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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Unknown Miocene mystery where CO2 didn’t fit models, *Solved*

Strap yourself down – a puzzle you never knew existed has finally been solved!

Nov 16, 2017:  Scientists Solve 22 Million-Year-Old Climate Puzzle –”Paleoclimate Events Can Predict Earth’s Future”

Solved yesterday, settled today! That’s a rapid fire consensus… (they actually use the word “settled” in the title of the paper)

Study Settles prehistoric puzzle, confirms modern link of carbon dioxide and global warming

Finally poor Miocene researchers can sigh with relief as the first study in years shows what they *knew* was the right answer and now they can issue press releases, rest their weary minds, and stop trying to think of excuses as to why their results didn’t fit with The Climate Model Testaments.

Who knew there were large discrepancies and carbon dioxide did not fit the temperature theory for a million years or so? Not the public.

Where were the press releases telling us there was a mystery to solve?

Research Shows A High Temperature World Had Nothing To Do With CO2
Study shows temperatures fell dramatically, CO2 stayed the same
Study shows models have no freaking clue what controls the climate

Exactly, never.

The mystery they are talking about is the one marked Mi-1, 22 million years ago. This graph comes from Zachos 2008, a graph that is vying to become my new hot favorite since it has 40 million years of non-stop paradigm-busting mysteries. Watch CO2 control the climate while it stays steady for twenty million years and temperatures fall, rise, fall, spike, crash and slump into the modern Ages of Ice. This kind of climate sensitivity defies numerical analysis. If CO2 controls the climate with this kind of fickle unpredictability, it is more of a God than just a molecule, and we don’t need carbon reduction — we need places of worship. Maybe human sacrifices.

Years ago in my ninth ever post I pointed out that sometimes the only place that Experts admit that their results were ballsed up and the models didn’t work was in the introduction of a paper where they think they’ve solved it. So it was with the missing Hot Spot which people never said was missing except in a paper where they had just found it.

Here we find periods where the carbon theory fails, but are not called failures or mysteries (until after they are solved). Instead they are known as periods of decoupling:

 Furthermore, we aim to address the question of decoupling between atmospheric [CO2]atm and global temperature change during this time interval, particularly evident in the marine realm (Pagani et al., 2005; Henderiks and Pagani, 2007; Plancq et al., 2012), a question that clearly has profound implications for 21st-century climates.

In the normal world CO2 either controls the climate or it doesn’t. In the climate religion, CO2 either controls the climate or it is decoupled. There is no option for “does not control the climate”.

Here’s the graph from the new paper where a new variation on modeling of stromatal leaf changes. This time (joy) the CO2 rises from ~390 ppm in the late Oligocene to ~870 ppm at the “right” time. Did it lead the temperature spike or follow it? Yes. Definitely one or the other.

Assuming they are right this time, all they have achieved in the climate debate is just to stop the models being proved wrong at that point. The thing that matters is whether CO2 rose before temperature or after it, and since we can’t find clear signals about that in 2017, it’s no surprise that we can’t figure that out in 22 million BC either. I note table 1 says that the CO2 readings at Mush Valley are 21.73 Million years ± 30,000 years.  In modern equivalent terms it’s like we are assessing the whole global climate and CO2 levels since the Neanderthals with one dot on a graph.

Miocene, CO2, Temperature, 2017, graph.

….

The climate religion is evident throughout this paper: (the paper is more use as a sociological study)

Although the absolute amount of global temperature change between the late Oligocene and early Miocene is not known precisely, warming was likely on the same order of magnitude (~2 °C) as expected for the 21st century (Hansen et al., 2013; IPCC, 2014), and the expectation is that it was associated with an increase in atmospheric [CO2]atm. Nevertheless, previous studies documenting [CO2]atm for the cooler part of the late Oligocene and the relatively warmer early Miocene provide inconsistent and often counterintuitive results, possibly due to the use of different proxies or imprecisely dated strata.

Another word for failure is counterintuitive.

Below: that’s quite a lot of spread in those new happy CO2 results at the place called Mush (Fig 3 below). I see CO2 levels of 800ppm, 1200ppm. Isn’t that disastrous? Did we miss that mass extinction?

Tesfamichael, Graph, 2017, Miocene, CO2.

Figure 3 shows the results of late Oligocene (Chilga) and early Miocene (Mush Valley) [CO2]
atm mean values; complete results for each individual specimen are given in the Data Repository
(Table DR3). Late Oligocene [CO2]atm estimates range from 330 to 500 ppm, with a grand
mean of ~390 ppm, and early Miocene [CO2]atm estimates range from ~510 to 1340 ppm, with a  grand mean of ~870 ppm (Table 1).

Here’s a wicked thought. What if there is a wide range of CO2 levels all over the world in many ages? If we dig enough holes and do enough proxies, we will solve all the “mystery periods” sooner or later, as long as we stop looking after we’ve found the “right” answer.

(And since when was Mush, Ethiopia, representative of The World anyway?)

For background, and if you like watching scientists tap dance around their gremlins, this paper by Zhang in 2013 explains more about the significance of the Miocene Mysteries:

A 40-million-year history of atmospheric CO2

Yi Ge Zhang, Mark Pagani, Zhonghui Liu, Steven M. Bohaty, Robert DeConto
Published 16 September 2013.DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2013.0096

The Miocene Epoch (23 – 5 million years ago) is one of the most enigmatic times of the recent history of the Earth’s climate. The middle Miocene climatic optimum is one of the warmest intervals of the current icehouse period, being the culmination of several million years of warming from the beginning of the Miocene (Figure 1). Evidence suggests that the climate fundamentally changed during the middle Miocene transition, particularly on East Antarctica where a much reduced ice sheet with a vegetated landscape changed to a cold polar climate, potentially with ice sheets as large as today (Sandroni and Talarico, 2011).

Another apparent decoupling between CO2 and climate occurs near the Oligocene–Miocene boundary (approx. 23 Ma), represented by a transient, positive benthic foraminiferal δ18O excursion (greater than 1‰) interpreted as a period of substantial glaciation (known as the Mi-1 event) [76]. Our records suggest invariant CO2 concentrations during this apparent glaciation/deglaciation, defying our current understanding of the necessary forcing required to drive Antarctic ice sheet variability.

 Assuming approximately 2°C of cooling in the deep sea [77], approximately 0.5‰ of the 1‰ δ18O shift at Mi-1 must have been driven by an increase in ice volume. If continental ice on Antarctica had an average isotopic composition of −40‰, as indicated by isotopic modelling [71], then more than 22×106 km3 of ice—roughly equivalent to the entire present-day East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS)—must have accumulated within 400 000 years. However, CO2 levels during the Oligocene appear low enough to have already maintained a fully glaciated Antarctica according to ice sheet simulations [78]. Moreover, the recovery phase of Mi-1 is even more enigmatic because models require substantially higher CO2 levels—at least two times higher than the formation threshold of the EAIS (approx. 1500 ppm) to cause substantial ice sheet retreat [71,78].

Which all explains why we havent heard much about the Miocene in the climate propaganda in the last twenty years.

H/t Lance W  Thank you.

