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

Antarctica cooling since Roman Times, climate models wrong (again)

A new study suggests temperatures across Antarctica have been falling for the last 1,600 years.  This natural climate change would have been a threat to baby penguins, forcing them to walk much further across sea-ice for food. (Looks like it was even worse for polar bears ;-) ). The cooling trend would have threatened inland lakes, shortened summer breeding periods, affected seal behaviour, extended glaciers over important habitats, and destroyed rare tundra. It may have contributed to the death of a man called Scott. If man-made climate change warmed Antarctica we need to burn more oil.

Any recent weak “man-made” warming trend would have slightly reversed this destructive slide — restoring the continent back to levels last seen in 1400AD. Though, given that the models are wrong about everything, including Antarctic warming, maybe not.

Antarctic Cooling, Graph, 2000 years, 2017

 

These trends are not what the Climate Models predicted for Antarctica. The slight recent warming trend is too small. (Polar Amplification, anyone?)

The Daily Caller:

However, Stenni admits the “absence of significant continent-scale warming of Antarctica over the last 100 years is in clear contrast with the significant industrial-era warming trends that are evident in reconstructions for all other continents (except Africa) and the tropical oceans.”

This lack of warming “is not in agreement with climate model simulations, which consistently produce a 20th century warming trend over Antarctica in response to greenhouse gas forcing,” Stenni wrote.

From Stenni, et al (2017)

We produce both unweighted and weighted isotopic (δ18O) composites and temperature reconstructions since 0 CE, binned at 5- and 10-year resolution, for seven climatically distinct regions covering the Antarctic continent

Our new reconstructions confirm a significant cooling trend from 0 to 1900 CE across all Antarctic regions where records extend back into the 1st millennium, with the exception of the Wilkes Land coast and Weddell Sea coast regions. Within this long-term cooling trend from 0 to 1900 CE, we find that the warmest period occurs between 300 and 1000 CE, and the coldest interval occurs from 1200 to 1900 CE. Since 1900 CE, significant warming trends are identified for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions…

 

For anyone who doesn’t know, as I’ve been saying for years, the parts of West Antarctica that have warmed lately seem to have big volcano’s under them, coincidence?:

h/t GWPF

REFERENCE

Stenni, B., Curran, M. A. J., Abram, N. J., Orsi, A., Goursaud, S., Masson-Delmotte, V., Neukom, R., Goosse, H., Divine, D., van Ommen, T., Steig, E. J., Dixon, D. A., Thomas, E. R., Bertler, N. A. N., Isaksson, E., Ekaykin, A., Werner, M., and Frezzotti, M.: Antarctic climate variability on regional and continental scales over the last 2000 years, Clim. Past, 13, 1609-1634, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1609-2017, 2017.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (75 votes cast)
Antarctica cooling since Roman Times, climate models wrong (again), 9.7 out of 10 based on 75 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yb777ozt

242 comments to Antarctica cooling since Roman Times, climate models wrong (again)

  • #
    GaryH

    ” Since 1900 CE, significant warming trends are identified for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions”

    312

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Cripes, another cherry-picker.

      Say GaryH, what happened to the rest of Antarctica? How did the CO2 know to only warm the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions?

      Clever stuff that little molecule. Does it think for itself? Has it been taken to the Human Rights Commission for discrimination yet? Why not?

      222

    • #
      AndyG55

      Note the cooling trend between the EL Nino effects.

      112

    • #
      sophocles

      The Antarctic Peninsular is part of West Antarctica.
      That’s where 91 volcanoes [were] coincidentally found under glaciers warming “due to climate change”

      92

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        NO, no,no! Can’t be the volcanoes.

        It has to be the CO2 don’t you know?

        In climate “science” it’s always the CO2. Always.

        Obviously the volcanoes just release amazingly large amounts of sticky CO2 which sticks around like a bad smell in that part of Antarctica warming the atmosphere.

        GaryH and Harry Twinotter will give us the reference to the IPCC’s peer reviewed paper on it shortly.

        51

        • #
          TedM

          Yes: where is Harry twinotter, Tristan, Mark and that especially Silly Filly.

          32

        • #
          sophocles

          ScepticalSam said:

          NO, no,no! Can’t be the volcanoes.

          Have you tried the obvious `laboratory experiment?’ Go on: choose an ice sheet, any ice sheet, then fire a volcano up under it and watch it melt. Works every time. :-)

          10

    • #
      Peter C

      How did you incorporate that graphic in your reply?

      50

    • #
      Manfred

      GaryH: November 23, 2017

      If that’s your snapshot of evidence for a warming trend, I suggest it appears opaque for a warming trend while offering clear evidence of your need for prescription corrective lenses and ideological rehabilitation.

      82

    • #
      GaryH

      Gang – somehow, the rest of my message got removed (mod was assisting in getting the graph posted). I responded to the statement I quoted with, ‘according to several sources – see plot – the Antarctic peninsula has been in a 2 decade cooling trend, of just over 1 C. That stands in contrast to it’s been warming like gangbusters since 1900.’

      I’d further note that any warming of this region prior to the 1970′s, according to the consensus of those nutty AG warmists, would have no potential for an observable human footprint on warming. Since then, I’m of the view that any warming would be mostly, if not entirely naturally occurring, as well.

      Sorry for the mix-up . . but goodness, you folks jumped on me, without reason.

      22

      • #
        Manfred

        ” Since 1900 CE, significant warming trends are identified for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions”


        “…you folks jumped on me, without reason.”

        GaryH, given your graph and its truncated legend in the leading position on the thread, the Tarantino-esque follow-up was a reflexive spree. I do consider we had sufficient reason under the circumstances, though I am finally delighted to read the balance of your post and wish you well.

        Dang. And I thought we were about to discover a way to post images directly into WordPress & Atahualpa.

        22

        • #
          peter

          I know how GaryH can feel. It has happened to me on this site. You lot can be very reactionary. But don’t blow a fuse, you can interpret that graph in different ways. Except for Faraday, who seemed to be all over the place (data too variable to determine any accurate trend), the plots all looked flat-trend to 1980 then jumped sharply to 1982-83 El-Nino then trend-declined to 1995 then sharply up-trended to the 1998 El-Nino then have declined ever since except for Faraday and a few others that showed peaking around 2010 (El-Nino?). The recent 2016 El-Nino would probably show another uptrend.

          This is all good stuff because those graph trends are completely contrary to the rise in CO2 levels over the same years. And as most people on this site know, the climate models DO NOT ALLOW or explain that contrary temp. behaviour.

          22

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        GaryH.

        The chart you posted shows warming in the locations shown. No cherry-picking allowed to claim otherwise.

        12

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          I think we’re making progress.

          Do I detect Harry Twinotter conceding the warming GaryH posted is a result of volcanic activity?

          So, where does that put the Twinotter on the question of man-made CO2 driven warming?

          Of course, we’re still awaiting his proof that man-made CO2 was the predominant cause of the 0.74 C temperature increase over the 100 years ending 2005.

          12

  • #
    DMA

    Antarctica is the best test area for AGW theory. It has no problem with urban heat island effect. It has low humidity so the interference with the CO2 for radiation absorption is minimized. CO2 is well mixed so it should effect Antarctica the same as any where else. The solar radiation is widely varied on an annual basis so the greenhouse effect should be obvious in the summer. Yet we can’t see it in these studies. Maybe it is too small to detect yet.

    212

    • #

      DMA,
      Actually, the sensitivity at the poles is about 50% larger than that at the equator given the 1/T^3 dependence of the sensitivity on the temperature. A significant source of consensus error is extrapolating the polar sensitivity to the rest of the planet.

      131

      • #
        tom0mason

        The other big problem is that the poles are so very different from each other. North pole is all ice and water, the South pole is all land and ice.

        Local/regional topology dictates how weather and climate variations affect each pole.
        The North Pole’s weather and climate is heavily affected by ocean currents varying the local sea temperature and the long term prevailing wind direction.
        The South Pole less so on ocean or wind direction variables, and more about solar affects, atmospherics, and the local volcanic/seismic activity.

        Also of note is the magnetic North and South poles are not mirror images of each other.

        120

        • #

          tomOmason,

          More than the just polar regions, the two hemispheres themselves are mirror images of each other.

          The fraction of land to ocean is opposite between the two hemispheres.

          In the N hemisphere, the seasonal snow belt is mostly land where snow can accumulate while in the S hemisphere, its mostly water where snow can not accumulate.

          The seasonal p-p variability in the Southern hemisphere average temperature is only about 4C, while its closer to 12 C in the N hemisphere.

          Perihelion aligns with the S hemisphere summer and N hemisphere winter which if the hemispheres were symmetric, the S would have a larger p-p seasonal variability.

          The asymmetries between hemispheres are crucially important to understand how ice ages come and go and how the precession of perihelion can have a significant effect on global yearly averages, even as the total energy received by the planet remains constant during the course of a year.

          A good test of any climate model is to shift perihelion by 6 months and see what happens. The result should be an increase in the p-p seasonal variability in the N and a further decrease in the S. Unfortunately, it seems that many GCM’s are driven by AU normalized solar input!

          30

    • #
      el gordo

      The AGW mantra spells out quite clearly that the coldest and driest places on earth will warm the fastest, this is not happening in Antarctica.

      180

      • #
        RickWilll

        The temperature over any land is essentially inconsequential to the energy in the climate system. The global surface energy is bound in the oceans with the majority of the remaining bound in the atmosphere over the oceans. Measuring land temperature, from a climate perspective, is just measuring noise.

        Any heat input to land is lost the same day it arrives. The only place in the tropics with net heat loss is the Sahara Desert:
        https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_NETFLUX_M
        The net flux image for September shows this nicely with the Sahara the only tropical region with net outgoing heat. All the tropical oceans accumulate heat and it gets released from the oceans in higher latitudes.

        62

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          The net flux image for September shows this nicely with the Sahara the only tropical region with net outgoing heat. All the tropical oceans accumulate heat and it gets released from the oceans in higher latitudes.

          That is not an image of anything; it is instead a computer generated cartoon of what NASA Goddard non-scientists believe the satellite data means! When has NASA ever tried to falsify its own beliefs? More CAGW nonsense. From your reference:

          What do the colors mean?…The colors in these maps show the net radiation (in Watts per square meter) that was contained in the Earth system for the given time period. The maps illustrate the fundamental imbalance between net radiation surpluses at the equator (green areas), where sunlight is direct year-round, and net radiation deficits at high latitudes (blue areas), where direct sunlight is seasonal.

          Never once have these Climate Clowns ever even tried to ‘measure’ what insolation flux is absorbed by the surface and what exit flux is emitted from the surface at any location on the surface of this Earth! The Clowns do not even have a verifiable method of estimating such from iffy measurements!
          All the best!-will-

          81

          • #
            RickWilll

            It is a computer generated image based on the flux value on 1X1 degree grid inferred from the radiance data recorded by satellites. Agreed the processing of the measured data is complex.

            The method of analysing the instrument data is detailed here:
            https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/ATBD/pdf/r2_2/ceres-atbd2.2-s4.6.1.pdf

            The data does not fit the climate models. The net retained heat is less than any of the climate models predict. The net flux also varies over a wide range from month to month and year to year compared with longer term trends.

