All around the world the climate druids are at work.
Show me the error bars
Once upon a time a scientist talked about thirty year trends and anachronistic things like “confidence intervals”. Now, thanks to the discovery of Unscience, any noisy, random short data is fair game to be declared undeniable climate change. Periods of flooding also qualify, as do periods of nice weather, though strangely no one mentions those. Where are the headlines? If climate change caused drought on the East Coast of Australia, it’s also causing average rain and good crops in Western Australia.
In terms of scientific data analysis we don’t get that many droughts or six-day-August-heatwaves to analyze. They’re complex phenomena caused by multiple factors and we only have short records. This makes them ideal to be oversold to hapless folk as a “sign” of climate change.
When we have data, we find global droughts haven’t changed much in the last 60 years. When we can scratch together longer proxies, we find that 1000 year rainfall studies show droughts and floods used to be longer and worse. In Europe and the US megadroughts happened in the last 2,000 years. The droughts of 1315, or 1540, etc, weren’t due to our SUV’s. In Australia there were eight megadroughts in the last thousand years including one that lasted a whopping 39 years from 1174- 1212AD.
We can’t predict when individual droughts are going to happen, but we *know* they are caused by coal plants.
Megadroughts in Europe that climate models didn’t predict:
….
Megadroughts in Australia the climate models didn’t predict either:
Megadroughts in Australia were much worse
To predict in this sense means to hindcast or explain.
One day in the far flung future, climate models might work and “predict” a past drought that someone can test by looking for it in a proxy record. Imagine that, a falsifiable model?
Cold periods are often the dry periods anyway
Once upon a time in 1974 NOAA blamed global cooling for droughts.
“…the drought is spreading—eastward into Ethiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire. … Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend
…“… Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an “ice age.””
What’s the difference between Rune stones, Tea leaves, Astrology and Climate Science. The first three have a long history.
The renewables industry and climate scare machine prey upon the vulnerable.
Whenever you read about major weather events, man made Climate Change/Global Warming enthusiasts invariably invoke La Nina and El Nino and the Pacific Decadal oscillation as the biggest events and they are in any explanation of why their predictions are so wrong. Too bad these huge events are unpredictable by their perfect computer climate models.
So you have to wonder what sort of predictive computer model can forecast so much and not the biggest known events. You also have to wonder at all the secondary unexplained predictions including more storms, stronger storms, more hurricanes, more and longer droughts, stronger winds, when they cannot get the basic predictions right, like rapid and continuous warming. At the current rate, we do not have to do anything to meet 2100 targets.
The other totally ridiculous claim is that while the computer weather models cannot get tomorrow’s weather right, they are certain about the long term. How does that work? Isn’t the future simply the sum of all the tomorrows? You would have to wonder about the current drought in NSW which is suddenly front page.
Why does the whole country have to wait for this slow rolling disastrous drought to reach crisis proportions before they do anything? Or was it a total surprise? Or are dams illegal and Canberra is handing out our money to keep the farmers alive for the next season while their cattle die around them. How smart is that? Send 7 tons of gold to save the Barrier Reef from very selective ocean warming but let all the cattle die?
One day we will be free of the Climate Experts in parliament, the Greens. Clearly they care more about polar bears, caribou and penguins than Australian cattle and farmers. Tens of billions of dollars for more windmills, perhaps? We need to build windmills faster. The Science says so.
464
It’s arcane isn’t it, we used to say, to err is human but totally screw up takes a computer…
For the uninitiated this is an engineering axiom, it gets its basis from the tendencies of people to believe outputs of a computer/calculator without question. You could set a question for students for example to say calculate the power consumption of an iPhone and they would give you a result of say 1.4 x10^6 watts (1.4 MW) and they would submit that answer without question even though one would anticipate an iPhone might consume under 5 watts.
Invariably either the inputs (the data fed to the computer program) or the transformation (the computer program itself ) was wrong. Particularly noticeable is computer inaccuracies in functions containing singularities. The bode equations upon which climate science is based is one such example. Error is multiplied dramatically as the singularity is approached unless you are very careful.
202
Such a good point. Consider it stolen. Am off to spread that every place.
Why is it that the burial of silage is not the main CO2 capture strategy? Is it that they want live stock gone to especially cattle and that method could be used to save livestock when the inevitable normal droughts come?
112
“Error is multiplied dramatically as the singularity is approached unless you are very careful.”