 

 

On the Miocene, warmists say yes,
Which is really no more than a guess,
That its long climate changes,
Through great temperature ranges,
Were CO2 caused, more or less.

                   — Ruairi

References

Tesfamichael et al (2017) Settling the issue of “decoupling” between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature: [CO2]atm reconstructions across the warming Paleogene-Neogene divide, Geology, November 2017; v. 45; no. 11; p. 999–1002 | Data Repository item 2017337 | doi:10.1130/G39048.1 |

Kürschner et al., 2007. The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of terrestrial ecosystems. PNAS105: 449-453.

LaRiviere et al., 2012. Late Miocene decoupling of oceanic warmth and atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing. Nature486: 97-100.

Pagani et al., 2005. Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the Paleogene. Science309: 600-603.

Zachos et al., 2001. Trends, rhythms and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science292: 686-693.

Zachos JC, Dickens GR, Zeebe RE. 2008 An Early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics. Nature 451, 279–283. (doi:10.1038/nature06588)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (73 votes cast)
Unknown Miocene mystery where CO2 didn't fit models, *Solved*, 9.4 out of 10 based on 73 ratings

206 comments to Unknown Miocene mystery where CO2 didn’t fit models, *Solved*

  • #
    AZ1971

    Jo, I love your deft use of language to foment frustration amongst The Believers. For example,

    Did it lead the temperature spike or follow it? Yes. Definitely one or the other.

    It’s like the classic husband/wife argument-to-be as demonstrated below.

    Wife: “You want fish or chicken for dinner?”
    Husband (not looking up from his newspaper): “Yes.”
    Wife: “…”

    193

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The nice thing about temperature spikes, is that there are always some fresh ones to look forward to, in the future, They may not be regular, and they may come in different sizes, but with some creative use of scale, and presentation, they can always look impressive.

      Not everyone is impressed, of course. Some people think the spikes are too large. Others contend that size isn’t important, saying that it is the colour of the spike that matters.

      Personally, I like the fairly small rounded ones, as long as they make the right sound.

      192

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yes, I am being extremely silly.

        But let us not forget, it was Hansen, aided and abetted by Schneider, and the crew from the Hadley Centre, who started the whole joke in the first place.

        That team is a very hard act to follow.

        214

      • #
        Yonniestone

        The Milligan spike was a funny period in the mid to late 20th century, the ‘Q’ trend was a catalyst for many latter dry spells.

        340

        • #
          graphicconception

          Sadly, we have been in a Milligan Minimum for 15 years. Two more years and we will be able to call it a “hiatus”.

          However, during the spike, some modelling scenarios were suggested that have since come to fruition – including: “One day the “Don’t Knows” will get in and then where will we be?”

          200

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Temperature ‘spikes’ are fine when making ‘hum’ sound, barely noticed by black kitten ‘Shadow’. Not so nice when making “crack\bang” sound, and Shadow clawing up your face to sit atop head hissing! :-)

        97

    • #
      Robert

      The answer to such a devious question should always be, yes or no!

      30

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I couldn’t continue after “period of decoupling”. I’ll come back when I can.

      140

      • #
        Serp

        Yeah, who’d've thunk it! So casually dropped into the written paragraph.

        I guess other researchers are undertaking urgent investigations into this hitherto unmentioned coupling mechanism which, I suppose, constitutes the microcode, as it were, of the carbon dioxide temperature setting contraption.

        100

      • #
        Mary E

        Uncoupling. Hmm.

        I would think that this newly described CO2 phenomena would lead to a few saying something like, oh, maybe, “You just proved your theory wrong – if CO2 is not controlling climate at that period of time, is out-of-measure for what it should be per the theory to cause the climate as it was, then, oops, your theory is not holding water, air, or even CO2.”

        Even within the ranks it must be obvious to those who have not totally succumbed to the koolade smoothies.

        41

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      I like better; exchange with police ossifer!
      Ossifer: Do you know how fast you were going?
      Driver: No idea ossifer; there was beer going every-where.
      Ossifer: Get out of the car!!
      Scientific conclusion: Police ossifers need be void of sense of humor!
      All the best!-will-

      86

      • #
        FrankH

        I prefer the Heisenberg version:

        Police Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
        Werner Heisenberg: No, but I know exactly where I am.

        100

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          How he know he am? :-)

          83

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          He yust tinks he am. He don know where nothin else is neither; ‘cept nearby dis non inertial rotating ball of mud! Sun is still over yonder part of day, means God still loves usins!

          73

  • #

    They dunno.

    They can’t just say the subject is too vast and fantastically complex. They’re saying stuff because they have to say something…but they dunno. Worse, they have to fit the few shreds of knowledge and observation to a politically charged dogma. Which means they double dunno.

    202

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Perhaps the word they should be using, in regard to the climate, is “ineffable“?

      122

      • #
        NB

        The last para of the last quote in the post uses the word ‘enigmatic’. What we have in this study is enigmatic Mush.

        130

        • #
          sophocles

          enigmatic Mush

          So they admit they don’t know. It’s too ‘mysterious‘ for the poor little things. Darn, I can’t get at the paper to see what they’ve cited. It’s behind a pay wall.

          Their conclusion that CO2 behaved as incompatibly with physical laws then as it’s supposed to behave at present: First The CO2, then the Temperature, is, if they have done their literature review at all comprehensively, and properly, untenable.

          There is no such thing as Magic. Physical Laws are immutable, invariable and consistent.

          It’s interesting that they’ve chosen a time when the Solar System was negotiating the Carina Spiral Arm and the leading edge star birth/death zone of that arm. High energy cosmic rays would have been rife and the planet pretty chilly. But not as cold as now, as the Solar System is negotiating Gould’s Belt in the Orion Spur, a rich cosmic ray zone.

          Ah Magic. A temptation to those who look solely inward and not around.

          60

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      “I do not know”, tho not much appreciated; is the unimpeachable expression of one with both integrity and experience.
      I answered boss question of “waddya think Will?”, like that only once! Boss: “I don’ know ether! I believe you do think; waddya think?”
      All the best!-will-

      106

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Jo is this where the social sciences are now applied to actual data to achieve a plot that is sensitive to the scientific communities new found ideologies?

    And if so will cherry picking be considered an accepted form of serfdom and Michael, Al, Naomi or Tim be known as ‘slave names’?

    93

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      Yonniestone November 18, 2017 at 6:25 am

      Jo is this where the social sciences are now applied to actual data to achieve a plot that is sensitive to the scientific communities new found ideologies?

      Interesting! from my post https://medium.com/@ValidScience/the-leon-project-big-data-for-social-science-3f6328af6d21Go .to Joe Duarte; who is almost as good at exposing BS in “social science”, as Matt Briggs is at exposing BS in statistical analysis!!

      Will Janoschka Nov 17
      Not to be crass , instead to be clear on what you may mean by ”social-science”? Just how can such be differentiated from belief\religion? My training\experience is in engineering of various groups, with nothing in ‘social’-whatever. In ”social-science”; what guess, conjecture, hypothesis, theorem can be considered ‘falsifiable’? How may another ever ’falsify’ some conjecture unless such method is clearly stated within the context of that conjecture? Is agreement by cubicle mates with the same conjecture considered ‘science‘?
      All the best! -will-

      116

  • #
    Another Ian

    In similar spirit

    “Apparently mockery and derision unbalance conservation bureaucrats, habituated as they are to forelock-tugging deference”.