            32

            • #
              Will Janoschka

              The net retained heat is less than any of the climate models predict.

              Yet the Clowns claim retained heat (energy) is in power flux W/m² units, rather than energy Joules! Can they or you explain how to retain a power?

              51

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          Any heat input to land is lost the same day it arrives. The only place in the tropics with net heat loss is the Sahara Desert:

          Rick, do you have any idea how badly you are distorting the meaning of the CERES data? The CERES instrument is a down-looker (Nadir) with a very small angular field of view 1.3° x 2.6° or 0.8 milli-steradian out of the pi-steradian solid angle that the surface attempts to emit but cannot.
          CERES measures 8-12 micron band radiance (W/m²sr) quite accurately. But then the NASA CLOWNS claim a 8-12 micron ‘radiance’ projected into a blackbody radiance then further projected from a zenith radiance into 0.8 msr times (Pi/0.008) for some sort of hypothetical surface exit flux in W/m².
          In actuality over 78% of Earths 4Pi sr (whole sphere) is cloud covered when observed in that 8-12 micron band.
          Most of the actual measurement is from cloud tops not Earth’s surface. This clearly demonstrates that the NASA Climate Clowns have no possible clue as to what they keep promoting as “SCIENCE”!
          All the best!-will-

          71

        • #
          tom0mason

          Climate is regional, averaged temperature or even “global surface energy” are almost meaningless for assessing climate variation for any particular place on the planet.

          All so often averaged global temperature, or even “global surface energy” is the art of statistically smearing the regional significance out of any data set, then saying you can observe local effects clearer.

          50

    • #
      Peter C

      . The solar radiation is widely varied on an annual basis so the greenhouse effect should be obvious in the summer.

      How should the Greenhouse Gas Effect manifest itself in the Antarctic Summer?

      50

      • #
        DMA

        The summer out going long wave radiation is higher than winter. The increased CO2 should “trap”more and the increased temperature trend should be easier to detect. The summer trend should be larger than the winter trend as the CO2 has more heat to trap.
        Actually the ERBE satellite measurements show the opposite of this part of the AGW theory that is embedded in every GCM.

        01

        • #
          sophocles

          CO2 does not “trap” heat. The fact it absorbs and re-emits some few wavelengths of IR energy is irrelevant. It’s been interpreted as “heat” when it isn’t since Tyndall’s day, and even by Tyndall. It’s never been investigated or verified.

          This error is discussed in Nikolov and Zeller’s paper New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. [pdf].
          See: Role of greenhouse gasses from a perspective of the new model on p13.

          Allmendinger also explains this error in his simpler essay. [pdf] or the full paper (pdf) His investigation of the atmospheric gases behaviour under solar insolation “delivers the first empirical evidence that greenhouse gases» do not exist.”.

          Both these papers provide sufficient information to conclude
          the atmospheric greenhouse effect does not exist.

          30

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Peter C November 23, 2017 at 5:16 pm

        How should the Greenhouse Gas Effect manifest itself in the Antarctic Summer?

        Good looking girly Penguins!

        10

  • #
    Howie from Indiana

    Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t behave like a greenhouse so it’s not surprising that a greenhouse effect doesn’t show up in these studies.

    272

    • #
      Yonniestone

      A big tin o worms opened up early into the thread :)

      Yes the earth is covered in 71% of water yes its atmosphere vents to a void of sorts yes its ability to shift elements on a huge scale from outside influences BUT all these observations could be seen in a greenhouse at some level especially convection so the question is what effects do we focus on in attempts to recreate a valid test?

      Or is the greenhouse test like any GCM that is subject to garbage in garbage out?

      81

      • #
        sophocles

        Or is the greenhouse test like any GCM that is subject to garbage in garbage out?

        Yes.

        While the termites continue to run around accusing each other of causing `an effect’ climatically by trying to blame it on a trace gas’s variations and refuse to take into account the environment in which the planet exists (from Solar System to Galactic region), then the termites who don’t look up and out will remain continually puzzled by the mismatches between their expectations and reality.

        After 25 years, they still cling to their unvalidated (and probably unverifiable, because they “can’t do clouds“) CO2-primed numerical models, insisting the occasional temporally minute matches are not coincidence but proof.

        A few make the experimentally based investigations which should have been made a couple of decades ago and discover that the greenhouse analogy does not apply.

        Ergo “the Greenhouse test, like any GCM,” is not subject to garbage in garbage out, because it is pure Garbage. It’s assumptions are demonstrably Cargo Cult Science.

        181

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          While the termites continue to run around accusing each other of causing `an effect’ climatically by trying to blame it on a trace gas’s variations and refuse to take into account the environment in which the planet exists

          Just guess what the Roaches are doing? Earth’s next top predator! :-(

          60

    • #

      If you examine the planet from a spectral point of view, the planet acts more like a greenhouse with half of the glass roof panels removed.

      102

      • #
        PeterS

        and no walls :-)
        Seriously though I thought the greenhouse effect is an oversimplification of what is really happening. For example, if our atmosphere was much thinner or non existent we would have extreme temperature variations between day and night at the surface of the earth. So our atmosphere is more like a translucent blanket and less like a greenhouse, although they do have somewhat similar properties but only at specific levels in the atmosphere.

        90

        • #

          Functionally, the atmosphere behaves more like a layer that converts the mostly ideal BB emissions of the surface into the apparently gray body emissions of the planet and whose apparent emissivity, relative to an ideal BB at the surface temperature, is about 0.61.

          Any decrease in temperature variability is due mostly to increasing night time lows, where the largest contributor to this is atmospheric water. The Moon has larger extremes not because of the lack of an atmosphere, but because of its 672 hour day.

          If the planet emits less (240 W/m^2 @ 255K) than the surface (390 W/m^2 @ 288K), the atmosphere must be capturing surface emissions by GHG’s and clouds. In the steady state, the energy flux leaving the atmosphere must be equal to that captured from the surface, whose departure from the atmosphere is approximately evenly split between returning to the surface, or being emitted into space. The planet emissions then become the surface emissions not captured by the atmosphere plus half of what the atmosphere captured, the other half being returned to the surface to replenish incremental emissions at a temperature greater than can be achieved from solar forcing alone. To be clear, the split up/down varies a few percent on either side of even and its the midpoint that appears to be the primary attractor, moreover; the split is only relevant after non radiant energy from latent heat and thermals is returned to the surface since no NET amount of this non radiant heat can leave the planet, rockets not withstanding.

          32

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            If the planet emits less (240 W/m^2 @ 255K) than the surface (390 W/m^2 @ 288K), the atmosphere must be capturing surface emissions by GHG’s and clouds. In the steady state, the energy flux leaving the atmosphere must be equal to that captured from the surface, whose departure from the atmosphere is approximately evenly split between returning to the surface, or being emitted into space.

            From where are you getting this nonsense? The actual amount of surface EMR exit flux is so small it can be ignored! Between Convection and cyclic latent heat of evaporation\ condensation all of Planet Earth’s EMR exit flux to space originates in the atmosphere. None ‘need” originate from the surface, at all.
            No spontaneous EMR flux (W/m²) is ever generated (emitted) in a direction of higher ‘radiance’ at any frequency!

            … the split is only relevant after non radiant energy from latent heat and thermals is returned to the surface since no NET amount of this non radiant heat can leave the planet, rockets not withstanding.

            More nonsense None of your so called “non radiant energy” elevated into the atmosphere ever returns to the surface. It is all spontaneously radiated to very low ‘radiance’ space!
            All the best!-will-

            60

            • #

              Will,
              No nonsense here and its all a consequence of the physics and supported by measurements.

              Latent heat is returned to the liquid water as vapor condenses on a droplet before it falls as rain, thus returns to the surface. The difference in temperature between the water originally evaporated from the surface and the water that falls as rain is the primary source of the energy that drives weather. To the extent that atmospheric water radiates, in LTE is will absorbing the same flux, thus there’s no net conversion. Thermals are irrelevant as the O2 and N2 carrying the heat can not radiate any of this heat as photons in order to leave the planet. What goes up must come down …

              You should also check your balance math. Under your scenario. the numbers will not add up for either the required emissions of the planet or the required input to the surface to offset its BB emissions. Both of these need to be satisfied by the balance.

              You should also be aware that nearly half of the power of the BB emissions of the surface pass directly into space under clear sky conditions.

              Finally, the apparent gray body behavior of the planet is clearly evident in the data,

              http://www.palisad.com/co2/fb/Figure1.png

              The solid lines are the SB relationship between temperature (Y) and emissions (X) for varying emissivity. Each small red dot is the 1 month average of the surface temperature (Y) vs. the planet emissions (X) for each 2.5 degree slice of latitude covering 3 decades of satellite data. The larger dark dots are the average over the entire record for each 2.5 degree slice.

              From a macroscopic, LTE perspective, its impossible to deny that the planet looks like a gray body emitter whose emissivity is about 0.61 which is slightly larger below 0C due to a lesser amount of water vapor. This clearly illustrates the behavior of the atmosphere I talked about as a layer that makes the planet look gray, relative to an approximately ideal BB surface at some average temperature.

              30

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                Latent heat is returned to the liquid water as vapor condenses on a droplet before it falls as rain

                Can you please explain how the accumulation of power as latent heat (energy) as liquid changes phase to gas, with no temperature change can possibly be retained as energy in the reverse condensation to liquid? The only way atmospheric WV can possibly condense is to radiate such latent heat (energy) via spontaneous EMR exitance to lower radiance space.

                the water that falls as rain is the primary source of the energy that drives weather.

                The only thing that drives (powers) Earth’s weather is the continual accumulation (storage) of insolation flux as latent heat from morning clouds to WV and the release back to space of that latent heat (formation of clouds) when insolation is absent! Can you imagine Earth’s huge static atmospheric bulge Sun-ward? Why is that!

                From a macroscopic, LTE perspective, its impossible to deny that the planet looks like a gray body emitter whose emissivity is about 0.61

                From a spontaneous thermal EMR perspective everything has an an emissivity of (1-1/e) the definition of ‘optical depth’ at each frequency and in each direction. Can you plot the ‘optical depth’ of space?
                All the best!-will-

                50

              • #
                bobl

                Not really, when WV condenses it reduces its volume, this creates a reduction in AIR PRESSURE which drives the weather. Temperature is a bit player.

                It’s like an engine in reverse, in the engine a liquid is ignited and forms a gaseous product greatly increasing the pressure inside the cylinder which drives the piston, it is not temperature that drives the engine, it is gas pressure.

                60

              • #

                Will,

                Just as evaporation cools the water it evaporates from, condensation heats the water being condensed upon and there is a temperature change to the water droplet, which eventually falls to Earth warming the surface (rain over the ocean is usually warmer than the water it’s falling into). Moreover; there is no ‘accumulation’ of heat when we consider the LTE state. The atmosphere has a fixed capacity to store energy and once full, whatever flux enters the atmosphere is offset by flux leaving the atmosphere, where the flux that leaves is a delayed version of energy captured in the past.