They also use polar co-ordinates, so as the “surface” approaches the North or South pole, more singularities are near…
But even disregarding that, what does any engineer think of a model that MUST have code in place to prevent physically impossible things (like negative air pressure)? Not much, IMO – if you need to introduce fudges to stop the model calculating impossible things, you have a serious issue with your model stability and should likely re-think your entire model architecture. But it seems they’d rather buy a new “super-computer” to get the wrong answer faster, than spend the money to get the right answer a little slower.
91
Speaking of multiplying error …Were all gunna die!!!!!!!!!!!! …again….maybe…perhaps….sorry..what was the question?
With flying hair curlers, and running around in ever decreasing circles….shrieking…..
Who writes this nonsense?
Note the big “If”…..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07/climate-heading-for-tipping-point-and-risk-of-hothouse-earth/10080274
“If humans cause the earth’s global average temperature to increase by a further 1 degree Celsius, the world could face a “hothouse” climate and trigger further warming — even when all human emissions cease, an international study has found.
Key points:
Study found the climate is heading for a tipping point that could make the planet uninhabitable
It could cause temperatures up to 5C higher than pre-industrial averages
Current global efforts to curb emissions are “unlikely” to prevent the dangerous situation
The study titled Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene, which involved researchers from around the world, was published in the international journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).
It found the Earth was heading for a tipping point, known as a “hothouse” climate, which could lead to average temperatures up to 5C higher than pre-industrial temperatures and rises in sea level of between 10 and 60 metres.
Lead researcher Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University (ANU) said at that point much of the earth would be uninhabitable.
He explained that if human emissions raised global temperatures to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures it could trigger earth system processes — or feedbacks — that could then cause further warming.”
32
WILL STEFFEN !! Say no more..
121
And Graham Lloyd, “The Australian” newspaper’s Environment Editor, wrote about it in today’s “The Australian” (page 7).
I’m pleased he did because it demonstrates again how good “The Australian” is as a unbiased newspaper.
I’m awaiting Graham Lloyd’s follow-up. It should be a hoot, as he points out just how imbecilic Will Steffen’s fear-mongering is.
51
SS, the irony here, if you can call it that, is that in the same paper Ian Plimer has An article about how good CO2 is for us and how we need to love it.
Talk about the confection from Steffan, and the facts and common sense from Plimer, a standout article. The Oz at its best,.
52
Exactly right.
There is also the problem of causality GCMs preserve energy at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) but you can show pretty easily with the S-B Theorem that they don’t conserve energy at the surface or tropopause. A GCM is no good unless energy is conserved everywhere, at every single calculation, any calculation at any point where the energy out is greater than the energy in or the energy in either direction has the wrong sign IE (Increasing Energy in begets a decrease in energy out) falsifies the model.
21
I remember long ago with some graduates (from Monash Uni) making some measurements for calculations of pressure drop and energy balances. I knew from experience that the computer output was wrong but the graduates thought it could not be wrong. It was found firstly the program used US units (ft, pds, US short tons etc) instead of SI units and secondly that the program was not dimensionally correct as it had omitted that dimensional constant gc (32.2). The graduates were stumped they did not know the basics of making the calculations. No one at University had told them computer programs could be wrong especially if written by a programmer who was not familiar with the technical background of what was being calculated. I would say that applies the the GCM (Global Circulation Models) as they are “black Box” types using weightings for the chosen variables (omitting other variables). CO2 should not even be included in a proper model because its effect is so small that it can not be measured.
62
cementafriend
I’m reminder of the findings when Chiefio got to dissect GIStemp
“I’m adopting this “tag line” about tomatoes due to the simple fact that my tomato garden is a more accurate reporter of the temperature than is GIStemp. ”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
42
‘I’m in love with my computah.’ …
Here’s chiefio on the slide rule. So nice.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/tag/slide-rule/
32
‘Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’.
Way back in the beginning of the use of computers those using them learned that if you put garbage in you got garbage out. Computer users in academia have forgotten that computers are not infallible and still subject to the old GIGO rule, in fact with modern computers it is harder to see that the output is garbage especially when using unvalidated programs produced by people with little or no idea if what they are doing.
51
Great quote from George Santayana. His other quote which I love is “When men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons are always different.”
30
One should live long enough to gain some life experience.Ephemeral drought emerges as a shock(for many) and hitherto inexplicable.Younger farmers did not experience earlier episodes; no drought aid or assistance with fodder.We just got on with it and were in awe of our predecessors.Then we have Joel FitzGibbon from Labor saying that aid is insufficient as we’re not doing enough about the climate.What! The fool cannot be serious- or can he be.