    Elizabeth Nickson “Ecofascists: how radical conservationists are destroying our natural heritage”.

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If something were not being destroyed, then it would not be radical, within the context of what the term radicalism means, to it’s practitioners, this week.

      51

  • #
    • #
      TedM

      I have a brother who is a climate refugee. He has emphysema and used to get regular lung infections. He moved from the SW of WA to go further north where it was drier and warmer. Nothing to do with CO2, rising sea levels or forever droughts and floods.

      231

  • #
    manalive

    If atmospheric CO2 concentration changes were the overwhelming temperature forcing factor of the planet, confirming proxy evidence shouldn’t be that hard to find.

    202

  • #
    TedM

    There was a time when I used to read every climate related paper that I could get access to. Now with so much of academia totally entrenched in extreme confirmation bias, I rarely bother to read the abstract.

    I just despair and wonder if this academic Cr*p!!!!!!!!!!! is ever going to stop.

    Just on the brighter side its worth a look at “notrickszone” today, Fracking (USA) vs wind and solar (Germany).

    204

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    I will have to read this post again, it is all over the place. Human sacrifices? What?

    The paper’s abstract says this:

    “These values demonstrate a positive correlation between [CO2]atm and global average temperature, contrary to some previous studies for this time interval. The results of this study have important implications for understanding future climate change driven by rising [CO2]atm.”

    They are saying there is a positive correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global average temperature – this is not controversial.

    1028

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Ok I’ll bite Twot , so Co2 can stay steady and temps can rise and fall but it’s because of Co2 being steady that causes the change in climate from cold to a hot climate .
      But it’s also possible for Co2 to make the oceans more acidic when they’re not acidic to start with .

      176

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Well, I do not know what times in the earth’s past you are referring to but yes there are other sources of climate forcing such as orbital forcing.

        I do not understand your subject change to ocean acidification due to CO2, better give me a citation on that one.

        920

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Are you saying that climate is only affected by orbital forcing and Co2 ?

          106

          • #
            el gordo

            Looking at a more recent event it does appear as orbital forcing.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04123

            96

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            Are you saying that climate is only affected by orbital forcing and Co2 ?

            Can you please establish what may be meant by word “climate”; besides Realtor selling ‘desirable property’ or CAGW academic Clown scamming more professorially?

            109

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            “Are you saying that climate is only affected by orbital forcing and Co2 ?”

            No.

            811

            • #
              robert rosicka

              So what is it that affects climate ?

              95

              • #
                el gordo

                Sir …. sir …. oscillations.

                117

              • #
                robert rosicka

                Wrong Elgordo it’s Co2 where have you been ?

                88

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                “So what is it that affects climate ?”

                Well I am not going to give a primer in climate forcing, there are plenty of good websites around that do a far better job than I can. Not to mention the IPCC AR5 report, it has a pretty comprehensive list of attributions.

                You also need to consider the timeframes. Orbital forcing operates over tens of thousands of years. Solar insolation changes operates over 100s of millions of years.

                Also you have continental drift and mountain building, probably millions of years on that one.

                If someone thinks they can explain the current global warming that has occurred over the last several hundred years using something other than CO2 and water vapour, be my guest.

                811

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Well I am not going to give a primer in climate forcing”

                No, because it would be a load of complete TOSH !!

                You have ZERO idea about anything to do with climate science,

                …. just brain-washed anti-science regurgitation.

                125

        • #
          manalive

          There are other factors that many climate practitioners seem to be loath to acknowledge namely ‘unknown’.

          165

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            manalive.

            Really? Care to name them? Otherwise you are committing the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

            613

            • #
              Will Janoschka

              “namely ‘unknown’.” :-)

              104

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Harry, when and where was the null hypothesis disproved? That is what manalive is referring to.

              51

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Rereke Whakaaro.

                manalive should respond then.

                I will ignore your attempt at a subject change, and just ask you to tell me about these “unknowns” then if you think you know what they are. Or at least provide evidence where “climate practitioners” are ignoring them.

                19

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Oh Dear.

                You seem have little to no scientific knowledge. I just repeated what manalive alluded to, but in different words. And you think it is a subject change?

                I was referring to the Null Hypothesis, and I linked it back to manalives’ comment. Is English not your first language, by any chance?

                52

        • #
          AndyG55

          No sign of any CO2 warming in the whole the satellite data period, twotter.

          There has been no correlation between CO2 and warming in the last 40 years

          All warming has come from ocean events, which have absolutely NO relation to CO2.

          Your fantasy needs work !..

          so, off you trot and take more ‘shrooms. to help with your hallucinations.

          And just in case you didn’t do science at high school, oceans are not, and never will be, “acidic”, or anywhere near it.

          157

        • #
          AndyG55

          “I do not understand…. “…

          Yes twotter, it has been obvious, from your first meaningless post,

          ….that you have very little understanding about anything.

          And that you have no intention of ever trying find it.

          118

    • #
      el gordo

      For the warmers and lukewarmers its not controversial, but I’m a cool decoupled contrarian without help of salvation.

      CO2 does not cause global warming, what happened at the end of last century was just a coincidence (the sun was over active) and now global cooling has begun.

      278

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        “and now global cooling has begun.”

        Global Cooling? Better post evidence. Not even Dr Roy Spencer is trying to claim global cooling these days.

        816

        • #
          AndyG55

          No evidence of CO2 warming, either, twotter.

          Feel free to remain empty of any sort of proof. Its all we expect of you.

          139

        • #
          AndyG55

          You could look at the southern ocean and the strong La Nina forming

          But you would have to understand what it means…….

          ….but that’s not going to happen is it. !

          https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/LaNinaProgression2017-2.gif

          128

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Warming, cooling, static, are all variations of temperature relative to … what, exactly?

          What is THE benchmark for climate change, Harry? What is the datum point? What is the ideal temperature, and who defined it, and how, and why, and when, and where?

          Reporting variances, is just meaningless waffle, unless the variances are relative to an agreed, and fixed, datum point.

          138

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Rereke Whakaaro

            Rhetoric is not science.

            I am surprised you are ignorant of the various Global Mean Temperature indexes in use. The scientists who use them go to great lengths explaining their methods.

            The standard(ish) meteorological benchmark is to use 3-decade baselines. Some of them use a 20th century baseline.

            As to the rest of what you imply, the burden is on your to first explain the relevance. The meaning of “global warming” is pretty clear, it means the global mean temperature is warming. If you think warming (or cooling) is irrelevant or does not make any sense, then you will have to come up with a new theory of Ice Ages for a start.

            912

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              It is a wise man, who knows he is ignorant. It is a fool, who purports to be wise. Confucius.

              I am interested in understanding more about the Global Mean Temperature, and what that phrase is intended to imply.

              After all, the calculation of any mean, implies a reduction to a single value that can stand for all discrete measurements or observations, within a certain physical domain, and within a temporal frame.