                Optical depth is not a property of a vacuum. It’s actually a metric quantifying grayness. The larger the optical depth between an emitting surface and space, the grayer that emitting surface appears from space.

                The salient point about latent heat, thermals and the return of that energy to the surface is that they have no additional effect on the LTE surface temperature and its corresponding sensitivity beyond the effect they are already having on the measured LTE surface temperature and corresponding photon emissions. Trenberth conflated the energy transported by photons with the energy transported by matter in order to obfuscate this important consideration. It seems that this has confused you exactly as it was designed to do.

                10

              • #

                Bobl,

                There’s one other offset which is the potential energy of water lifted against the force of gravity which is certainly real, otherwise hydroelectric power would be impossible.

                Interestingly enough, the potential energy of the water lifted against gravity in a thunderhead and the energy stored in the capacitance between the bottom of the clouds and the surface plus the energy stored within the self capacitance of the cloud itself are relatively close to each other.

                This more or less makes sense, as the charge associated with lightning is easily explained as the alignment of the electric dipoles within a liquid water dielectric (or incorrectly as charge arising from collisions), the origin of the Joules (voltage is Joules per Coulomb) is currently unexplained and otherwise quite large and on the order of billions of Joules per Coulomb which is many orders of magnitude larger than collisions can explain.

                To put this in perspective, the 1 GV potential difference required to produce a relatively weak lightning bolt requires 1.6 E-10 Joules per elemental charge while the mass energy of an H2O molecule is only about 16x larger at about 2.6E-9 Joules. For a water molecule in motion, it would require a classical velocity of about 1/3 the speed of light to have 1.6E-10 Joules of kinetic energy.

                This all arises because just as charging a parallel plate capacitor pulls the plates together, the mass of water pushing down on the top of the capacitor pushing the plates together charges the capacitance. Charging a capacitor with a force applied to its plates is easily tested and in fact is the operating principle behind many microphones.

                10

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                How professorially presented! Just like some college lecturer with a Liberal Phd but no experience whatsoever. Lets take this apart.

                co2isnotevil November 24, 2017 at 4:02 am

                Will,Just as evaporation cools the water it evaporates from,..

                co2isn’t seems a CAGW zealot that will never define the terms he spouts. Heating/cooling can mean (vernacular) increasing/decreasing temperature and associated sensible heat; or (technical) adding\removing ‘energy’ via power transfer by any means with or without temperature change; i.e. boiling water!

                condensation heats the water being condensed upon and there is a temperature change to the water droplet, which eventually falls to Earth warming the surface (rain over the ocean is usually warmer than the water it’s falling into).

                What grand professorial drivil! There remains continual airborne H2O with mass equivalent of 9 days precipitation to surface. This airborne H2O mainly changes between a WV gas phase and a colloidal (cloud) phase, on a continual diurnal cycle. For H2O with specific heat between 2-4 J/gm-kelvins for a max sensible heat variance of 50-100 J/gm @ Δ25 kelvins diurnal cycle. This compares with 2500 J/gm storage for the latent phase change. Your Climate Clowns have publicly denounced the only significant effector of Earth’s weather, namely airborne H2O in all 5 phases!

                Moreover; there is no ‘accumulation’ of heat when we consider the LTE state.

                Where on or about this planet exists something called ‘local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE)? More Professorial:

                The atmosphere has a fixed capacity to store energy and once full, whatever flux enters the atmosphere is offset by flux leaving the atmosphere, where the flux that leaves is a delayed version of energy captured in the past.

                Remember that 9:1 ratio of airborne H2O to diurna90 to surface? This Earth’s atmosphere has never come close to ‘full’ or ‘empty’ of designed ability to moderate and limit effects of weather.
                God’s technical assistants (angels), at JPL\Cal-Tech are soo good! I wish they would stop adjusting to ‘make it better’! :-)

                Optical depth is not a property of a vacuum. It’s actually a metric quantifying grayness. The larger the optical depth between an emitting surface and space, the grayer that emitting surface appears from space.

                Completely upside down and backward!! What surface appears emitting from space? Picky, picky-picky academic diversion\nonsense!

                The salient point about latent heat, thermals and the return of…

                Drivel, I’m getting tired!

                that energy to the surface is that they have no additional effect on the LTE surface temperature and its corresponding sensitivity beyond the effect they are already having on the measured LTE surface temperature and corresponding photon emissions.

                More drivel! What can possibly be a ‘photon’ beyond some drunken concept?
                All the best!-will-

                21

              • #

                Will,
                The garbage you’re spewing is tiresome. You’re trying to find faults where none exists and making a fool of yourself. You seem to do this a lot and I’m uninterested in enabling you any more.

                01

              • #

                co2isnotevil November 25, 2017 at 4:07 am

                Will,The garbage you’re spewing is tiresome. You’re trying to find faults where none exists and making a fool of yourself. You seem to do this a lot and I’m uninterested in enabling you any more. You’re trying to find faults where none exists and making a fool of yourself. You seem to do this a lot and I’m uninterested in enabling you any more.

                co2snot,
                The garbage you’re spewing is tiresome. Can you even point out one error in my analysis? Your drivel laden reply to Bobl is even worse! If someone paid for your displayed ‘education’, they likely want a refund.

                11

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                Will,No nonsense here and its all a consequence of the physics and supported by measurements.

                Your spouting is all liberal BS, no physics, no science, only pseudoscience from deliberately misinterpreting what former scientists were trying to express, called research; just like R.M. Goody et-al!
                Why cannot you even admit that you have never made a physical measurement let alone trying to explain to others just why ‘your’ measurement is so far afield from the expected.
                All the best!-will-

                10

            • #
              RickWilll

              See 2.2.1.1.1 above.

              23

      • #
        sophocles

        the planet acts more like a greenhouse with half of the glass roof panels removed.

        The planet doesn’t act like a greenhouse at all. It’s atmosphere has no roof.

        You all (except Will, but he might like to poke at its holes) need to read the essay The Real Cause of Global Warming. It’s written in pretty straight forward language and is only 7 pages. Easy.

        When you have read and absorbed it, then you can read the two papers which expand the essay.

        1. The first refutes the greenhouse effect in more detail.

        2. The second which formalises some of the first:but also refutes the greenhouse effect.

        Note: all are pdfs.

        These should clear up your misconceptions about it all. Keep clearly in mind, There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.

        50

        • #

          You all (except Will, but he might like to poke at its holes) need to read the essay The Real Cause of Global Warming. It’s written in pretty straight forward language and is only 7 pages. Easy.

          The paper again demonstrates a religious adherance to thermodynamic theory and the complete disregard that electromagnetic power transfer is completely independent of thermo dynamics.

          50

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      ” doesn’t behave like a greenhouse …”

      Indeed, inside a greenhouse CO2 is consumed, and has to be added for the plants to grow. I’ve also read that rapidly growing fields consume CO2 and need a little wind to bring a fresh supply or growth nearly stops.

      CO2 and rain are good things.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Is_a_Good_Thing
      Rain makes corn, corn makes whiskey
      Whiskey makes my baby, feel a little frisky

      101

      • #

        You give whiskey to a baby? -)

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Why, do you think, I have stayed in my first childhood, for all these years?

          Of course, you give whisky to a baby! Nine out of ten babies agree, whisky tastes better than gripe water.

          40

        • #
          sophocles

          Beth:
          You only need a couple of drops at a time. Does wonders when they’re teething, they sleep well. If they’re grumpy next morning, you used at least a drop too much.

          Nothing was said about good scotch. Of course you do NOT use the single malt bottle; that’s mine. Use the blended one.

          50

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            Nothing was said about good scotch. Of course you do NOT use the single malt bottle; that’s mine. Use the blended one.

            I prefer giving away Englitch Gin, which also makes good paint remover! :-)

            10

  • #
    dayhay

    Looking at the data over Holocene timescales over at Climate Audit tells everything you need to know.
    If CO2 does cause warming, we are going to need a crap ton of it to survive in the future.

    92

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “If CO2 does cause warming, we are going to need a crap ton of it to survive in the future.”

      So does CO2 cause warming, or not?

      I, for one, love this magical Global Cooling. Cooling that causes glaciers to retreat, Arctic ice packs to shrink, sea water to expand and global temperatures to increase.

      10

  • #

    We know that humans have thrived in periods outside this brief interglacial starting some 11,700 years back. We know that complex civilisations have thrived ONLY in this brief period.

    You might get 30,000 years of interglacial, you’ll probably get a lot less. When you go back into glaciation it’s for 70,000 years if you’re lucky.

    Short catastrophic events as severe as the Mt Laki and Mt Tambora eruptions have yet to test our modern aviation, transport, agriculture, air quality and communications. Yet such events are not rare and have to come round every few hundred years.

    None of this is new or contested in broad outline. It’s just that it’s always been easier for the priestly class within the scientific class to play at climate control in exchange for temple offerings rather than seek to understand more. Pity that, because it’s getting rather urgent. That last little temperature dip around 1700 was quite sharp.

    180

    • #
      Dennis

      Recently announced results of research now claim that the Australian Aborigines lived at least 60,000 years ago, previous research pointed to 40,000 years.

      30

    • #
      el gordo

      It has been suggested that there was a population crash at the Last Glacial Maximum and half the population died out.

      The bulk of the survivors huddled around Lake Carpentaria.

      http://www.hobbykwekers.nl/images/stories/artikelen/Regenboogvissen/verspreiding/Sahul-verspreiding_regenboogvissen_50000_jaar_geleden.jpg

      40

    • #
      sophocles

      Mosomoso said:

      You might get 30,000 years of interglacial, you’ll probably get a lot less.

      The interglacials for the Quaternary Ice Age (since c. 2.5NYA) last about 12,000 to 15,000 years. The glacials were (over 800KYA) from c. 40,000 years long and up. Recent ones, including the last one, have lasted about 100.000 years. This, the Holocene interglacial, passed a tipping point at the end of the Minoan Warming. From about 10,000 YA, there was a constant background cooling at a rate of about 0.05°C per millenium, At the end of the Minoan Warming (c, 3,000 YA) it changed to 0.5°C per millenium. This implies the Holocene is basically over and it’s all downhill, now, since 3000 years ago. :-)

      So take what warming comes our way and enjoy it. It ain’t gonna last.

      70

    • #

      Spring, – sayeth the bard,
      ‘When proud pied April, dressed in all his trim,
      Hath put a spirit of youth in everything’

      Spring! Uh-oh, over before you know it, kinda like those
      inter-glacials,’n don’t u fergit it, warmies!

      20

  • #

    “evident in reconstructions”

    Reconstructions are subjective interpretations of historical data with an intrinsic uncertainty larger than the presumed trends they produce. This doesn’t even include the additional errors/uncertainty added by the subjective interpretation.

    140

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      co2isnotevil. I was hoping someone would make these points, thanks.
      Reconstructions always use proxy variables that may be strongly related to temperature or not be related to temperature.
      Also the relationship between temperature and precipitation is complex depending on properties of air masses, rain shadow, seasonality, lapse rate with elevation, etc. producing more uncertainty. The importance of these relationships are very different in the arctic and antarctic. Now add the uncertainty of under the ice volcanoes in the antarctic as Jo pointed out and it would be difficult to quantify all the uncertainties.