174
The good ol’ climate model straw man – nothing ever changes. It would be nice if the people commenting on climate models actually understood them.
“The other totally ridiculous claim is that while the computer weather models cannot get tomorrow’s weather right, they are certain about the long term.”
That just plain ignorance right there.
49
Yes Harry, the erudition required to actually understand models. It’s only Camelot son.
51
The big models add up all the small events in every grid cell.
We know they get these wrong. Yet miraculously they add up all the little mistakes month after month and get one big truth in a hundred years.
83
Really? C’mon you know that is not true. And if you honestly think it is true, go do some reading and correct your thinking.
23
Edward Lorenz founder of chaos theory
According to chaos theory, all the current “initial’ conditions throughout the atmosphere must be known precisely to predict what the atmosphere will be doing in the distant future. In addition, one must know all the current conditions throughout the oceans as well, since the oceans control the atmosphere. “In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent,” Lorenz concluded. So even if the molecules in the air all interacted non-randomly, in a totally cause-and-effect (deterministic) manner, you still couldn’t predict with certainty what they would do or what the weather would be.”
Chaos theory also debunks the claim of some climatologists that although models cannot predict short-term climate variations such as the current 20 year “pause,” they can still be used for long-term projections. Chaos theory instead proves that uncertainty of projections increases exponentially with time, and therefore, long-term climate model projections such as throughout the IPCC AR5 report are in fact impossible to rely upon.
On top of that in the 3rd or 4th IPCC assessment report they claimed that of 18 known climate drivers 14 were poorly to very poorly understood.
So if you don’t have the initial conditions and don’t understand the climate drivers, how can you possibly predict future climate? You can’t!
John
31
I think you’ve studied a different chaos theory to me, and for that matter Lorenz.
Chaotic behaviours don’t extinguish all abilities to make predictions and also don’t mean that complex systems are carte blanche (ie chaos theory does not mean anything goes).
You have completely and utterly neglected the fact that the system you are discussing has constants and mean behaviours with measurable variation.
An example. A wind blowing from the west is measurable and can be predicted. The individual molecules are flying about in all directions, not all of them (indeed not many of them) with a majority westerly vector at any moment. Yet the wind blows from the west as predicted in the weather forecast the night before using well established models.
13
GA
The weather predictions in our area are wrong often. Today the winds are gusting to 100 kilometers/h while they were predicted last night to be 30 knots (55.56 kl/h). I understand that they claim that gusts may be 40% above the forecast figure which is 77.8 kl/h. That is quite an error.
I’ll side with Edward Lorenz on this one.
I noticed you didn’t mention the IPCC’s statement about climate drivers.
John
21
“Isn’t the future simply the sum of all the tomorrows? ”
This is the core problem with climate modelling. We are told that the Climate is not the weather. That is why we had 350 CSIRO scientists working full time on proving “Climate Change” when we already had 1,663 people in the BOM who were not asked. Even the famous 97% was sent to 10,000 climate related people and thousands of meteorologists who were ignored in the end to come up with a mere 100 who were in favor of man made climate change.
So we are asked to believe that no matter what happens specifically tomorrow and the next day and the next day, the end result is identical. We have to believe that random things will end up at the same point if you add them up over time. A sort of drunkard’s walk which always gets you home.
If you believe that, you are not a scientist or even rational. You will never get home.
The other implication is that huge and known cycles caused by the sun are irrelevant. The ice ages then were an aberration. Wildly varying CO2 levels too. You would be forgiven for asking how the world left the last ice age, 12,000 years ago without the motor car and with record low CO2. Just luck I guess.
332
Any time they predict something it’s always years away, just long enough for people to forget about it after they burned all that money on worrying about it. Then along comes the next prediction, always in the far flung future and always wrong again.
That may have worked for soothsayers of the past, but these days such things are impossible to erase. Trouble is, these new age climastrologists have absolutely no shame. Holding them to task for their many failed predictions does nothing to deter them. Their failed predictions should be their epitaph, maybe that’ll work.
They might as well predict swirls on a soap bubble for all their accuracy. They’d still be wrong.
222
“Even the famous 97% was sent to 10,000 climate related people and thousands of meteorologists who were ignored in the end to come up with a mere 100 who were in favor of man made climate change.”
What on earth are you talking about?
213
Deep State
52
The origin of the 97% of scientists agree figure, the original survey.
102
It’s worse than we thought.