              But the reported temperature for any given area, is itself a mean value of all of the discrete thermometer values, within any given area of what is deemed to be a “location”, for the purposes of calculation. So the mean temperature is no more than the mean of all the means, within a geography. If you reduce this on a temporal scale, you get a further reduction, and hence a figure that is even less meaningful.

              I would be interested in your views,

              143

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Rereke.

                Quote-dropping, really?

                Again you are implying you do not understand what the global mean temperature is. You should really read the explanation given on the GISTEMP website, lots of info there.

                Let me put it this way in the form of questions for you.

                Do you believe the global mean temperature during the last glacial was lower, the same, or higher than the global mean temperature now?

                Would you say the mean temperature of, say, Melbourne is lower, the same, or higher than the mean temperature of Brisbane?

                Would you say the mean temperature of the sun is lower, the same, or higher than the mean temperature of the earth?

                Indexes are relatively easy to understand. I use stock market indexes every business day.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

                415

              • #
                AndyG55

                Oh dear, twooter is reduced to Wiki citations. !!

                Keep digging , little worm !

                104

              • #
                AndyG55

                Would you say the current “idealised” global temperature was lower or higher than the Holocene Optimum?

                Almost certainly, from RAW data, the current temperature is not significantly different from around the late 1930s.

                And Arctic sea ice is still in the top 10% of Holocene extents.

                We live in COLD TIMES, just a tiny amount above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

                84

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Quote-dropping, really?

                I will probably drop that quotation from you, into the conversation, every time your erudition comes into question.

                But, in one aspect, you are quite correct. I do not understand what intelligence is conveyed by calculating a single average temperature value, to stand as proxy for the entire planet, this week, especially since it is often stated in the form of a variation from an undefined, and therefore mythical, “constant ideal” value.

                The point I am making is that, the concept of climate change is self referencing. There is no loose end, in the tangle of rhetoric, that can be followed, in order to get to the heart of the matter.

                It is like the story of the Oomegoolie bird, that flew faster and faster in ever decreasing circles until it eventually disappeared up its own fundamental orifice.

                But I suppose a PR wonk would not see that. All you have, are meaningless questions about local weather, when the rest of the scientific community are still trying to come to terms with the mistreatment of atmospheric physics on a global scale.

                But keep on trucking. You provide an amusing diversion for AndyG55, if nothing else.

                93

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Rereke Whakaaro.

                You are feeding the chooks, mate. You and that Andy-Pandy loonie can keep each other company.

                18

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Is that all you have left? Ad Hominem comments? Really? That is very sad.

                All the way through this, “conversation”, you have produced cut-and-paste comments, from various sources, without really understanding the implications of what you are quoting. But it is your job to generate spin, so we forgive you for that. But unfortunately, those you chose to quote are also generating spin, which makes you look seriously weird and on the fringe.

                I tried to give you a hint when I quoted:

                I do not understand what intelligence is conveyed by calculating a single average temperature value, to stand as proxy for the entire planet

                Is the temperature in Moscow the same as the temperature in Washington? It might be, by a fluke. But to calculate a single “global mean”, to represent both, and every other place on the planet for that matter, irrespective of seasons, is a total nonsense. It is no more than a fabrication. And to take that mean as the datum point for all subsequent variations of measured temperature, are therefore also total nonsense. Besides, there are also lots of random events that can affect temperature within a finite area. Are they included in the “global mean”? I doubt it.

                Yes, your heros may have super computers to calculate this stuff. I can gain access to a Cray, if I wait long enough in line, and I can calculate stuff. But I would not bet the future of civilisation on the outcome of those calculations. Your climate heroes have no such foibles.

                So you are correct. I have been taking the time, and making the effort, to feed the chook that is right in front of me. If you think about this, and learn something from it, then I will be satisfied. If you can’t, then that is your loss, and I would suggest that you to go and cluck somewhere else.

                62

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Rhetoric is not science.”

              But it is all that you have , isn’t it twotter. !!

              Not one single bit of science to back up any of you child-minded rantings.

              119

            • #
              AndyG55

              “The standard(ish) meteorological benchmark is to use 3-decade baselines”

              Ok, so for the past 38 years, there has been ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING in the satellite data.

              Do you have a relevant point to make, other than proving that CO2 does not cause warming???

              Or are you being your usual mindlessly yapping Chihuahua.

              117

            • #
              AndyG55

              “The meaning of “global warming” is pretty clear,”

              Which it ISN’T !!

              107

            • #
              AndyG55

              “new theory of Ice Ages for a start”

              You mean the Little one we have only just partially climbed out of ???

              You really are typing with both feet in your gob today, aren’t you twooter :-)

              107

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Thanks for the assistance, Andy.

              I had a tutor at one point, who was fond of asking, “relative to what?”, in regard to measurement, or calculated results.

              So when you find people quoting numbers that appear to have no chain of veracity, back to known and defined SI reference points, my hackles start to rise.

              I don’t see how, “various Global Mean Temperature indexes”, gets anywhere near being in the ball-park. It is all spin.

              94

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Yes. What?

      100

    • #

      “… this post … it is all over the place. Human sacrifices? What?”

      It’s called Satire Harry. Look it up.

      223

      • #
        William

        Aliens!
        You forgot the aliens!
        Also, it is now considered socially unacceptable to waste virgins in human sacrifice.They are a critically endangered species; if you see one, please post a picture.

        102

        • #
          sophocles

          They are a critically endangered species; if you see one, please post a picture.

          Post a picture of…what? Aliens? Virgins? Or both?

          50

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Jo remember “Irony is wasted on the stupid” or in this case “Irony is wasted on the humorously decoupled”

        142

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        “It’s called Satire Harry. Look it up.”

        Indeed. Satire is not science. Politically it makes sense the Liberal Party dumped that man when they did, the word “liability” springs to mind. But that is politics, give me science any day…

        911

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Harry, you might find it easier to comprehend the content of the post, if you moved your finger more slowly, from word to word, and consider how words juxtaposed in the same sentence are there to support the overall idea, rather than offering an invitation to be cherry picked out of context.

      148

      • #
        sophocles

        You might have to simplify that more, Rereke. Try shorter sentences. Each sentence should express a single idea.
        :-)

        107

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Ideally no bigger than three letter words .

          108

          • #
            sophocles

            Hmm, that’s an attractive thought Robert, but Rereke might be forced to use one or two words with up to, say, a whole five letters. After all, a cretinous coprocephalic, by definition, has a very simple mind.

            97

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            I’ll try.

            It’s all a bit of fun.

            Best I can do with just three letter words.

            87

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Good enough Greg,

              The best I could think of was, “Do not try to put lip stick on a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig”.

              52

    • #
      tom0mason

      Oh Harry,
      Alternatively –

      These values demonstrate a positive correlation between [CO2]atm and global average temperature during historic times, this time intervals are of the order of hundreds of years in length. The results of understanding this have important implications for understanding future climate change driven by rising [CO2]atm after historic warming.
      However always keep in mind correlation does not equal causation.

      154

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        tomomason.

        Indulge me in a thought experiment. What would be the reaction if there was NO correlation between CO2 concentration and global mean temperature, or even a negative correlation?

        My guess is suddenly “correlation does not equal causation.” would take on a new meaning for some.

        Can’t have it both ways…

        713

        • #
          tom0mason

          No Harry wrong again!