      50

  • #
    Another Ian

    An early o/t – sort of

    “Delingpole: ‘Climate Change May Be Making Bearded Dragons Less Intelligent’ Claims Shock Study”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/22/delingpole-climate-change-may-be-making-bearded-dragons-less-intelligent-claims-shock-study/

    61

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Someone from the IPCC will have to send one of its UN-appointed Political Commissars to tell off the Antarctic climate to “get with the program” and start warming….or….or….um…..er…/….

    Right then…..

    More tea, Vicar?

    40

  • #
    2dogs

    Polar Amplification, anyone?

    I rarely hear of this anymore. Do the warmies still accept it as consequence of their models?

    50

    • #
      sophocles

      Do the warmies still accept it as consequence of their models?

      The warmies accept anything if they think it proves their point. They’re nothing if not promiscuous.

      Polar Amplification, anyone?

      If that doesn’t work, we could try Polar See-saw

      40

  • #
    manalive

    The trend for the past 2000 years broadly matches what is found on Greenland suggesting that for the planet as a whole (NH and SH) the coldest or near coldest period during the Holocene has been the LIA and if human activity has contributed to a reverse trend then well and good.
    As Prof Humlum points out at climate4you the Antarctic continent is where CO2 has the greatest effect on temperature because “… atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has its greatest absorption of infrared radiation (IR) at sub-zero temperatures …” and because CO2 and water vapour share overlapping absorption bands “… in the Polar Regions, the air is dry due to prevailing low temperatures, allowing CO2 to exert a much greater influence than would be possible in warmer and moister air masses at lower latitudes …”.

    131

    • #
      manalive

      The link above has a bright blue trend line stuck on the end which is of course a nonsense ‘Mannian’ trick, the GISP2 proxies stop ~1850.

      71

  • #
    NB

    The answer is in the name. Once we had the anti-Christ. Now we have the antarctic. Let’s just declare it heretical, and get on with saving the planet.

    42

  • #
    ivan

    The elephant in the room that all the high priests of the warmest religion direct the people from is the fact that not one of their models has been validated and are therefor nothing more than wishful thinking.

    Engineering and real science only use models that have been validated and proved by actual experiment.

    62

    • #
      Another Ian

      With all that “commercial in confidence” coding not available for inspection you could also be sceptical of the “verified”step as well

      62

      • #
        Another Ian

        IIRC there was a comment the other day on one gcm (might have been a GISS version) as “about half a million lines of mouldy fortran that nobody now understands”

        21

        • #
          ivan

          Ian, I doubt that they understood it while they were writing it.

          I expect it was written and modified to give a certain result which has changed since then so no one can work out why things were done the way they were – you can’t annotate the code because it might fall into the wrong hands and the scam would be exposed.

          Now if their pay had depended on how well it performed when stacked up against real world conditions there might have been a different result but it wouldn’t fit the narrative.

          10

          • #

            Ian, I doubt that they understood it while they were writing it.

            James Hanson et al were carefully instructed (1976) that the HiTran code and data base was not designed to calculate spectral flux absorption; but instead ‘only’ the attenuation of amplitude or spatial modulation of atmospheric ‘seeing’. That was deliberately ignored as such did not help in the deliberate vilification of the coal industry. There is no ‘science’! involved
            All the best!-will-

            11

  • #
    TdeF

    “clear contrast with the significant industrial-era warming trends ”

    That’s it. Vague correlation presented as science fact and confirmed by computer models built on this assumption. What science?

    91

    • #
      TdeF

      The ‘pause’ also does not exist. It is a political fabrication by conservatives who do not want to change the world, even the temperature. Of course you could also argue that the world stopped heating when the facts came from satellites rather than sparse land based measurements.

      60

      • #
        Hivemind

        Did you forget the /sarc tag, perhaps?

        50

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Indeed. There never was a “pause”, that term was made up by a reporter. The term “pause” is not used in the IPCC AR5 report (go check).

        115

        • #
          robert rosicka

          So a reporter made something up about CAGW ? I’m shocked absolutely shocked by that accusation.

          82

        • #
          Tdef

          I was joking

          90

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The term “pause” is not used in the IPCC AR5 report (go check).”

          So What.

          There were actually TWO zero warming periods in the satellite temperature data

          From 1980-1997 https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino..png

          and from 2001-2015 https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino..png

          The temperature has been “PAUSED” for 33 of the last 38 years. !!

          The ONLY warming has come from NATURAL, NON-CO2 El Nino events.

          You really need to get some FACTS into your diet of mindless propaganda, twooter.!

          112

        • #
          BruceC

          No, the IPCC does not use the term ‘pause’. However they use the term ‘hiatus’ (go check).

          100

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            HarryT knows that the IPCC called it an “Hiatus” in its Technical Report. That’s why he’s pausing to call squirrel.

            Box TS.3 (continued)
            In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgement, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is due primarily to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend. {Box 9.2} Page 63

            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

            71

            • #
              AndyG55

              I have ZERO confidence in anything those fools say.

              Guestimated errors, fabricated confidence margins.

              The whole thing is a MONUMENT to FARCE. !!

              Fawlty Towers was at least funny !!

              82

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Sceptical Sam.

              Correct. I know what a hiatus is. In this context it means a break in a series. The warming trend was not as high as it was in a previous period.

              But did they say global warming had stopped? No. But if anyone disagrees give me the section number and I can check, it is a large document.

              110

              • #
                robert rosicka

                The twot wrote -

                “Correct. I know what a hiatus is. In this context it means a break in a series. The warming trend was not as high as it was in a previous period.

                But did they say global warming had stopped? No. But if anyone disagrees give me the section number and I can check, it is a large document.”

                So you know what a hiatus is but then go on to say the warming trend wasn’t as high ??? So it just stopped being hotter but wasn’t colder and it couldn’t have been the same .

                That clears it up for me thanks , please adjust your tin foil hat the cosmic rays are getting in .

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                NO WARMING except from El Ninos, twotter.

                That’s just how it is.

                Sorry it doesn’t suit your brain-washing.

                20

            • #
              Roger

              SS
              I seem to recall that “expert judgment, medium confidence”, in IPCC speak (without going back to check) is defined as meaning its a 50/50 chance either way – so they are really saying :- “In our expert judgment we simply have no real idea why it hasn’t warmed as we said it would.”

              80

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I think we all agreed to use the “no real idea why it hasn’t warmed” definition of an hiatus, at the time. Nobody wanted blood on the floor over something nobody could see. “Nobody” has a lot to answer for.

                And for Harry’s benefit, the hiatus was called, “The Pause”, at the time, and it still remains a mystery because the models assume linear trends, and can’t handle “discontinuities”. Now isn’t that a nice, soft-sounding word: “discontinuity”. It is almost as genteel, as “incontinence”. ;-)

                20

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                Rereke,

                Remind me, isn’t a discontinuity a geological term that is used to describe something akin to being between a rock and a hard place?

                Perfect for the IPCC and their hiatus. ;-)

                10

              • #

                Rereke Whakaaro November 24, 2017 at 10:51 am

                …I Now isn’t that a nice, soft-sounding word: “discontinuity”. It is almost as genteel, as “incontinence”.

                I thought that meant ‘away from the seacoast’! :-)

                11

        • #
          el gordo

          Harry its not a pause or hiatus, more a plateau.

          52

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Hiatus sounds more scientific, to the press, especially if they have to look up the meaning, only to find out that it means a gap in continuity, or in other words, “a pause”.

          But for future reference, we must remember that Harry does not “do” synonyms. They interfere with his textual search ‘bot.

          81

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Jo has mentioned the penguin and polar bear and I’ll never forget that comedy on the Abc called Catalyst who did a show on the melting Antarctic sea ice and their footage showed polar bears running around .

    124

    • #
      AndyG55

      climate refugees.. It was getting too warm at the NP. ! :-)

      92

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well, there are hot thermal vents under the Artic. US Naval research has established that, and I believe that it has been confirmed by the Russians.

        I am just waiting until the climate worriers find out that there is serious competition for the kudos of identifying a “reducing” ice sheet.

        51

  • #
    TdeF

    WMO disaster letter

    Ocean Acidification:

    “According to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO the ocean absorbs up to 30% of the annual emissions of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, helping to alleviate the impacts of climate change on the planet. However, this comes at a steep ecological cost, as the absorbed CO2 changes acidity levels in the ocean. Since records at Aloha station (north of Hawaii) began in the late 1980s, seawater pH has progressively fallen, from values above 8.10 in the early 1980s to between 8.04 and 8.09 in the last five years.”

    So to support the new idea that CO2 is killing the oceans too, the WMO quotes UNESCO as saying 30% of man made CO2 is absorbed each year! That is utterly amazing. The measured half life of the exchange is 14 years, which would indicate 7% pa exchange but according to these scientists, the CO2 vanishes unilaterally into the ocean. Clearly none comes out. That’s entirely new physical chemistry. One way gas transfer. Gas is absorbed by warmer liquids. All amazing science. Belongs with Ripley’s Believe it or Not?

    However the terrible acidity is now a pH of 8.04. Hello? This is an alkali, not an acid. It is very slightly closer to neutral than it was, less alkali.

    “Greenhouse gases:

    “The rate of increase in CO2 from 2015 to 2016 was the highest on record”
    Yep. So what good is that $1,500,000,000,000 a year doing and 350,000 windmills?

    Ocean heat: A record. No explanation of how this is caused by CO2 but it is all good stuff. Bleaches exposed coral you know. All due to coal. Your fault. Pay up.

    Then all flooding, drought, storms and heat waves. All being reported on by the World Meteorological Association. Perhaps we should plant less flammable trees, but better to stop using coal.

    As we learnt from the war in Syria, CO2 is being used as a weapon by the US to foment war by damaging crops.

    Who writes this stuff? No scientist. This is the new generation of activist ecologist ‘communications’ officers. It’s all about the story, sensationalism and wild claims. A pH of 8.02 is now an acid. According to the WMO.

    101

    • #
      RickWilll

      Then all flooding, drought, storms and heat waves.

      You missed abnormally cold weather

      https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/global-warming-arctic-colder-winters-climate-change-spd/

      Uncharacteristically cold winters, however, just might be one of the most hard felt effects of climate change, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience by a team of researchers.

      Also you should include

      abnormally calm weather

      http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2014/09/the-forgotten-part-of-climate-change-slower-winds/

      Wind is created thanks to differences in temperature. And since the poles are warming faster than the equator, there is a smaller global temperature differential, reducing the speed of wind.

      CD is Humpty Dumpty science – it is whatever the climate scientist say it is.

      90

      • #
        TdeF

        As in Melbourne at present. After more than 2 years of lousy weather, finally a week of perfect days stringed together. We should all panic. It is an omen of disaster.

        80

        • #
          TdeF

          Sorry it was all off topic, but it is part of this endless drivel pretending to be science*.