71
Harry Twinotter: Of course you know what TdeF is referring to, although the bit where he comments ‘even the famous 97% was sent to 10,000 climate related people and thousands of meteorologists who were ignored in the end to come up with a mere 100 who were in favor of man made climate change’ is somewhat confusing and not quite what happened.
Let’s have a ‘refresher’ look at the details of how the time-worn statement that ‘97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ was derived – make that ‘fiddled’, and in a blatant way!
In January 2009, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a research paper entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’. This can be accessed via the internet.
Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
Survey questionnaires were sent to ‘10,257 Earth scientists’.
The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
These were:
1)‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
2)‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2mins to complete’ and was administered online.
Firstly, note that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
In other words, of the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study, only 79 individuals were by now considered to the most knowledgeable.
Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘risen’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
So there we are – job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly – or do they?
Let’s see now: 75 out of the 10,257 polled. I make that 0.73%. A tongue in cheek final comment of course, but no more ridiculous than the authors’ ‘97%’ claim.
71
You could almost be quoting the governor of California who recently told the whole state that drought is the new normal or words to that effect. He hasn’t yet decided he can predict drought but he sure has decided that once in a drought, which we still are, it’s going to be permanent. He’s called Moonbeam for a reason.
“Moonbeam” thinking is infectious, it gives anyone who wants to be a big man/woman a way to say to the people, “You have a problem and only I can solve it for you.”
And viola, you have an instant constituency doting on your every word. I’ve no doubt that the same thing operates everywhere. People are looking for a savior, even from a problem they didn’t even know they had. And I hate to say it because it won’t be popular but even the church depends on that built in mechanism. So does government.
The real truth is probably more complicated. The need for government and rules of conduct was recognized a long time ago. But as soon as that happened there were “experts” telling us we were getting it wrong. Think about it. If no one had ever said, “Carbon is about to fry the Earth taking you along with it, would anyone notice the concentration of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere over our heads? I doubt it.
Al Gore the man almost became proof of global warming all by himself, so strong is this need to be saved; to be told what to do when uncertain; to have a hand to hold onto.
I’m not much of a psychologist but I can watch what people do and ask myself what’s really going on. And the answers I get back are frightening in their implications.
213
I will do what others who try to control what we think and do will not do and say, “I am not certain I’m right,” but after so long a time when things look the same, that’s strong evidence that I’m on the right track.
The next human civilization will come along and be built on our trash heaps, including atmospheric carbon dioxide. You can be sure of that. We have always survived the downfall of empires both great and small.
173
There is no CO2 trash heap. The essential science fact is that the CO2 level is not man made. It all vanishes quickly into the ocean. The whole scare is based on a fallacy.
274
All together now….
“THE CO2 HORSESH*T HAS TO STOP.”
122
Of course.I once told a group of people,at a BBQ as it were, that 95% of CO2 was contain3ed in the worlds’oceans and sequestered by phytoplankton.Rough around the edges yes,but met with disbelief.I just said you can believe that or not.That was 5 years ago now and I really hope that they have gone to find out themselves. I get a general view from people that we’re stuffing up the planet – how can it not be so.
82
The education of most of the world’s population doesn’t include the basics by which they can accumulate knowledge, correlate what they know and come up with reasonable conclusions about most things where the word science comes into the picture. I think I managed to get to that point by good luck.
It takes being unwilling to believe what you’re told unless you see the evidence yourself. And before you can do that you need to understand what is and is not evidence. Who gets taught that in school or even in college?
30
True. But try to tell that to a die hard warmest.
10
Apparently Californiastan could have plenty of water if they allowed it. Donald Trump just Tweeted:
172
By god he’s got it…
52
I’ll second Bobl.
Actually we could have better water management which would help a lot. But California does have a water problem and the demand is increasing, at least until enough propel flee the state. But the available water is finite and being stretched already. There is no water in Los Angeles where there’s a metropolitan area including all the surrounding cities from Ventura to San Diego that has at least 7,000,000 people in it (last number I saw) and all the water is in the north part of the state. We import water from hundreds of miles away with an aging system of aqueducts that is vulnerable to attack as well as age related failures. How long can
longand I mean miles long tunnels last without a cave in? It’s no small problem.We could also have all the electricity we want if the government of California wasn’t blocking construction of the generating capacity we need. But of course, we can always install solar panels or build windmills. But funny thing, last time I drove through Banning pass to Palm Springs (already a long time ago) there were a hundred windmills by appearance, many of them not running, many rusting away and only a few producing power.
It always get tied up in political knots instead of being run by the people best able to supply the need. I keep wondering if politics will not be the downfall of civilization.
