe.”…
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-evacuation-tyler-island-leeve-crumbling-20170213-story.html

    11

  • #
    pat

    13 Feb: YubaNet: NASA Earth Observatory: Drought Turns to Deluge in CA (satellite photos)
    By NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center
    With weather stations in the northern Sierra Nevada recording remarkably high levels of precipitation for the 2016-2017 water year, reservoir levels are well above the historical average in the Sacramento Valley and elsewhere in California. As of February 11, 2017, Lake Oroville stood at 151 percent of the historical average. Folsom Lake was at 144 percent, Lake Shasta was at 138 percent, Don Pedro Reservoir was at 141 percent, and Lake McClure was at 182 percent…
    https://yubanet.com/regional/nasa-earth-observatory-drought-turns-to-deluge-in-ca-satellite-photos/

    13 Feb: San Francisco Chronicle: Evacuees stranded with no end in sight to Lake Oroville crisis
    By Melody Gutierrez, Evan Sernoffsky and Kevin Fagan
    The crisis at Lake Oroville may grind on for weeks or longer — leaving the nearly 200,000 people ordered to evacuate on Sunday in nail-biting limbo…
    “We’re working very hard to deal with the challenges we have,” said Bill Croyle, acting director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re focused on the whole facility. The dam itself is sound, but we have some pieces that are critical to the operation that have been impaired.”…
    Officials tried to assure evacuees that it was better to endure the inconvenience than to risk death beneath a roiling wall of water…

    Complicating matters is a series of storms set to hit the area around Lake Oroville starting late Wednesday that will accelerate inflow into the reservoir
    “The area around Lake Oroville and mountains around Lake Oroville will see 1 to 2 inches with that storm,” said Tom Dang, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in Sacramento.
    That system will be followed by several more soaking storms through the weekend. Weekly rain totals could be as much as 8 inches in the mountains around Lake Oroville, Dang said.

    Water continued to pour into Lake Oroville at 37,000 cubic feet per second on Monday while the lake level fell from 901 feet on Sunday to about 895 feet around noon Monday. Based on the current inflow and outflow, the Department of Water Resources said the reservoir is dropping at a rate of 8 feet per day.
    It wasn’t clear if the next series of storms — or any rains or snowmelt that may follow — could push the water back up and over the emergency spillway…
    Water officials could be dealing with the spillway challenges for 10 to 15 days or longer, he said.
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Evacuees-stranded-with-no-end-in-sight-to-Lake-10929579.php

    11

  • #
    Gerry, England

    On WUWT is another good post by Tim Ball who suggests that we are being too lavish with the praise for John Bates as he has waited until he had retired before raising this. It might have been more praiseworthy while it was happening although under Obama he would likely have been silenced.

    21

  • #

    DId y’all see this? When Canadian Scientists Were Muzzled by Their Government – New York Times. It’s not about the muzzling of climate sceptics.

    40

  • #
    Phil Ford

    The Planet is going to hell, but no one thought to back up the data.

    Lines like this, which say so much in so few words, make me wonder when you’re going to write us that book, Jo? Now would be a good time – please! Your writing is insightful, nuanced, informed and, above all, funny! You never forget that there’s many a truth wrapped in a good joke or witty aside.

    30

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Disappointment counselling is available for EPA staff

    O/T so my apoligies …

    I have also checked the NOAA and NASA GISS Agencies for similar notifications but I have not seen anything other than the typical responses to the Presidential directive of 23rd January

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/31/federal-civilian-hiring-freeze-guidance

    It seems that EPA workers are being offered counselling for the up and coming changes about to be implemented at the Agency.
    Hiring freezes plus the suspension of grants amongst other directives are causing stress amongst staff whom seem to now need “disappointment counselling”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/27/trump-hopes-to-slash-epa-staff-carbon-footprint-by-50/amp/

    The counselling includes help on how to deal with change and how not get angry.

    Back to NOAA….

    Returning to the subject of Jo’s post I am glad that she mentions NOAA and the paper Karl(et al) again as these are referenced in many counter arguments by supporters of AGW who wish to denounce the existance of a “pause” in the upward trend of the Global temperature.

    The significance of NOAA’s involvement in how Karl (et al) was produced cannot be underestimated and will finally put a solid question mark over NOAA’s reputation as regards Climate Science, especially considering that it seems to have managed to avoid and “shrug off” the damage and suspicion to its reputation caused by the “shoddy” methodologies and procedures being used by some of the other Federal Agencies working on AGW.

    32

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Another problem for the alarmists, Greenland, the poster isle for the so called unsurpassed ice sheet melts…Well..NOT ..https://www.iceagenow.info/greenland-ice-sheet-defying-alarmist-predictions-showing-massive-growth/
    http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
    Note the accumulated Gt (blue line).

    11

  • #
    Amber

    NOAA got another letter today from the USA Congress Science Committee
    requesting all related documents and Emails related to the NOAA study claiming
    to have “disappeared ‘ the pause . This time the Committee will get it without
    obstruction or their non-compliance weasel words .
    NOAA had at least 8 scientists involved and despite claims of a broken computer
    by NOAA destruction of government property is a firing offence for cause . Would 8 scientists all destroy the data
    if it were not a coordinated effort to hide the truth ?
    Bottom line…. claims made that can’t be replicated are unscientific garbage . The Paris Treaty was supposed to be
    backstopped with science which never actually existed . So it was based on a politically motivated fraud .
    USA Representative Lamar Smith is Chair of the House Committee on Science ,Space and Technology
    and is not about to back down from the NOAA wagon circlers .
    Normally scientists understand and apply the principles of the scientific method . When they don’t
    they have no value and that is where NOAA is going . Former NOAA Manager John Bates recent revelations just confirmed the obvious .
    Honest scientists have been silenced for far too long .

    00

  • #

    The Guardian explains that William Happer, the frontrunner for the role of science adviser to president Trump, who has described climate “scientists” as “a glassy-eyed cult” in the throes of a form of collective madness, is an eminent physicist at Princeton University, and highly regarded in the academic community. As if argumentum ad verecundiam or ad populum are valid.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/trump-science-adviser-william-happer-climate-change-cult

    The Guardian article also resorts to democracy in an attempt to discredit Happer.

    00

  • #

    [...] Pause. The pause in global temperature rise has long been a sticking point in the argument over the existence of manmade global warming due to CO2 emissions.  For the skeptic side, it is a 19 +yearlong hiatus in global temperature increases.  The glowarmer side has done everything humanly possible to erase that pause, not unlike they have tried to do with the very hot temperatures in the 1930s, the Little Ice Age and earlier warm spells since the last ice age ended.  The latest paper was a NOAA production that was rushed through the system just in time for the most recent Paris climate meeting.  A NOAA whistle blower reported that NOAA broke all the rules of writing scientific papers in the construction of this pile of steaming excrement.  They based the results on unverified data.  They ran that data through an unstable computer program (think model) that spit out different results every time it was run.  The data was never archived and therefore is not available to anybody trying to repeat the results.  They ignored high quality data from ARGO buoys and satellites when that data did not echo the predetermined results.  Final bit of news on this paper is that the data was retained on a single computer which broke, trashing the data.  None of the eight scientists involved in writing the paper had a backup nor did any of the reviewers to celebrated the steaming pile as actual science.  But they were quick to tell both O’Bama and congress that the pause did not exist and they could prove it.  http://joannenova.com.au/2017/02/pause-deniers-finally-get-busted-by-mainstream-media/ [...]

    00