          “Can’t have it both ways…”

          A ‘thought experiment’ is only possibilities and probabilities, it is not observations and measurement, so in a ‘thought experiment’ yes you can have it both ways, as nothing has been proved. Until is has some basis in the actuality it is just a fantasy or as wish to call it a ‘thought experiment’.

          112

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Harry, we are trying to teach you some philosophy.

          But to answer your brain fart; if there was no observable correlation between CO2 and global mean temperatures, then we can surmise that they are totally independent variables. But, we cannot exclude the possibility that two independent variables might appear to have a correlation, purely by chance, or under the influence of a third independent variable.

          62

    • #
      Phoenix44

      You obviously don’t understand what “contrary to some previous studies”means then. It is pretty tricky English I suppose.

      If you put forward a claim that contradicts other claims, it is controversial – that’s what the word means.

      72

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … this is not controversial …

      Possibly not, to people who don’t understand temporal mathematics.

      The comment concerns, “a positive correlation between [CO2] atm and global average temperature.”

      atm Is presumably an abbreviation for “atmospheric”?

      So this statement compares the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, against the average temperature reading of every meteorological thermometer on the planet, at a known point in time, or possibly compares it to a series of longitudinal measurements, at known time intervals, over a 24 hour period, for each thermometer.

      There is no other way of establishing a global “average” temperature, because time is the elephant in the room.

      In making that argument, I am ignoring the fact that each point on the earth’s surface that can emit CO2, by natural causes, would also need to be aggregated and averaged with respect to the geographically nearest thermometer, in the above calculation, in order to be able to distinguish the anthropogenic sources of warming from the natural sources.

      114

  • #
    PeterS

    Correlation is not causation regardless of which came first.

    171

    • #
      el gordo

      Its just come to my notice that 11,500 years ago the Northern Hemisphere summer began in December, something to do with ‘precession’.

      Orbital forcing is a major driver of climate change.

      81

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I remember that. That is why I moved into the Southern Hemisphere, when I did. I needed to get away from all this “precession” nonsense.

        112

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        “Orbital forcing is a major driver of climate change.”

        Well yes it is, over tens of thousands of years.

        Not much orbital forcing over the last several hundred years though.

        513

        • #
          AndyG55

          Just a cooling down into the COLDEST period of the last 10,000 years, followed by slight by HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming.

          How’s your inner city fossil fuel warmed/cooled and supplied ghetto doing, twotter.

          Still as hypocritical as ever ?

          83

    • #
      sophocles

      The sun rises. Plants grow.
      Correlation can be Causation.

      50

    • #

      Correlation is not causation regardless of which came first.

      True, but correlation is definitely not causation if the cause came second.

      152

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      Correlated chickens are the result of causal eggs! :-) Err maybe the other way round.
      Is a ‘strange attractor’ a cousor or a causee? :-)

      74

  • #
    Asp

    The concept of ‘decoupling’ has boundless possibilities. It can absolve the facts from having to follow theory. My account of last night’s escapades, as related to my wife, can be decoupled from the truth if necessary. It could even allow us to decouple from reality, and live in a world as we would like it to be.

    110

    • #
      graphicconception

      The concept of ‘decoupling’ has boundless possibilities.

      I agree.

      I was worried that I was going to be flat broke at the end of this month. I feel much better now I realise that my spending has just become decoupled from my income.

      100

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      Hmmm. It is similar to the old joke where Jeb asked “Lew, do you want some molasses?” and Lew answered “How can I have molasses when I ain’t had any lasses yet?”

      How can CO2 be decoupled from the temperature when it hasn’t been shown to be coupled in the first place? They are assuming what is yet to be proved. Worse, the so called coupling is a hidden assumption being used to support their decoupling hypothesis.

      This makes the paper mostly verbal noise but then that is rather the case for the entire CACC story. That is except for the point that weather happens and if you don’t like it, wait a bit and it will change.

      80

  • #

    Plants must have been on their hands and knees for a lot of that period with CO2 at near 200ppm.

    170

    • #

      Thought fer Today – from Primo Levi’s ‘Periodic Table.’

      …’Our atom of carbon enters the leaf, colliding with other
      innumerable (but here useless) molecules of nitrogen and oxygen.
      It adheres to a large and complicated molecule that activates it, and
      simultaneously receives the decisive message from the sky, in the
      flashing form of a packet of solar light; in an instant, like an insect
      caught by a spider, it is separated from its oxygen, combined with
      hydrogen and (one thinks) phosphorous, and finally inserted in a chain,
      whether long or short does not matter, but it is the chain of life. All
      this happens swiftly, in silence, at the temperature and pressure of the
      atmosphere, and gratis: dear colleagues, when we learn to do likewise we
      will be sicut Deus [like God], and we will have also solved the problem
      of hunger in the world.’

      120

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        “…’Our atom of carbon enters the leaf, colliding with other
        innumerable (but here useless) molecules of nitrogen and oxygen.
        It adheres to a large and complicated molecule that activates it, and
        simultaneously receives the decisive message from the sky, in the
        flashing form of a packet of solar light; in an instant, like an insect
        caught by a spider, it is separated from its oxygen, combined with
        hydrogen and (one thinks) phosphorous, and finally inserted in a chain,
        whether long or short does not matter, but it is the chain of life.”

        What absolute total religious nonsense. Even worse than the CAGW nonsense!
        Earthlings can but struggle to learn a wee bit of how this wonderful planet Earth may operate. By now Earthlings, created as some lower dimensional ‘image of God, should have learned that earthlings have none of the capabilities of GOD! We can try to learn of this ‘is’. But before such becomes relevant; God will have adjusted everything simply to thwart any attempt sicut Deus [like God]! God may give up on earthlings, and give all to Roaches as top predator. They have no such illusions!
        All the best!-will-

        87

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    …And since when was Mush, Ethiopia, representative of The World anyway?

    I thought Mush was in NW Canada.

    30

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Not totally OT but I think this study is suggesting that a greening planet will spell doom because of the extra Co2 released from plants .

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-18/plant-respiration-co2-findings-anu-canberra/9163858

    51

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Totally OT but right now the AEMO has South Australia as producing 0 wind power and Victoriastan not much better .

    61

    • #
      Robber

      But what I don’t understand is why natural gas stations in SA are being run to supply 390 MW into Vic, and Qld is supplying 870 MW into NSW so NSW can send 610 MW into Vic. Is Vic now seriously short of baseload coal capacity?
      And AEMO is still showing reserve shortfalls in Vic/SA of almost 1100 MW Nov 21-23 in its medium term outlook, but it doesn’t appear in their 7 day outlook.

      40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … AEMO has South Australia as producing 0 wind power …

      If it gets any worse, South Australia’ wind power will suck.

      62

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Good blog Jo. As you all know I am no scientist but I have always been a climate skeptic and proud of it.
    As for this latest ‘Miocene Carbon study’ goes I am pleased to say that I believe your analysis of the results.
    It seems to me that these people making predictions based on distant & flimsy evidence, thrown in with a good dose of bias.
    We are lucky to have someone like yourself Jo who can present an alternative and logical viewpoint to this green ideology.
    Regards GeoffW

    101

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Geoff:

      Yes, but I was waiting for someone to explain the latter Oligosene where a plummeting CO2 level caused a rise in temperature. T read about that sometime past, was it in The Guardian, the SMH or the ABC?