I’m wondering if you could run a steam generating plant on one of those burning coal mines. 😉
30
My battered memory tells me that not long ago I saw a video of a flood threatening to wash away one of your dams.
50
Yes you did. Your memory is better than you think. The Oroville Dam was about to have a catastrophic failure.
20
As an Anglican priest I have some sympathy with the view that the church creates a problem to be solved. The problem is human sinfulness – the capacity to stuff things up. I do occasionally mention this, but mostly I focus on the fact that Jesus came to bring life and life in abundance. The AGW mob is trying to deny most of the world’s population a decent and reasonably comfortable life, based on the abundance of what I believe to be God given gifts
10
PADRE,
I’m a believer myself. But if I’m honest I have to wonder if what I believe is worth anything or not. I have only what someone says by which to judge. So let’s be honest. The church does, in fact say to the world, you have a problem and only we know the solution.
00
Roy,
The way that the church is at the moment, I doubt if it has the answers. If you look at the Prophets and the Gospels, you will notice a constant theme and that is in speaking out against injustice and the corrupt use of power. This website is very good at that, whereas the church seems to be gripped by group-think and pointless virtue signalling. If the church is doing its job properly, it should be focussing on the spiritual life of the community it serves and in seeking the truth and justice. In my experience, the latter does not lead to popularity!
00
You’re right.
You would think they would realize that if you want to talk to someone (“Tell the world about me” – [Jesus of Nazareth, paraphrased]) you should not antagonize them first. When I compare today’s Church with what I read in the New Testament today’s church comes off looking bad. But that’s not a modern occurrence. It happened a long time ago.
Jesus didn’t say, “If you see a man with no coat, forma a church and make a bunch of rules to follow as you collect donations to buy coats for the coatless.”
He made it personal, “If you see a man with no coat, give him yours.”
00
Donald Trump: Bad Environmental Laws Make California Wildfires Worse………
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/05/donald-trump-bad-environmental-laws-make-california-wildfires-worse/
62
election now!
11
I can understand a Democrat supporter adopting that view.
They know that their prospects are on the down as the red wave builds to a November Tsunami.
They’d like it an “election now” to avoid obliteration in November.
Well called Gee Aye!
10
You refer to the sum of all the tomorrows and say “This is the core problem with climate modelling” I really am unsure of what you mean.
But that aside, my major problems with climate models are two fold. One is the fact that the mathematical representations of the various laws of physics that are used to run GCMs are devised by humans and no one would claim humans are infallible. So how can climate scientists be 100% sure the mathematical formulae are correct? Hopefully someone here will know ‘cos I don’t. And assuming all the formulae are correct how can you program a GCM run if there are factors you don’t know you don’t know? I have never seen that question addressed either although of course, that just means I haven’t seen or heard of it being addressed not that it hasn’t been.
132
For that question Ian you came to the right place, what David Evans doesn’t know about mathematical formulas and GCM’s isn’t in print yet, there’s good links here but haven’t time to find them, sorry.
34
David Evans is certainly the man. A highly qualified mathematician, he worked for them.
In my view he was the primary whistleblower for the world.
23
Ultimately you test whether the model works by measuring it against reality. If you cannot predict the biggest events or the smallest, why should anyone believe the model works?
The other point is that you have enough data to start the model 30 years ago and measure it against 30 years of accurate satellite data. Why should anyone believe a model works, no matter how complex if it cannot accurately predict the last 30 years.
So these allegedly accurate models are hopeless. What is equally hopeless is that all the presumptions of man made Global Warming are false. Increased CO2 is not man made and increased CO2 is not warming the planet according to the data of the last 30 years.
However apologists for man made Global Warming have given up on any pretense of science. CO2 is pollution is the new mantra. Facts are irrelevant, as are the computer models.
212
TdeF
In modelling
“Correct within an order of magnitude” = “Wrong”
71
Climate Alarmists Invent New Excuse: The Satellites Are Lying
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/climate-alarmists-invent-new-excuse-the-satellites-are-lying/
41
Satellites in re-education camps? Really?
31
Not to mention the balloon data set. I mean who could trust those floaty thingys.
30
Climate computer models are all reverse engineered. They are built to fit old data, then applied to new data.
When, then, three of thirty predictions get it right, this is probably by chance. What it does prove is that twenty seven of the models got it wrong. The system is not reliable.
That said, in recent times locally short term (one week) weather forecasting has become remarkably good, with a system declaring “untouched by human hands”.