          Clare Nullis is the infamous WMO mouthpiece who announces all sorts of things from La Nina to why hurricanes are even worse. However her actual qualifications to say anything of the sort are hidden. Much of this article is just arrant nonsense.

          The Antarctic summary at least shows the farce of computer models which cannot predict the past let alone current temperatures. The only certainty comes from an array of spokespeople who are adamant that it is all due to industry and that every day is worse than the one before it.

          *no scientists were harmed in the making of this WMO announcement.

          60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            That is the way it is, especially in Government and Activist scientific circles. A show of hands, can change the world, and destroy civilisations.

            30

        • #
          toorightmate

          What did you do that was so bad that you were sent to Melbourne?

          30

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Tdef if they said the ocean was becoming less caustic or more neutral it wouldn’t make great news now would it , and the error margin for ph counters any change .
      If you see a report on ocean acidity you can take it for granted it’s nothing to do with science .

      50

      • #
        TdeF

        It’s all so wrong.

        The world is not only basic but the very melting of corals, limestone, sea floor to which they allude would make it more basic. This is an incredibly buffered solution, buffered by a massive ocean. How many public buildings around the world are made from Limestone? The whole city of Odessa, Ukraine, for example. It underlies much of Paris too and the champagne tunnels of Verdun/Rheims were cut into the limestone by the Romans.

        You get a logical impossibility. The ocean would have to become acid to melt the coral/limestone/sand and that in turn would mean it was not acid.

        So the corals are not at risk. In Moorea last week, I visited the GUMP farm where people are experimenting with resitance to higher CO2 levels. I sure hope they have read about Henry’s law as they try to increase the CO2 in warmer water.

        30

        • #
          TdeF

          Moorea, Tahiti. As the Tour Guide asked, if it was all wrong, why are people spending so many millions on it? Good question. Unfortuantely, the entire answer. Love a job studying Climate Change in Tahiti, on the beach.

          60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            But Tahiti has black sand, so it must absorb and retain more heat from the sun, and that is why we are all going to die have another martini.

            10

    • #
      sophocles

      The ocean’s are a buffered solution so their pH is not going to vary hugely.
      I am suspicious of figures outside those. They could be fake data. This year’s COP is now over but the screwing of the data is most likely no accident.

      CO2 is not the only chemical dissolved in the ocean; there are other salts in much greater quantities than the dissolved CO2 and its byproducts so they are the main moderators.

      See the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered II Biological Impacts Chapter 6, Aquatic Life, Section 6.3, Ocean “Acidification,” Subsections 6.3.1.2.2 The Geo Chemistry of CO2, and 6.3.1.2.3: pH Stabilizing Reactions in the Ocean pp828-830

      Buffered solutions are very strongly regulated.

      If the pH rises too high, CO2 is dumped from solution as insoluble calcium carbonate ( CaCO3 ), which falls to the sea bottom to form chalks and limestone.
      Yes, some CO2 which goes into the oceans does not come back out.

      Pass me a large shovel and show me the salt.

      40

      • #
        tom0mason

        You may be interested in this piece of Antarctic research HERE

        Basically researcher have found on of the saltiest places on earth is in the Antarctic, a pool fed from below with a syrupy mix of NaCl ans CaCl.

        Transantarctic Mountains lies a geological oddity. Don Juan Pond is one of the saltiest bodies of water on the planet, filled with a dense, syrupy brine rich in calcium chloride that can remain liquid to minus 50 degrees Celsius, far below the freezing point of water. But the source of water and salt to this unusual pond remains a mystery…
        … Jonathan Toner, a UW research assistant professor in Earth and space sciences. “After 60 years of extensive study, we still don’t really know exactly where it’s coming from, what drives the fact that it’s visible on the surface, and how it’s changing.”

        The perennial pond measures about 100 by 300 meters, the size of a few football fields, and is about 10 centimeters (4 inches) deep on average. It was first visited in 1961 and named after the expedition’s helicopter pilots, Donald Roe and John Hickey, earning it the name Don Juan Pond. The unique salts in the pond lower the freezing point, which is why this saline pond can exist in a place where the temperature ranges from minus 50 to plus 10 degrees Celsius (-58 to +50 F)…
        …Researchers will spend six weeks camping near the pond and taking repeated chemical measurements of its liquid. They will also explore the nearby slopes to measure the chemistry of the moisture seeps, and try to find further evidence for the source of salts to Don Juan Pond.

        “If we accept that the deep groundwater theory is true, then what we’re seeing could be part of a bigger process that involves quite an extensive aquifer,” Toner said. “When thinking about the implications for a similar environment on Mars, that’s much more exciting than just a localized surface phenomenon.”

        30

  • #
    David Maddison

    O/T

    Must be globull warming.

    “FROSTS have wiped as much as $180 million from the value of Victoria’s winter crop”

    http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/agribusiness/cropping/harvest-cold-snap-wipes-out-180m-worth-of-victorian-crops/news-story/d558362a36ebb3e187b2aab95edd10f8

    80

    • #
      RickWilll

      Yep – climate disruption is all about us. This is the cost of reducing the CSIRO climate modelling division. If there was anyone there with time on their hands they could be advising us that the unusual frosts were all caused by climate change. Now the poor farmers have to speculate without the CSIRO insight.

      My bet is that it is the closure of Hazelwood causing a dramatic and abnormal reduction in CO2 over Victoria resulting in rapid cooling.

      News flash-

      Closure of Hazelwood Blamed for Low Crop Yields

      Climate scientist Roster Drivel has found a dramatic drop in atmospheric CO2 over central Victoria during winter and early spring resulted in abnormally low temperatures causing heavy frosts that has adversely affected grain crop yields. Dr Drivel has traced the reduction in CO2 to the closure of Hazelwood Power Station. Armed with this knowledge farmers are mounting a case to recover losses from the Hazelwood owners Engie.

      51

      • #
        robert rosicka

        His last name is very apt for the line of work he is in Rick .

        40

      • #
        bobl

        Oh what mindless drivel, you see CO2 is supposed to be blocking the radiation of IR from the surface that causes frost, so as the average CO2 rises, so should frosts fall, however the is NO statistical change in frost. And in this case MORE Frost.

        Sometimes the climate fanatics aught to decide which way they want it because they can’t have it both ways.

        30

  • #

    Steve McIntyre has had a long term interest in Antarctic ice cores and has a post ,20th November, on Stenne et al at climate Audit that includes this and further critical review:

    ‘Stenni et al 2017 Reconstruction

    Stenni et al 2017 calculated a variety of composites from the 112 series considered in their reconstruction, featuring reconstructions weighted by positive correlation to “target” temperature series (which had strong increases in West Antarctic and weak increases in East Antarctica), with negatively correlated isotope series screened out (weight of 0). This is disclosed in SI as follows:

    The problem with this recipe is that, when the target has an upward trend (as do key target instrumental series), this methodology has the effect of enhancing the blade-ness of the resulting composite. The blade bias arises because the series are intrinsically very noisy – but series with too “big” a blade are left in, while series which go down are left out. The defective procedure is made worse when there are a lot of short series, as here. At least this methodology doesnt turn series upside down (Manng-nam style).

    Stenni et al 2017 are somewhat evasive about their results and their graphics contribute to the evasion. I’ve re-plotted their Antarctic continent reconstruction (decadal version) from archived data in the figure below. Like the Law Dome series, the composite shows elevated values in the first millennium, declining through the last millennium, with the decline continuing well into the 20th century. Values in 1950 and 1960 were among the coldest in the past two millennia, with a very late uptick (1980- 2000). Stenni et al show this series as the dashed orange series in their Figure 8 which has negligible vertical resolution (see inset below). The very modest blade at the end of this series is almost certainly exaggerated by the defective screening and weighting procedures noted above. But even with their fingers on the scales (so to speak), the main message of the series is that values in the first millennium are consistently elevated above modern values.’

    30

  • #

    Moderation? Maybe length. Oh well,
    short version…
    It don’t make the grade
    If it don’t have that blade./

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrVu9WKs498

    30

  • #
    King Geo

    There is no way the tax payer funded ABC will release the fact that Antarctica has cooled in the last 1,600yrs. It will push on with “CAGW” indoctrination. Just like they never mention the impending LIA due next decade. They may get away with hiding what’s happening in Antarctica but will never get away with hiding the impact of the imminent LIA.

    80

    • #
      el gordo

      They are unaware of the approaching mini ice age, so we have to explain the mechanisms involved when the weather behaves badly and aunty cannot ignore it.

      If you are certain that the LIA kicks off in a decade, where is your proof? The Klimatariat have their linear AGW model and we have our cycles, why would anyone believe us?

      We need to go back to the early 13th century and come up with a plausible explanation of the future.

      50

      • #
        King Geo

        Lots of Astro & Solar Physicists are predicting an imminent GM/LIA.

        Abdusamatov (2012), Evans (2016), Morner (2015), Solheim et al (2012), Torres & Guzman (2016), Yndestad & Solheim (2016), Zharkova et al (2015) etc etc. There is a long list. But the powers that be are not listening – they have been brain-washed by the “Warmists” – the cost after the LIA kicks in – immeasurable.

        61

        • #
          el gordo

          Yeah, but for the masses its only a theoretical concept, they have AGW. Overturning the paradigm will be no mean feat.

          And of course Nicola Scafetta should go on the list.

          61

          • #
            King Geo

            The paradigm will evaporate when the GM/LIA kicks in. So we have to put up with the “CAGW” nonsense for the time being. I put my trust in the Astro & Solar Physicists. SC26 seems to be the solar cycle that the GM/LIA will commence (late 2020′s – early 2030′s), ie at least 12 years away. Then if you believe David Evans’s “Notch Theory” then there will be GC well before SC26 (within the current SC24 or SC25).

            71

            • #
              el gordo

              Hmmm … what if CO2 causes a little warming, the mini ice age won’t get a start.

              Scafetta says the AGW fraternity is ‘exaggerating’ the temperature forecast, but at the same time he sees no LIA on the horizon.

              http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cooling-vs-Warming-Forecasts-Scafetta-2017.jpg

              51

              • #
                King Geo

                Well in the late 2020′s we should know. CO2 doesn’t drive warming or cooling, it reacts to warming or cooling e.g as seen in the Pleistocene/Holocene Antarctic Ice Core data. Also the Pleistocene Glacial Epoch (last 2.5my yrs) is the coldest planet Earth has been since the Permian (250My ago +). Earth would be a better place to live if the planet was in fact warmer than it is now, but most folk don’t realize that because of unrelenting indoctrination by those peddling the “AGW Myth”.

                51

              • #
                tom0mason

                2020 is an interesting time, it is the year by which the UN want all nations bound-up in Paris accord agreement bather… Control of fuel, overtaxation, and Western nations’ power systems so brittle they catastrophically black-out at the slightest variation in load or generation.

                Umm, 2020 will be an interesting time…

                40

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Overturning the paradigm will be no mean feat.

            In the 1960′s, the great fear was the emergence of a new Ice Age. There were seriously bad storms and blizzards in the northern hemisphere. Climate Scientists of the day, were all over it with tales of doom and gloom and frostbite.