      51

  • #
    Ruairi

    On the Miocene, warmists say yes,
    Which is really no more than a guess,
    That its long climate changes,
    Through great temperature ranges,
    Were CO2 caused, more or less.

    170

  • #
    Joe

    Hmm, if that CO2 makes us so hot, why do we use it in fire extinguishers? :)

    81

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Or beer .

      21

      • #
        Joe

        Oh, yes good point robert – and why put the dry ice in the chilly bin too?

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Shush! If the klimate worriers start investigating the physics of the Aussie chilly bin, we will all be doomed to drink warm beer.

          52

          • #
            robert rosicka

            If you want to upset the Australian public mess with their beer , the riots will be somewhat apocalyptic.

            31

          • #
            Another Ian

            If that is likely to come about get shares in whoever brews Southwark. In times past when refrigeration was a maybe not a given, it used to be rated “cold, worse beer in Australia: hot, the best”

            30

  • #
    DMA

    What I noticed here is the acceptance of stomata indecies to determine CO2 levels. These have been used to determine CO2 levels in the last 10,000 years and often show more CO2 than the ice cores(see Wagner 1999 and 2004). The climate AGW crew discount these findings as spureous as they show early Holecene concentrations comperable with present day thus discounting the unprecedentedness of our time. Wagner used three leaf species from three continents to show they were not spurious but seems to have been ignored. The crew also ignore the chemical tests that were common from the 1800s to 1958 when Keeling invented his sensor that was installed in Mona Loa. The chemical analyses in the early 1960s matched the Mona Loa readings quite well but the crew disregard the earlier testes that showed 450 PPM in 1940 and several other short lived spikes following other warming periods (See Beck 2007).

    Check your email DMA. – Jo

    70

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day DMA,
      Why test the testes when you’re testing for CO2?
      ( Suggest you don’t rely on spell check to confirm meaning…)
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      20

    • #
      DMA

      Jo
      I have checked my email but nothing so far. Sorry for the misspelling. I suspect Dave B. was not the only one to get a chuckle out of that one.

      10

  • #
    pat

    o/t COP23 update:

    17 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Fight over finance threatens end of climate talks
    As climate talks head into their final hours, a disagreement over how rich countries will report their plans to finance climate action could boil over
    By Fabiano Maisonnave in Bonn
    Climate talks in Bonn stalled on Friday, hours before they were supposed to conclude, as rich countries refused to submit to demands to discuss their plans for climate finance…

    Sources said the European Union was being constructive, but the ‘umbrella group’, which includes the US, Australia and Japan was pushing back on developing country demands…

    The issue could hold hostage the key Fijian initiative at these talks – the Talanoa dialogue, which will take stock of the efforts made by countries on climate change during 2018. With little time remaining, the Fijians now face a stern diplomatic test.
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/17/fight-finance-threatens-end-climate-talks/

    18 Nov: AFP: UN climate talks enter extra time, unnerved by pro-coal Washington
    The world’s poorer nations are demanding more certainty and transparency from rich nations on progress made toward meeting a promise to ramp up climate finance to $100 billion per year by 2020
    UN negotiations to bolster the Paris Agreement, crafted over more than two decades to avert climate catastrophe, dragged into extra time Friday, November 17, unnerved by Washington’s rejection of the process and defense of fossil fuels.

    Scheduled to have closed late afternoon, the talks were still underway at 10:00 pm (2100 GMT), with China’s chief negotiator Xie Zhenhua telling Agence France-Presse: “We have a lot to negotiate.”
    Delegates said the talks were stalled mainly on finance, reviving a divide between rich and developing nations at the talks…

    Donor nations, in turn, insist on comparable obligations under the Paris pact for developing greenhouse gas polluters, who demand a certain degree of leeway…
    The United States, which under Trump has also slashed funding for climate bodies and projects, took a tough stance in the finance discussions, delegates said, angering many negotiating parties…
    https://www.rappler.com/world/global-affairs/188824-un-climate-talks-enter-extra-time

    31

  • #
    pat

    17 Nov: UK Daily Mail: Climate change is ‘turbocharging’ the growth of trees in cities – and it could help reduce storm water flooding
    Trees grow more quickly in cities than rural areas, a new study has found
    It could be due to the urban heat island effect, which means cities are hotter
    These higher temperatures may stimulate photosynthesis to help plants grow
    The acceleration of tree growth could be beneficial – sequestering more carbon and providing more ecosystem services such as reduced storm water runoff
    But accelerated growth may also mean more rapid ageing and shorter lifespan
    By Cecile Borkhataria
    Researchers analyzed tree rings in ten cities around the world, and discovered that urban and rural trees have undergone accelerated growth since the 1960s – and say climate change may be the reason for this.
    The results revealed urban trees are growing even faster than rural trees, and it could be due to the urban heat island effect, which involves higher temperatures in cities compared to the surrounding landscapes – and that may stimulate photosynthesis to help the plants grow…

    According to the authors of the study (LINK), while the benefits of trees growing in an urban environment seem to outweigh known negative effects, accelerated growth may also mean more rapid ageing and shortened lifespan…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5090629/Climate-change-speeds-growth-trees-cities.html

    13 Nov: Nature: Scientific Reports: Climate change accelerates growth of urban trees in metropolises worldwide
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14831-w#Fig1

    51

  • #
    Dennis

    I heard a discussion on the vehicle radio this morning about sustainable development (UN Agenda 21 again) and in short, one of final points made, I tuned in too late to hear the starting remarks, that all households will in the not too distant future produce their own electricity and electricity grids will become redundant. It will soon be the end of mining and burning fossil fuels.

    https://new.gbca.org.au

    51

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      And what about the fifty cycle mains frequency, that is used to keep clocks on time, and stabilise medical equipment, and any other equipment that is reliant on having a clean reference frequency.

      Why is it that these imbeciles insist on demonstrating their total lack of any pragmatic knowledge, to the rest of us. Why don’t they just stay in their “safe spaces”, and leave it to the grown-ups to sort things out?

      91

      • #
        Another Ian

        “Then there is hope. But hope is not a strategy”. E.M. Smith.

        30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Yes, in other words they are caught up in forcing their green occult religious view on the world by wrecking infrastructure so people are forced into that situation.

          Its an eco version of Jones town….

          20

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Rereke, its important to note these people arent stupid, but they are following a religion, so this wrecking of the grid to them is a pious religious act ( i hasten to say thier religion is not Christian ).

            30

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I agree Steve, and that is the problem. It is a religion. Gaia Worship is nothing more than a mutable belief system. It is Humpty Dumpty thinking three impossible thoughts, before breakfast.

              Meanwhile, reality, i.e. the real and actual physical world in which we live, gives no credence to belief, in a religious sense. It only abides by the proven and repeatable laws of Chemistry, Physics, and Biology.

              41

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              They clearly don’t have industry, rail transport, charging Telsa trucks, hospitals, stadiums, desalination plants, sewerage treatment, or most anything else in mind.