12
Ouch! Only all was meant to be emphasised.
20
Firstly climate is chaotic, the the climate is a massive non linear open chaotic system. What chaotic means essentially is that the future is NOT the sum of all the tomorrows. This is one of the biggest mistakes here, you hear about climate averages, and average is the sum of the elements divided by the number of elements . If you can’t sum a function how can you average it. This also applies to homogenisation, you are assuming there’s some fixed relationship between temperatures 1000 km apart, and it isn’t necessarily so.
Let me address the open bit, open systems are Lossy there are energy flows into an out of the system they require a special math, but GCMs treat the climate as a closed system. Finally Climate has hysteresis what that means is that a result has a different value depending on the starting point and the PATH it takes to get there. This is pretty common in engineering but the GCMs are ridiculously single dimension static models that assume linearity and don’t model the path (dynamics). This is also mathematically inadequate.
In electronics GCMs are like trying to predict the behaviour of an amplifier from its DC behaviour alone. You can’t do this because PATH matters. For examples the average of the time of day is midday but midday occurs just one moment in each day, you can’t characterise time by its average an it’s the same for weather, the average climate says nothing about the weather.
Finally I want to comment on total energy, Hansen claims the accumulating energy in the climate is 0.6Watts per square meter (ironically +/- 17 watts per square meter …gurgle) all the supposed effects of climate change (stronger storms, melting ice, sea level rise , more rain, dogs and cats sleeping together) all require energy, the extra energy is very limited, just 1% increase in rainfall absorbs all the extra energy from a doubling of CO2, yet the catastrophists claim 5% more rain, melted ice, stronger storms and so on all sourced from the same energy. This can’t happen 5% extra rain requires 5% more energy but for a doubling of CO2 a claimed 3.7watts of extra energy) 3.7W/340watts is only 1.1% extra energy, and can’t cause 5% more rainfall. Once each effect happens the energy is transformed or lost, its gone! Single Effects have been claimed that cost over 50 Watts per square meter (west Antarctic ice melt). Add all the energy cost of all the claims and it is – crystal clear – that AGW cannot, and is not causing these effects because there is insufficient energy added by AGW to explain the effects. Few of the authors making these specious claims ever check the energy balance to confirm that what they claim can actually be caused by 0.6W per square meter. I know because I’ve sent many authors such a check and they confirm they never checked it (shortly before they stop communicating with me).
In a nutshell this is what is wrong with the models. Not only does the math need to be right, it needs to be applied appropriately and one MUST CHECK to make sure energy conservation is NOT violated anywhere.
101
While not disagreeing with the main thrust of your comment I am curious as to why you say this “finally Climate has hysteresis what that means is that a result has a different value depending on the starting point and the PATH it takes to get there.”
My understanding of hysteresis is encapsulated in this quote “the phenomenon in which the value of a physical property lags behind changes in the effect causing it, as for instance when magnetic induction lags behind the magnetizing force.”
It seems to me that “chaos” is more a more appropriate term than hysteresis in this context.
Graham
10
I’m trying to keep it simple, hysteresis is a simple example of a simple non linearity that occurs in climate. Once you add enough energy to change the climate subtracting that same energy doesn’t necessarily get you back to your starting point because of lags, storage mostly. Magnetic materials store energy in the core material and you use force to remove it on the way back, as a result the VI curve takes a different path on the way out as it does on the way back. The point I’m trying to make is that climate models assume the climate takes the same path on the way up in temperature as on the way back which isn’t true. The non linearity means you can’t describe the system output using a static, (DC) model you need a dynamic model (AC) which uses vectors, (complex number math). GCMs are based in simple scalar math and can’t describe dynamic behaviour like hysteresis.
Anyway I’m sorry if my description was confusing.
61
“So how can climate scientists be 100% sure the mathematical formulae are correct? ”
By far most of the “formulae” in climate models are approximations – the exact formula is unknown or too time consuming to use, so they use heuristics (ie, best guess). But let’s assume for the sake of the argument that the correct formulae are all both known and coded into the models. Even with that, there are NO error propagation studies to tell you when the total errors exceed some particular limit – and grow these errors MUST, as the output from one step is used as input to the next. Without error studies, how can you put any confidence at all in the projections of these models? They could be 100 times off after 5 years of simulation time, or they might go for millions of years of simulated time and stay within 5% of reality. But we don’t know – no-one does, because no-one has bothered to do the work to figure this out! They don’t want to, because that would expose just how unsure they really are and then the money tap might get turned off – better to just ignore it and keep collecting other peoples money while shouting “We’re all gonna die!” to a media who no longer knows what an “investigative reporter” actually does (you know: make sure you “trust but verify”, dig deeper into the story to see what’s driving the people involved to do and say what they do, etc etc)
61
.