            By the 1990′s it was all over, and all of the Climate Scientists had done an about face, and were starting to push the Global Warming meme, with tales of doom and gloom and people being fried and afixiated by Carbon Dioxide, which became a noxious toxin overnight.

            Now here we are in the 2010′s, bordering on the 2020′s, and the message is slowly getting out, that the world is not actually getting warmer at the rate or severity that the climate scientitists predicted, and none of the dire predictions have actually come to pass, and that a lot of what appears to be happening is only slight of hand – a conjurors trick if you like – with the definitions and meanings ascribed to words. Hence we find people like Harry, stating that it is the anomalies (or failures in prediction), that makes scientific theories (note theory, and not hypothesis, nor conjucture, but theory) to be interesting.

            It is all mumbo-jumbo witchcraft, to frighten the untutored into being parted from a portion of what they earn in order to keep the priestly caste in the status they have come to expect.

            This charade will continue to perpetuate itself for as long as the uncritical talking heads are given free reign. We have to call out the lies, and the lack of real evidence, because it is on those factors that the talking heads rely.

            71

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    There has been very little warming over the Antarctic continent. I think they point this out in the IPCC AR5 report but I cannot remember the reference so don’t quote me on that.

    Anomalies are what makes scientific theories interesting.

    If you want my opinion, give it time. Antarctica is a big place, there is lots going on. It is going to take more than a couple of Watts per square metre of forcing to warm that place up.

    From the study abstract:

    “Since 1900 CE, significant warming trends are identified for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions, and these trends are robust across the distribution of records that contribute to the unweighted isotopic composites and also significant in the weighted temperature reconstructions. Only for the Antarctic Peninsula is this most recent century-scale trend unusual in the context of natural variability over the last 2000 years. However, projected warming of the Antarctic continent during the 21st century may soon see significant and unusual warming develop across other parts of the Antarctic continent”.

    613

    • #
      Dennis

      Underwater volcanic activity emissions?

      112

    • #
      el gordo

      Harry the science is settled on West Antarctica, its not AGW.

      “….may soon see significant and unusual warming develop across other parts of the Antarctic continent”.

      Science fiction.

      102

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        You might have a point if you do not keep predicting global cooling.

        And your evidence for global cooling is…

        512

        • #
          AndyG55

          Globe has been cooling for 3000 years..

          Most of that time CO2 was rising

          https://s19.postimg.org/86sf607w3/EPICA_v_GRIP.png

          Please DO try to keep up !!!

          Its embarrassing for you having to correct your lack of knowledge and education all the time.

          112

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            This is like ground-hog day, the same climate change denier talking points over and over.

            A dodgy-looking chart that ends in 1850 or 1950 (I cannot tell exactly). No indication of where the chart came from. No supporting text with the chart. No baseline. The “mixing” (I am being generous) of data taken from Greenland and Antarctica. Not global.

            Also the chart has been doctored at the end.

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/why-correlations-of-co2-and-temperature-over-ice-age-cycles-dont-define-climate-sensitivity/

            110

            • #
              AndyG55

              Real climate , again the fabricated farce to defend the indefensible

              No CO2 warming in the satellite record, twooter.

              NO CO2 warming signature anywhere.

              And no paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

              You have NOTHING, Twooter. !!

              63

            • #
              AndyG55

              There I NO correlation between CO2 and temperatures.

              Sure they sometimes go the same way, but they also go opposite directions.

              Pure occasional coincidence.

              Again.. you have NOTHING

              …. and certainly nothing showing CO2 causing anything to do with temperature,

              Just the other way around.

              62

            • #
              AndyG55

              “The “mixing” (I am being generous) of data taken from Greenland and Antarctica. “

              Poor twotter.. CO2 is meant to be well mixed, isn’t it. Foot out of mouth, little boy.

              And I can’t help with reading simple charts, you need a primary school teacher to help you with that

              102

              • #
                tom0mason

                Indeed if it is well mixed, why such papers such as this http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075483/full

                Where they say –

                This Commentary has attempted to provide an authoritative, concise, and accessible point of reference for the most important modes of atmospheric variability. We make no claims that our coverage of the subject matter has been comprehensive, and the astute reader will certainly find gaps. For example, we have largely neglected interactions between the modes, such as the known dependence of turbulence on the North Atlantic Oscillation (J.-H. Kim et al., 2016). With one or two exceptions, we have also largely neglected the forced component of variability, which originates from anthropogenic interference, volcanic activity, and solar variability. For example, some aspects of the variability may be modified by anthropogenic climate change, such as the hypothesized future increase in turbulence induced by changes to the jet stream (Storer et al., 2017; Williams, 2017; Williams & Joshi, 2013). Finally, we have hardly touched on the problem of how to parameterize the impacts of the subgrid-scale variability on the resolved flow in numerical models, or the question of whether simulations will be improved by increased model resolution.

                Our turbulent atmosphere may mix the gases, however they are not evenly mixed for if they were we would have no clouds just an even overcast sky.

                40

        • #
          AndyG55

          Hey, twotter.. have you seen the solid La Nina now starting to form :-)

          102

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘And your evidence for global cooling is…’

          Good question young Harry, all negative feedbacks.

          The collapse of the high pressure belt in early July is a global cooling signal.

          Also this La Nina will be relatively weak, but a back to back La Nina would be another cooling signal.

          Based on paleoclimate history, a quiet sun may produce a significant and unexpected cooling around the world.

          72

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            So no references? I thought so.

            110

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘So no references?’

              **chuckle **

              I’m leading the charge on the STR scoop, what are you working on?

              63

            • #
              AndyG55

              Twotter.. empty as always. !!

              72

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Here is the person, who cannot express his own ideas in his own words, demanding third-party group-think references of everybody else.

              Very troll-like behaviour. Harry has yet to figure out, that his fact-free approach to “debate” actually diminishes his position.

              82

        • #
          el gordo

          For more than a decade the Klimatariat at BoM have been saying that the intensification of the subtropical ridge (high pressure belt) is a warming signal.

          They are correct, it was there for all to see in the early 1940s, but then they pulled out their models and convinced themselves that under AGW it will only get worse. The mass panic to build desalination plants is testament to this folly. The models have become the bible of this priestly class and they are false prophets.

          Now that the STR has lost its intensity you will see unseasonal weather, duly reported in the MSM, which will require the Klimatariat to explain themselves.

          72

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          And your evidence for global cooling is…

          Climatic temperature values follow a cyclic pattern, as do most things in nature. You are fixated (without presenting any evidence) on global warming, but the cyclic nature demands that the phase will change to one of global cooling, as it did in the 1960′s.

          62

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            So no references? I thought as much.

            17

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Read the papers from Schneider, Jones, et al, including the rest of the Hadley Centre crew.

              You really do have trouble keeping up, don’t you? I thought it was just an annoying tactic, but it now appears to truly be a lack of competence.

              30

            • #
              AndyG55

              Poor Harry wants someone else to fix his ignorance for him.

              I certainly can’t do it by himself.

              21

    • #
      RickWilll

      The heat balance over land is irrelevant to Earth’s climate. Land and ice heats up or cools down on a daily basis. Granted the days are very long in the Antactic.

      This link showing net radiation balance for September was posted above:
      https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_NETFLUX_M
      Note that the Sahara is the only tropic region with a net loss of energy. The tropical oceans all gain energy. The oceans at higher latitude lose heat. Antartica is almost in balance.

      52

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        You already claimed that nonsense @2.2.1 see my response @2.2.1.1!

        33

        • #
          RickWilll

          So you disagree with my statement that heat balance over land is irrelevant to Earth’s climate?

          43

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            So you disagree with my statement that heat balance over land is irrelevant to Earth’s climate?

            No as I cannot discern what you may mean by ‘heat balance’ or ‘Earth’s climate’. Both seem to be scammer buzz phrases! I maintain that Earth actual spontaneous surface EMR exitance (flux) has little or nothing to do with temperatures anywhere, on or about this planet Earth!
            All the best!-will-

            50

          • #
            tom0mason

            “Earth’s climate”?

            Define that!
            Climate is ONLY local and regional effect, and is highly dependent on geographical topology.

            60

            • #
              RickWilll

              Climate is weather trends. There is nothing natural that happens over land that affects the trends. 90%t of the heat is in the oceans and 5% is in the in the atmosphere over oceans. Weather over land is noise and the trend is affected by the heat in the oceans.

              Changes locally like buildings and land clearing can affect the local weather but it does not alter the energy in the climate system. If the changes are made to restore to natural state the weather will be as before.

              01

              • #
                tom0mason

                No!

                Your explanation seems inverted to me.
                Climate AND weather are local effects NEVER global! There certainly is NO global climate. Climate over land area IS very important especially in the norther hemisphere where land coverage is a large percentage of the area. Less so in the Southern hemisphere but it is still important as there is plenty of high mountains there that affects the CLIMATE.
                You can not homogenize away the differences that happen over the land and over the oceans, you can not just consider the land as unimportant, to do so renders your ideas of climate illogical, unreal and a nonsense.
                Yes the planet may warm or cool but that is an artifact of how the measurements are interpreted. The effects from any of those variations can only be local, can only be assessed as local or regional effect.

                These effects are what matter to people, and if say, an ice-age was to come then as ice levels rise, sea-levels would probably fall — you may interpret it as a global effect but it is the regional effects that matter. Or if it becomes warmer and wetter with polar ice-caps disappearing and deserts becoming green swamps, overall the climate of the world would be very different with the regional differences as the important factors.
                What really happens and are the most important is how these gross aggregations of temperature variations (global average temperature) affect particular areas, e.g. how more persistent are droughts, or desertifications, or floodings, or snow, etc., these only happens locally, regionally, not globally.

                41

              • #

                Changes locally like buildings and land clearing can affect the local weather but it does not alter the energy in the climate system. If the changes are made to restore to natural state the weather will be as before.

                How many Joules in the energy in the climate system, that is not altered? In what form is that power stored?
                All the best!-will-

                10

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                90%t of the heat is in the oceans and 5% is in the in the atmosphere over oceans. Weather over land is noise and the trend is affected by the heat in the oceans.

                100% nonsense speculation, with no science whatsoever. Although with 4 J/gm-kelvins specific heat the massive liquid oceans become a great ‘moderator’ to significant changes in surface temperature (ΔT) such cannot be considered as heat; as you give no reference temperature for ‘sense-able heat’. What meaning can the above ever have? A 20:1 ratio to the 1 J/gm-kelvins specific heat the less massive atmospheric ‘sense-able heat’ may be correct; but the sea-atmosphere boundary transfer is very limited both by atmospheric ‘dew point’ and 80 kelvins (ΔT) caused by the static gravitational compression of Earth’s atmosphere. OTOH the almost unlimited introduction of liquid H2O to become airborne near the equator due to Earth’s centrifuge (1000 MPH-460m/s) surface velocity has never even been considered by the Clowns or their woebegone models!
                All the best!-will-

                20

    • #
      AndyG55

      “There has been very little warming over the Antarctic continent”

      NO warming at all over the whole satellite era.

      https://s19.postimg.org/mar5i83sj/UAH_SoPol_All.png

      81

    • #
      manalive

      Anomalies are what makes scientific theories interesting …

      ‘Anomaly’ is an interesting descriptor, usually counterexamples are what falsify theories e.g. ‘all swans are white’.
      If it’s merely an interesting ‘anomaly’ then the theory that human emissions are responsible for over 50% of the warming since ~1950 becomes unfalsifiable.