              I don’t understand how a mind can make a statement like that with complete disregard to what exists in the world today. Unicorns all the way down.

              30

    • #
      Yonniestone

      This is the statement form a work college I commented on a week ago, it would appear the eco-faithful have decoupled from life’s realities.

      After a debate of me producing facts and he wishing things were different my final words were “wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills first”

      30

    • #

      …..that all households will in the not too distant future produce their own electricity and electricity grids will become redundant.

      Sometimes you just have to wonder.

      The average home consumes 20KWH of power a day.

      Just to Sydney alone, the GRID supplies 38,400,000KWH PER DAY.

      No grid ….. no Sydney.

      Or Melbourne, or Brisbane or ….. you get the picture, every city in Australia.

      Tony.

      80

      • #

        But Malcolm and the globalists say we’ll have mini-cities, really smart ones. Like, Elon-smart. So advanced and futuristic they never actually have to be built…which is as advanced and futuristic as you can get. Never mind the Jetsons.

        Mohammed bin Salman was in the middle of describing his smart futuristic city when he had to arrest everybody and take their money. But he’ll get back to us.

        61

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          A bit like the old nation states of medaevil italy…..

          30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Weren’t medieval nations states of Italy constantly at war with one-another?

            Sound a lot like the European Parliament to me.

            30

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              They were as much at war with themselves. Faction fighting by the city leaders causes many deaths. Each family vying for power and authority.

              20

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        Apparently we who understand that, both quality and quantity are important issues when you are making choices, are out of sync with the rest of the world.

        Today, the basic presumption appears to be that it is not the evidence that counts, it is the seriousness of the charge. If charged, you are guilty with no proof necessary. Thus you don’t even need to identify that the quality exists nor its magnitude or direction.

        Evidence? Measurements? Numbers? We no longer need such things. Facts are supposed to be what want them to be simply BECAUSE we want. If we change the name, the thing changes. If we change the definition, the thing defined changes to match. Reality does not exist unless we create it by wishing it into existence.

        This has a long way to go to be as good as decoupled from reality. That which was never connected cannot be decoupled. It remains suspended without foundation.

        30

      • #
        Robber

        Tony, A Report to the AUSTRALIAN ENERGY REGULATOR, March 2015 Electricity Bill Benchmarks for residential customers, ACIL ALLEN CONSULTING PTY LTD indicated average household consumption of 5,900 KWh/year or 16 KWh/day rather than your number of 20 KWh/day.
        For those interested, it reports averages by State, and by number of people in the household.

        10

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    I just love when you get frustrated by the pseudo-scientific obfuscation of the pseudo-scientific model supporters, like this absolutely perfect example – “decoupling” for goodness sake, what next. I would just love to be fly on your wall when you first read a paper like that – language that my mother would never had approved of, I am sure.

    Thank you so much for bringing this sheer joy into our lives. The next laugh will be when the media trys to spin this as “confirmation” of global warming theory. I am searching the internet as we speak.

    81

    • #
      Yonniestone

      This new science is fascinating Peter, I always understood decoupling as divorced……which ironically is what warmists and reality are….

      81

  • #
    King Geo

    Late Oligocene – Middle Miocene. High temps – high eustatic SL – CO2 not much higher than now (400-500ppm) – why?

    Well just look at the Northwest Shelf of Australia, PNG & most of S.E. Asia. Significant carbonate growth (reefoid, banks, off-reef etc). Travel to Vietnam, southern Thailand, Sarawak, Indonesia, Philippines etc and you will see wonderful mainly Early/Middle Miocene limestone geology – stacks, pinnacles everywhere e.g James Bond Island, Phang Nga Bay). You see during these much warmer times than now, when eustatic SL was much higher than present, carbonate growth in the shallow tropical seas was rampant – and it is the corals, byzozoa, coralline algae etc that were taking vasts amount of CO2 out of these warm shallow seas – SIMPLES (as the Russian Meerkat says in those TV ads).

    100

  • #
    pat

    it’s over…AFP seems the most realistic account:

    18 Nov: AFP: Marlowe Hood: Keeping it real: UN climate talks struggle to stay relevant
    With only a single degree Celsius of global warming so far, the planet has already seen a crescendo of deadly droughts, heatwaves, and superstorms engorged by rising seas.
    “Climate change is here. It is dangerous. And it is about to get much worse,” said Johan Rockstroem, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, a climate change research centre…

    But as the years tick by, the byzantine bureaucracy — where hundreds of diplomats can argue for days over whether a text will say “should” or “shall” — has struggled to keep pace with both the problem, and what some negotiators call “the real world”.
    “What is at stake here is the relevance of the COP process,” said Nicaragua’s chief negotiator Paul Oquist, lamenting a point of blockage and the generally slow pace.
    “We cannot risk becoming more and more irrelevant with each meeting.”

    The UN climate process risks falling out of step in two key ways, experts suggest.
    One is in relation to the unforgiving conclusions of science, which show that the window of opportunity for avoiding climate cataclysm is rapidly narrowing to a slit.
    Meanwhile, scientists warned of invisible temperature thresholds — “tipping points” — beyond which ice sheets would irretrievably shed enough water to raise global oceans by metres.
    “The only question is how fast,” James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies until 2013, told AFP…

    A veteran EU climate diplomat, meanwhile, bemoaned the lack of dynamism in the negotiating arena. “I’ve never seen a COP with so little adrenaline,” he told AFP…
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/37920639/keeping-it-real-un-climate-talks-struggle-to-stay-relevant/

    Bloomberg: Climate Envoys Step Up Pace of Work Without Support From Trump

    Reuters: Governments keep global climate deal on track despite US pullout

    NYT: What Happened (and Didn’t) at the Bonn Climate Talks
    After wrangling through the night, the 23rd conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wrapped up early Saturday with modest accomplishments, paving the way to complete by next year the rules that will set the Paris agreement in motion.
    Delegates wrapping up before dawn congratulated themselves on another year of saving the process, if not the planet, and called on countries to be more ambitious in tackling emissions…
    The conference resolved a handful of issues dear to vulnerable nations, but the most thorny decisions were kicked to 2018…

    81

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Thanks for the brief, Pat – you do sterling service – we should thank you more often.

      The UN climate process risks falling out of step in two key ways, [unnamed, self appointed] experts suggest.

      If they are anonymous, they cannot be held accountable for what they say, and can therefore spout any drivel they choose.

      One is in relation to the unforgiving conclusions of science, …

      Science makes no conclusions. People form conclusions, based upon the evidence. This is no more than a childish appeal to the authority of the mystical being called Science.

      … which show that the window of opportunity for avoiding climate cataclysm is rapidly narrowing to a slit.

      This is a science-free statement. And is not even good hyperbole. It does, however attempt to create fear, because nobody wants to be caught in a crushing slit.

      Meanwhile, scientists warned of invisible temperature thresholds — “tipping points” — beyond which ice sheets would irretrievably shed enough water to raise global oceans by metres.

      And presumably monsters under the bed, an outbreak of purple pustules, all over the body, and a world shortage of Twinkies.

      “The only question is how fast,” James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies until 2013, told AFP…

      Presumably because AFP could not find any other “name”, in the climate-milking fraternity, who was prepared to have their dreams translated into print.