Ian @ #4
.
1 / There are known knowns.
These are things we know that we know.
2 / There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know.
3 / But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
.
Donald Rumsfeld.
[ Former secretary of US defense under Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush . ]
—————————-
[ 1 / ] Climate scientists and climate modellers could possibly get away with claiming they have covered number one in this quote from Donald Rumsfeld.
………
[ 2 / ] Climate scientists and climate modellers do use those “Known unknowns” quite knowingly in their models; eg; one factor in tuning models to match the data [data in many cases is adjusted to suit the model and isthen released to the public as the real deal hence the constant series of articles on adjustments and homogenisation we see so often here and on other skeptic blogs.] is to “adjust” the effects of aerosols on the climate.
There is no agreed level of aerosols in the global atmosphere or an agreed effect of varying amounts of aerosols on the global climate so the modellers just individually make wild a–ed guess as to what the effect of varying amounts of aerosol load in the atmosphere will have on the climate in their climate model’s output.
Consequently you may have two different climate models each of which has been tuned by using completely different levels of aerosols and a completely different effectiveness of those atmospheric aerosol loads but each of those models tuned outputs will match the past global climate.
And from that it is assumed that each of those models with all that wildly different tuning will be able to predict the future global climate.
[ 3 / ] Ever since a newly graduated Hansen created his first climate model back in the mid 1970’s [ the first accepted climate model was “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity” by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald; first published May 1967. Fifty years and a trillion dollars on and they still can’t predict the future climate at all! ] for a politician there has been and no doubt will continue to be a whole endless raft of often very significant and climate influencing “unknown unknowns” that just keep on turning up in the science of the climate thereby constantly negating any claims on the ability of any climate model to predict the future global climate.
Climate models contain a large and increasing number of modules which have been supposedly debugged but have never really been thoroughly checked since they were first created, and are therefore used in later climate models to save time and effort in re-inventing the theory of the climate wheel.
Apparently a lot of these modules have never been re-checked before being incorporated as a part of later edition climate models so there is a belief in some circles that some of those numerical based modules that are now almost vintage in age might not be delivering the accurate mathematical outcomes that is assumed they are doing during the model runs.
Modellers also make many runs whilst inserting slightly different starting criteria so as to see what comes out in the end product. Some Chaos theory at work in there.
They then select a few outcomes from all those maybe dozens of runs of what “they” believe is closest to representing the global climate and its future.
Often or usually those selected runs of the climate model are then summed and averaged which the climate modellers seem to assume despite numerous mathematical sources saying otherwise, will provide a more accurate summing up of the future of the global climate and all its multitude of characteristics.
And the results of that is what we the public get to see and thrust down our throats as scientifically proven facts.
.
As many of the climate modellers and others in the numerical modelling proffession themselves say it; All models are wrong but some are useful!
50
Much like the 0.5 second temperature spikes our BOM records with electronic thermometers then uses that anomaly as an official high recording.
Better to question the past of why before predicting the future of if.
133
The only place in the world where 0.5C in an average would even be noticeable would be the North Pole which has an annual summer temperature of 0C. The net effect of +0.5C anywhere else is not significant at all.
The 1988 argument was the +0.5C a decade for a hundred years would be +5.0C. After thirty years, that is now arrant nonsense.
174
Also in effect is the fact that the energy loss is proportional to the cube of the temperature, as it gets hotter it takes much more energy to overcome the loss.
13
EMR is the 4th power of the radiating surface temperature.
22
Sorry, i said energy when I meant Power which is the integral of energy – is Cube of temperature.
00
Oh the point being that Back radiation heating of ln (change in CO2) is then lost according to the Cube of the heating. CO2 makes a small logarithmic heating effect which has a cube law loss factor.
00
In fact after thirty years, ‘The Science’ of man made Global Warming reminds me of the old joke about the fortune tellers conference which was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances.
That has not stopped the Turnbull Labor government from crippling Australia even though the Chief Scientist agrees that it will make no difference. This is socialism of the Nazism type at work. Turnbull and his minions and GetUP and the Greens and the European Merchant Banks are intent on wrecking the joint. Nothing less. The world wants another Venezuela, another energy rich country in no position to set prices, a modern version of European colonialism.
293
Good morning Jo,
Great work! (Again!)