      72

      • #
        manalive

        Ditto the tropical mid-troposphere ‘hot spot’.

        72

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Well you might call the “tropical hotspot” an anomaly (I don’t).

          https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

          110

          • #
            AndyG55

            Based on that Sherwood nonsense. HILARIOUS.

            You would “believe” anything that your AGW masters spoon fed you, wouldn’t you twooter. !!

            GULLIBLE !!!!!

            102

          • #
            manalive

            A tropospheric ‘hotspot’ over the tropics (20N – 20S) showing two – three times the tropical surface warming is supposed to be another ‘fingerprint’ of enhanced greenhouse warming but so far years of radiosonde and satellite direct measurements have failed to find it.

            81

          • #
            manalive

            Further to Sherwood (2012):
            If forty – fifty years of direct measurements have failed to find the supposed ‘hotspot’, applying Occam’s Razor it probably doesn’t exist: “Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses” (Ernst Mach).

            81

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              You really shouldn’t quote Ernst Mach, to the current troll. Mach is not one of those hallowed beings, anointed into the church of climate science, and is thus apostate.

              30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well Harry, I don’t call the Tropospheric Hot Spot, an anomaly either. We have something in common, it seems.

            I refer to it, as a modelled fabrication. It is all computer generated number crunching, backed by no empirical evidence, at all.

            If you know of some real empirical evidence, from the physical domain, please share it with us.

            20

    • #
      bobl

      A couple of Watts, geez Harry more than that, your mobile phone is around 3 Watts, lay that on a square meter of antarctic ice in -87 degrees and how much ice do you think it will melt. Now of course the imbalance is only 0.6 Watt just 1/5th of your mobile phone.

      0.6 Watts per square meter will do NOTHING even if it did exist (which it doesn’t)

      31

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Good to see folk attempting dimensional analysis! If you combine that with solid geometry; especially the ‘angles’ part. you can become ‘wise’! Please stop there! If you go on to include ‘time’ and its inverse ‘frequency’, you must become insane as I am\are\was\may be\over yonder! :-)

        41

    • #
      ROM

      .
      A key statement from the abstract that HT’s posts at #20

      However, projected warming of the Antarctic continent during the 21st century may soon see significant and unusual warming develop across other parts of the Antarctic continent”.

      One of the major signs of some really bad science or perhaps it is better called ” psuedo” science is when scientists from some discipline continuously refer to and make broad sweeping statements that claim in effect that they personally and collectively are able to “predict” the future not just minutes or hours ahead but literally decades ahead in the case of the alarmist climate scientists as seen in this claim of a supposed further definite future warming of Antarctica.

      A “predicted” and “prophesised” warming due apparently to mankind’s sinfullness in pumping a bit more CO2 into the atmosphere so that he can make life a bit more comfortable for himself and earn enough to pay the taxes to allow climate scientists to be paid so that they can use models to “predict” the dangerous warming trends in the Antarctic due to — but I repeat myself!.
      .

      Which makes the above claim as quoted by Harry T even more bizarre is that according to a number of researcher’s recent studies, the Antarctic over all has been very slowly cooling by up to about half a degree over the last half a century.

      The statement as quoted by Harry T. above which is totally reliant on those climate alarmist scientists “prophetical” abilities;

      “projected warming of the Antarctic continent during the 21st century may soon see significant and unusual warming develop across other parts of the Antarctic continent”.

      They then go on to draw all sorts of totally irrelevant and unsubstantiatable statements from the quite open and blatant claim that they believe they can “PREDICT the FUTURE ” to making broad sweeping statements that are completely reliant on their selfie promoted claims of what passes in other more honest and circumspect circles as “prophecies”.

      Something that is far, far beyond the capabilities of and admitted as such by the honest ordinary citizen.
      .

      Just another arrogant, condescending, bombastic self belief that is so characteristicc of climate alarmist scientists and climate alarmist science.

      So much of what passes as Climate Alarmist science is now based completely on the supposed abilities to predict the “future” of the climate and prophesying what the” future” will bring in the way of “Climate.”

      After over 30 years off such never ending , continuous climate alarmist “predictions” and “prophecies” and “modelling” the world is still waiting for definite, scientifically proven evidence , not a “prophecy ” but some scientifically proven facts that are seen as an immutable and irrevocable sign that dangerous global warming as created by mankind’s activities can be proven to exist and can be sheeted home without ANY doubt whatsoever as being due solely to mankind’s activites.

      Whatever it is that those so called scientists in the latter part of this abstract as provided by Harry T. are practicing, it ain’t science.

      It might with difficulty pass for “prophesying” or a ” reading of chicken bones” equivalent in some circles but thats about it.
      .

      [ The prefix "pseudo-" is used to mark something that superficially appears to be one thing, but is something else.
      Subject to context, "pseudo" may connote coincidence, imitation, intentional deception, or a combination thereof.

      In scholarship and studies, "pseudo-scholarship" refers to material that is presented as, but is not, the product of rigorous and objective study or research. ]
      .

      Harry T, a question which you should be able to answer quite readily as you and your fellow believers have now had some three decades to think this question through since the global warming / climate change ideology began to exert its influence..

      If we assume that the world can reduce its CO2 emmissions and in fact reduce the total amount of CO2 in the global atmosphere sometime in the years ahead, what is the type of climate you would be hoping for and expecting to see if that happened.?

      What would be the biggest and most noticeable differences and the benefits of such a climate which you and your ilk have apparently designated as being the best possible global climate that can be achieved after you and your fellow travellers have driven all those mankind created climate destroying factors out of existence ?
      .

      You have had nigh on thirty years to draw up the charcteristics of a most desirable and perfect climate and therefore you must by now have the knowledge and background to justify trying to force mankind to adopt the policies that you believe will give mankind that perfect climate of your’s and your fellow alarmist’s dreams?

      Please tell us so that we Skeptics can finally know just what you and all the other alarmists are actually trying to achieve instead of us Skeptics having to putting up with this constant stream of invective and accusations from a whole cabal of what is now increasingly seen by most as nothing more than a primitive neanderthal level of intellectually vacant, knowledge deficient, closed minded and arrogantly bombastic climate alarmist accusers.

      And if you can’t or won’t answer this question then we know you for what you are.

      As the old saying goes; “An Empty vessel makes the most noise.”

      31

    • #

      While the satellite record shows increases (with fluctuations) in Antarctic ice in recent times we have to remember it’s a short record, only going live post-1979. The fact that Turney had trouble going where Mawson went only indicates that Commonwealth Bay is more accessible in some years than in others (and that biochar salesman Turney is no Mawson, perhaps).

      But there is plenty of ice down there, and it’s varying but hardly dwindling. The BAS radiosonde some years back confirmed a massive ash sheet from an ancient eruption and still-active volcanism around PIG. Which may not be all that there is to tell about W Antarctica, but it’s important.

      Really, if it looks like a cordillera, walks like a cordillera, and quacks like a cordillera…well, it’s likely a cordillera.

      21

  • #
    Extreme Hiatus

    Cooling since Roman times. Does that mean the Gang can blame it on the Romans?

    72

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Yeah what did the Romans ever do for us ?

      40

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Yeah what did the Romans ever do for us ?”

        toga parties?

        31

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Apart from Toga parties what have the romans ever done for us ?

          30

        • #
          tom0mason

          The Romans ensured that knowledge of how wine could be preserved by putting a little sulfites in wine.

          40

        • #

          I realised I was dyslexic when I went to a toga party dressed as a goat :)

          30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I am glad somebody else here is also dysloxic.

            20

            • #
              Extreme Hiatus

              But besides all that, what did they ever do for the climate? How did they trigger the Antarctic cooling?

              Their central heating? Maybe. Here’s the damning evidence from Wiki:

              “The earliest reference to the use of coal in metalworking is found in the geological treatise On stones (Lap. 16) by the Greek scientist Theophrastus (c. 371–287 BC):

              Among the materials that are dug because they are useful, those known as coals are made of earth, and, once set on fire, they burn like charcoal. They are found in Liguria… and in Elis as one approaches Olympia by the mountain road; and they are used by those who work in metals…

              In Roman Britain, the Romans were exploiting all major coalfields (save those of North and South Staffordshire) by the late 2nd century AD.[7] While much of its use remained local, a lively trade developed along the North Sea coast supplying coal to Yorkshire and London.[7] This also extended to the continental Rhineland, where bituminous coal was already used for the smelting of iron ore.[7] It was used in hypocausts to heat public baths, the baths in military forts, and the villas of wealthy individuals. Excavation has revealed coal stores at many forts along Hadrian’s Wall as well as the remains of a smelting industry at forts such as Longovicium nearby.”

              Leading experts agree that burning coal produces extra-bad CO2, and that all powerful molecule can force the climate to be weird. With this robust correlation to the meltdown of Antarctica, new models could show that it was the Roman industrial revolution that first disrupted the good climate. Not us! We’re not guilty of killing the planet after all!

              Happy Thanksgiving.

              20

            • #

              dysloxic fingers or the one on Ebay?

              10

  • #
    pat

    22 Nov: WUWT: Eric Worrall: Core of climate science is in the real-world data
    The following was provided by Dr. Willie Soon, reproduced with permission from Dr Ian Flanigan. The Coalition referenced in the post is the current Australian Government, a Coalition between the Liberal and National parties.

    Core of climate science is in the real-world data
    by Dr Ian Flanigan
    News Weekly, November 18, 2017…READ ON
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/22/core-of-climate-science-is-in-the-real-world-data/

    22 Nov: Daily Signal: Climate Change Alarmism Is ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out,’ Retired NASA Physicist Says
    by Kevin Mooney
    HOUSTON—Unvalidated climate models that don’t correspond with physical data and the requirements of the scientific method contribute to unfounded climate alarmism, a retired NASA physicist said at the Heartland Institute’s recent America First Energy Conference (LINK).

    Since America’s national security depends in part on energy security, unsubstantiated claims about global warming that prevent policymakers from making “rational decisions” with regard to the development of U.S. energy resources have become a national security threat, said Hal Doiron, a 16-year NASA veteran…

    “The scientific method requires that your hypothesis and theories be confirmed by physical data,” he said. “Computer models are not physical data, although I think many in academia don’t understand that.”…
    Moreover, the fact that unvalidated models often don’t agree with each other should be a “big, red flag.”