      81

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      complete by next year the rules that will set the Paris agreement in motion

      The Paris agreement has no teeth, so it takes two years to come up with rules that will set this toothless tiger in motion? All the while the “window of opportunity for avoiding climate cataclysm is rapidly narrowing to a slit”.

      Good one guys. But it’s the skeptics what done it!

      40

  • #
    Mark M

    carbon (sic). Is there nothing it can’t do?

    Geologists Just Discovered 260-Million Year Old Forests In Antarctica

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/11/16/geologists-just-discovered-260-million-year-old-forests-in-antarctica_a_23280231/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage

    51

  • #
    Mark

    Wasn’t the Miocene also the same time as two major currents forming for the first time…antarctic circumpolar flow and the gulf stream after the forming of the Isthmus of panama? Not to mention the northern drift of Australia starting to dry out the continent. The formation of New Guinea, the Himalayas, the Andes…also reversing the flow of the Amazon river..all these changes of geography had an immense effect on moisture transport around the globe. Effect on the formation of glaciers, libido and climate??? Where does a trace gas fit in all this?

    80

    • #
      robert rosicka

      That’s easy the trace gas started the current then stopped it then started it again , it also made the glaciers then defrosted them before making them again , after it finished that it made iceages and interglacials so it heats everything up then cools it again very simple really .

      71

    • #

      changes of geography>>read: changes of geology.
      between geology and atmosphere it may turn out that h2o is involved, perhaps sunlight, rotational dynamics, …

      40

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    I was curious, so found this study on rats in simulated submarine environments

    From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
    We get normal air at co2 levels of 0.04%

    From this study below, we see co2 could go as high as 2.5% ( 50x current levels of co2 ).

    As such, if co2 is at 400 ppm, then we can safely go to 50 x 400 = 20,000 ppm

    Or have I missed something? Are my maths correct? Happy to be corrected….I’m 97% certain I’m 97% certain. :-)

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2014.995386?journalCode=iiht20

    “In summary, subacute exposures to elevated concentrations of the submarine atmosphere gases did not affect the ability of rats to reproduce and did not appear to have any significant adverse health effects.”

    60

  • #
    toorightmate

    We had some pretty smart kids in our school classes and at uni.
    Why weren’t we told about the 22 million year problem?
    We would have solved it in a flash.
    The 22 million year old bloke who solved and settled the problem must be nearly old enough to vote.

    40

  • #
    Dave in the States

    So the pause is just decoupling huh? Who knew?

    50

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I’ll bet Kevin Trenberth would have known. He invented the “heat is hiding in the deep ocean”. Which is kind-o-similar.

      40

  • #
    TdeF

    So people are still trying to prove that CO2 warms the planet? How long is this supposed to take? For twenty years CO2 has kept climbing while temperature has refused to move? Obviously the physics works only occasionally.

    On a positive note, 350,000 giant windmills in the very richest energy abundant countries has managed to stop global warming without even slightly affecting steady CO2 growth so essential for plant growth. How this was achieved is also a mystery of science but we are now in the Twilight Zone of Global Warming. Maybe intermittent physics, like intermittent energy. Stuff which only works some of the time and never when you need it. Green technology.

    112

    • #
      TdeF

      Besides, why go back 20 million years with isotope ratio proxies to debate the alleged CO2 temperature connection? Why not use the last century, even the last 20 years where we have excellent records. There is no correlation. CO2 seems to be ignoring humanity. We should stamp our feet in frustration at being insignificant, like ants on a golf course.

      91

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      Has anyone checked the reduction in Earth’s angular momentum to find out just what powers those 350,000 giant windmills? Sailing wessels were bad enough! :-)

      86

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “For twenty years CO2 has kept climbing while temperature has refused to move?”

      News to me.

      69

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Of course! Trolls exist in the non physical!

        94

      • #
        AndyG55

        Only warming in the whole satellite data has come from El Nino NON-CO2 events

        The latest El Nino looks like being a transient rather than a step change like the 1998 El Nino was.

        Between those events.. NOTHING. !!

        No sign of any human caused warming anywhere except in local urban areas.

        Certainly NOT GLOBAL.

        You really have to keep up with FACTS , twotter..

        …or you will continue to look like a NIL-educated fool. !

        74

    • #

      Empowerment has a hole new meaning.

      51

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Beth:

        Empowerment has a hole new meaning.

        Huh! The local armadillos seem ‘empowered’ to dig a hole. I’ve never observed them digging a whole hole! :-)

        74

        • #

          Half a hole is better than none.
          Leastwise the Sth Australia renewables’
          promotors seem to think so, and maybe even
          think its better than one.

          51

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            beththeserfNovember 20, 2017 at 5:08 pm

            Half a hole is better than none.
            Leastwise the Sth Australia renewables
            promotors seem to think so, and maybe even
            think its better than one.

            Only for Earthlings that are wholesome! How can your Sth Australia renewables
            ’promoters achieve such status? Do they seem more lovable than armadillos?

            64

  • #
    TdeF

    I also marvel at the technology and effort and isotope analysis deployed to analyse a CO2 warming relationship from millions of years ago. A very simple C12/C14 ratio establishes that less than 2% of all CO2 is from fossil fuel, that half CO2 goes into the ocean every 14 years and that the world is recycling, self cleaning, assuming CO2 was actually pollution and not the third ingredient of life on earth after sunlight and water.

    Yes, every living thing is made from CO2 and water. Burn a 50 tonne tree and the ash is all that is not CO2 and water.

    Perhaps real scientists are just trying to make a living digging in the frozen waste and analysing stuff. It takes enthusiastic ecologists to turn this into dramatic news and funding. These people are called science communicators.

    86

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “A very simple C12/C14 ratio establishes that less than 2% of all CO2 is from fossil fuel”

      Citations please.

      611

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        You never give citations, so why should anybody else, when communicating with you?

        You can either agree with the statement, or demonstrate the flaw(s) in what was said, or not contribute at all. It is your choice.

        51

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      Perhaps real scientists are just trying to make a living digging in the frozen waste and analysing stuff. It takes enthusiastic ecologists to turn this into dramatic news and funding. These people are called science communicators.

      Interesting! Digging in the frozen waste and analyzing stuff, is the job of ‘researchers’, those who study, as in the work called ‘social studies’. Physical “science” remains the Provence of original search, conjecture, then a lifetime of desperately trying to falsify that very same conjecture. Kepler, Newton, Planck, for example. If the original conjecturer cannot falsify; such may become a ‘hypothesis’.
      If that hypothesis interests many that still cannot falsify the falsifiable hypothesis, such may advance and become a scientific theorem. Only at the theorem level can the term “scientist” be applied to the few still desperately trying to falsify that little m****r f****r.!
      All the best!-will-

      83

  • #
    Will Janoschka

    I only gotz 34 red thumbz dis weakened! :-(

    84

  • #
    Will Janoschka

    Another word for failure is counterintuitive.

    Of course! Landing your craft with the rollers still folded up, is indeed counterintuitive! :-(

    83

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      Chesley Burnett “Sully” Sullenberger III correctly chose skill over ‘intuition’ when he plunked that big mother down into the Hudson River! :-)

      83