    The retired NASA physicist is calling for U.S. policymakers to establish official data on two key metrics; specifically, “the true sensitivity of surface temperature to greenhouse gases” and a “reasonable projection of greenhouse emissions and [the] concentrations rise in our atmosphere.”…
    http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/22/climate-change-alarmism-is-garbage-in-garbage-out-retired-nasa-physicist-says/

    depends what “climate change” means! it needs to be decoupled from CAGW once and for all:

    22 Nov: Daily Caller: Jonah Bennett: Trump To Sign Defense Bill Calling Climate Change A National Security Threat
    The National Defense Authorization Act states that climate change is a threat to the Pentagon’s 128 military bases, and now Trump is expected to sign the legislation, despite downplaying and poking fun at climate change in the past, The Washington Examiner reports…
    In fact, although Congress has ordered a report in the past, this will be the first report to force the Pentagon to state how it will protect its military installations and what the cost of those efforts will be.
    Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island first forwarded the legislation earlier this year…

    42

  • #
    • #
      robert rosicka

      Pity they don’t have the spare power to charge it up at the moment , wind is down and SA is currently helping Victoriastan ward off load shedding as demand increases and generation flatlines so to help out I’ve turned both aircons and the pool pump on .

      50

    • #
    • #
      Graeme#4

      Think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the battery can power 30k homes for one hour. If it’s peak time, then I would estimate that an average home would be consuming around 3kW. (Does anybody have actual data on this?) if my assumption is correct, this requires 90MW, and I very much doubt that this battery can deliver 90MW constantly for one hour.

      40

      • #
        bobl

        When you are cooking dinner, the Oven and hotplates are generally on 20/30 A circuits so up to around 6kW for the cooktop plus 4kW for the oven (if both elements are on). Typically a cooked dinner costs around 6-8kWh.

        10

    • #
      RickWilll

      No more load shedding or blackouts – problem solved.

      40

  • #
    robert rosicka

    OT but the livestock industry have put out a decree that producers should try to be carbon neutral by 2030 , just heard an interview with the head of the livestock industry and he said one of the ways farmers could reduce their carbon footprint was by burning off .

    50

  • #
    pat

    the children will never know snow:

    22 Nov: Newsmax: Historic 100-Inch Snowfall Hits Wyoming
    Ski resorts in Wyoming are reporting a “record” 100 inches of snow on the upper mountain.
    Two resorts report over 100 inches of snow so far this year: Grand Targhee, which reports 119 inches, and Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, which reports 118 inches. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort will open on Friday, November 24. Grand Targhee already has opened.
    A spokeswoman for Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, Anna Cole, told Jackson Hole News&Guide that this is the second-largest amount of ski-able terrain the resort has had on opening weekend in her 10 years there…

    22 Nov: SpokesmanReview: AP: Five Idaho ski resorts open Thanksgiving weekend
    Meanwhile, Sandpoint’s Schweitzer Mountain will reopen Friday after opening Nov. 17 – the earliest in 20 years…

    22 Nov: TheLocalSweden: Weather warning upgraded as snow sweeps Sweden
    Flights were cancelled and several traffic accidents reported on Wednesday as snow and strong winds moved in across the country…
    “Disruptions in Norway and Sweden due to heavy snowfall,” wrote airline SAS on its website…
    National weather agency SMHI issued a class-one warning (the least serious kind on a scale from one to three) for nearly all of Sweden earlier in the day, later upgrading it to a class-two warning for storm in the northern mountains and wind and heavy snow in the north-eastern coastal regions.

    22 Nov: DailyMail: Britain braces for rush-hour travel chaos on roads and railways as 70mph gales batter the country and up to eight inches of snow and four inches of rain is expected to fall
    Met Office forecasts heavy and persistent snow in Scotland with 8in possible on high ground
    Forecasters warn some roads and railways will be affected, with ScotRail services already disrupted

    40

  • #
    pat

    a couple of fun reads:

    22 Nov: Mashable: Snow lovers will find joy in the latest U.S. winter outlooks
    By Andrew Freedman
    To make a successful winter forecast for the U.S., meteorologists must examine a dizzying array of factors, from fickle fluctuations in ocean conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean to the decline of Arctic sea ice and related snow cover in Siberia.
    Each forecasting group, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which produces the official outlook for the U.S., has their own biases that can determine whether their projection proves prescient or wildly off target.
    One of the most accurate winter outlooks during the past several years has been issued by a forecast group led by Judah Cohen, a meteorologist and devout snow-lover who works in the private sector at AER in Massachusetts.

    A division of Verisk Analytics, AER forecasts climate and weather conditions for clients in the energy industry, among others, and Cohen has received funding (LINK) from the National Science Foundation to study possible ties between Arctic sea ice melt, fall snow cover in Siberia, and the behavior of the stratospheric polar vortex during the winter.
    Cohen released his 2017-18 winter outlook to the public last week on the NSF website and published it in a lengthy, geeky blog post (LINK) on Monday. His forecast differs from NOAA’s outlook and that of other groups in some significant respects.

    For example, Cohen thinks that overall, colder-than-average conditions will dominate a large portion of the lower 48 states, with areas from the Pacific Northwest to the Central states and much of the East seeing colder-than-average air temperatures…

    Other outlooks
    The Climate Prediction Center (CPC), which is a unit within NOAA that issues seasonal forecasts, expects a much different winter than Cohen’s group does…
    http://mashable.com/2017/11/22/winter-outlook-wild-card-forecast-cold-snow/

    18 Nov: Esquire: What It’s Like to Spend 30 Days on the Arctic Tundra
    “I knew that if we had to be outside overnight, we wouldn’t have feet or hands in the morning.”
    By Hans Aschim
    After British-born photographer Martin Hartley’s first visit to the Canadian Arctic in 2002, he vowed never to return. Having already shot in the Himalayas and the Alps, Hartley flew to Resolute Bay — one of the northernmost towns in Canada — confident that he knew what he was getting into.
    He brought the wrong gear, only shot 13 photos before his camera equipment failed — and almost died.
    “I hadn’t been to the high Arctic before, so I just assumed that cold was cold,” Hartley says from his home in Bristol, England, as he prepares for another journey to Antarctica. “I was met at the airport by my guide, this character called Gary Guy who was as [cowboy-esque] as you can possibly imagine.”…

    And now here he was, in a metal hut 2,000 miles north of Toronto, woefully unprepared…
    Guy checked the weather as Hartley suited up in his new gear. A snowstorm was blowing in. The pair hopped on snowmobiles to meet Hartley’s subject, Pen Hadow, who was preparing for a solo expedition to the North Pole. Twenty minutes into the journey, the storm hit and visibility dropped. They realized their GPS was broken, leaving them to rely on Guy’s experience to navigate. By the time they reached Hadow for the shoot, all of the photo equipment had frozen. Hartley ran in circles to get a battery warmed up enough to take a few frames.

    Then, the storm fully set in. Winds flung any piece of gear not lashed down into the white oblivion. Snow came in at high speeds from every direction. They needed to head back immediately — sans GPS — and they would need to stick together. But within seconds of departing, Harney and Hadow lost sight of Guy. “We stopped and both started crying,” recalls Hartley. “I knew that if we had to be outside overnight, we wouldn’t have feet or hands in the morning. I was absolutely sh***ing myself.”…

    The next morning, the weather report came in detailing the storm Hartley had just faced. It had been the coldest day in Resolute Bay for the last 40 years, with a wind-chill at minus 96 Fahrenheit. “I’m pretty sure that without that jacket or those clothes, I would have died,” Hartley says…

    In the 15 years since that fateful journey, Hartley has been back more than 25 times and amassed a wealth of knowledge about surviving in the world’s coldest, loneliest places. With winter approaching, he shared a few tips from his time in extreme cold…
    http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/health/a13130522/what-its-like-to-spend-30-days-on-the-arctic-tundra/

    20

  • #
    Robber

    Antarctica is the coldest, windiest and driest continent on Earth.

    The average annual temperature ranges from about −10°C on the Antarctic coast to −60°C at the highest parts of the interior. Near the coast the temperature can exceed +10°C at times in summer and fall to below −40°C in winter. Over the elevated inland, it can rise to about −30°C in summer but fall below −80°C in winter.

    With those temperatures, how will ice melt across the Antarctic continent?

    82

    • #
      toorightmate

      Twinotter magic will melt the ice.

      51

    • #
      RickWilll

      You do realise that Earth is warming! My calculation indicates that the global average temperature will be 0.16 degrees K warmer in 2100 than it is now. But that is just based on current trend assuming only CO2 has caused all heating this century, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise at the same rate and there is no natural variability. At that rate some time in a few million years there may be some Antarctic land ice melting.

      34

      • #

        My calculation indicates that the global average temperature will be 0.16 degrees K warmer in 2100 than it is now.

        But your calculations are biased on some nonsense\fantasy about atmospheric CO2 levels affecting surface temperature. You have no evidence of that, just like your global average temperature has no possible physical meaning.

        50

      • #
        Jeremy Poynton

        Warming recently, but short term is irrelevant in the face of 1000 years plus cooling.

        http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a75431d3970b-pi

        40

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          Jeremy Poynton November 24, 2017 at 12:32 am

          Any relation to John Poynting, J.C. Maxwell’s student, (1852-1914), who reduced(??) The Maxwell’s 22 Quaternion equations to four complex vector equations? The combination of the opposing POV’s allows some to try to fathom. EMR fields, EMR flux, and even the spontaneous EMR power transfer between mass with differential temperature ΔT, with no intervening mass.
          All the best!-will-

          00

  • #
    tom0mason

    Just a test –

    00

  • #
    David Maddison

    O/T

    Now deep fat fryers cause climate change!

    At least they supposedly cause cooling, not warming…

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42081892

    20

  • #
    Gary Else

    Obviously this is caused by Climate Change. Marion Jegen et al (https://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html)
    have found in studies that Climate Change causes volcanic eruptions.
    It would appear to have happened during periods when orbital changes have caused warming. Maybe they have missed the real reason; maybe orbital shift caused greater volcanic activity and it had nothing to do with coincidental warming.
    Just pondering.

    01

  • #
    Drapetomania

    dayhay November 23, 2017 at 4:59 am Looking at the data over Holocene timescales over at Climate Audit tells everything you need to know.
    If CO2 does cause warming, we are going to need a crap ton of it to survive in the future.

    Did you actually read what Steve was saying ???

    “…The characterization of Antarctic ice cores in the 2006 NAS report (discussed at CA here, especially at the press conference) was integral to their attempt to distinguish past warming from modern warming.However, this assertion in respect to Antarctica was not supported by their data or analysis. I tried unsuccessfully at the time to obtain a source. The Law Dome series, which was in circulation at the time, showed opposite results: warmth in the late first and very early second millennia and which didn’t show evidence of 20th century warming.Drafts of IPCC AR4 showed a panel diagram of Southern Hemisphere proxies, but conspicuously omitted the Law Dome series. As an AR4 reviewer, I asked that it be included in the diagram (knowing of course that it showed a result that was opposite to what they were claiming.) The IPCC AR4 lead authors knew this as well and refused to show it in their diagram, concocting a ludicrous excuse….”

    01

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “Steven McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant whose work has included statistical analysis. ”

      No conflict of interest of course :-)

      00

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Harry Twinotter November 26, 2017 at 11:38 am

        “Steven McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant whose work has included statistical analysis. ” No conflict of interest of course :-)

        Indeed Steven has experience. Just what do you have TWOTTER? :-)

        00