As I’ve said before, these days (let’s say the last three years of the “teens”) must be the beginning of the end of this “Climate Change Cult”.
These mega-droughts of years past surely must make all those “Cult Proselytizers” look nothing more than dumb sick clowns.
I love this “re-programming” info you have been able to excellently summarize.
I am going to tell all my friends/workmates over the coming weeks, and of course where they can find more of this “good oil”!
This surely is one of your best pieces for the year.
Please keep up your truly wonderful stuff.
Warmest regards, Reformed Warmist of Logan.
PS. When will you or your great husband David be doing a talk in Brisbane next?
130
Love Brisbane, always happy to visit Queensland, just need some organising help from afar. Thanks rwol.
00
Around this area
“A Very Good Test Of CO2 As “Warming” Finds It Doesn’t”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/a-very-good-test-of-co2-as-warming-finds-it-doesnt/
21
Many thanks AI,
I reckon another way of saying that, in IPCC terminology, is that the “climate sensitivity” number they’ve been searching for over the past few years is zero.
Should simplify their calculations a bit.
Cheers,
Dave B
20
If a model can’t predict the past it can’t predict the future. The only way models even remotely match the past is to manipulate and rewrite the past. Whilst many warmists are just naive pawns others have sinister motives with globally ambitious agendas whatever drives the discussion their research is so compromised by bias to be useless. Their research is best and most accurately described as propaganda.
161
Yes, what was the future in 1988 is now the past. After 30 years the computer models are proven wrong. “The Science” is wrong. There is no Climate Change, no Global Warming, no man made CO2 runaway tipping point, global flooding, no worsening weather. Not a single prediction of Armageddon. The Polar Bears are fine.
The only question which remains is why our government, Labor and the Greens are continuing to push something which is disproven, to our great cost. Even against the advice of the Chief Scientist and his department.
Obviously it is to someone’s benefit. Not ours. The deceit which was essential for the success of Turnbull’s Black Hand is
in the open. They seized power, much as Gillard did. They also had a plan for Australia and it is being executed. So are we.
182
Climate models have hundreds of tuning parameters. That gives reasonable scope to tune them to historical data. In fact the tuning is now so complex that the models can tune themselves to the offered historical data set. So in this regard they are essentially the best fit polynomial for the given data set.
Being able to accurately track historical data does not give the models any forecasting ability. When you look at model output on any particular variable it will have large variation that matches the historical data then the forecast just heads off on the IPCC prescribed trend. This CMIP 3 output circa 2005 is typical:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itas_cmip3_ave_mean_sresa1b_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1980:2020_a.png
Note the bumps pre 2005 shift to a steady upward trend post 2005 in the forecasting period.
Just to compare with reality:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2018_v6.jpg
21
The UAH curve shows pretty consistent Global Warming over time.
18
Roy Spencer is an honest broker and there is no denying we are stuck on this high plateau for 19 years.
Do you think the coming decade will be warmer or cooler?
11
I just made the point about the equivalence of astrology and climate science and global sameness yesterday… have you been reading my stuff? Some idiot was trying to say we are being affected hugely now and how bad climate change was . I answered that average temperature even in the tampered with “data” has changed about 0.3degrees in the last 50 years on a planet that yesterday at my location changed about 30 degrees between 6am and 2pm!
This mass hysteria is so farcical.
121
Remember “cold fusion in the test tube” which came and gone, leaving no ripples after few months ?
Pons & Fleischmann could have honestly believed their data but the final proof always is other people repeating their test.
Same here – fill up a fishtank with a mix N2, O2, Noxes, water vapour, .. everything which is up there above us and demonstrate that adding a 100 ppm CO2 into mix slows the heat penetration (or speeds it up for that matter ! )
Do it a 1000 times,for different pressures and concentrations, for upper and lower atmosphere, use any correction factors (as long as they are known ) but give me the repeatable curves !
A good High School project, is it not?
Better than 10 of thousands of experts with their computer models.
Vladimir
101
Don’t forget to line the tank with LWIR reflective aerogel to prevent the tank itself from absorbing energy, heating and emitting BB radiation back into the tank. Unfortunately, a proper small scale experimental setup also blocks sunlight from getting in, or any energy from getting out …
11
Good article by Prof Ian Plimer in The Australian: “Repeat after me: carbon dioxide is good for us”
Carbon dioxide is plant food. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no complex life on earth. It is neither pollution nor a poison, and in the past the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has varied enormously. Australia’s symbolic suicidal climate policy just makes everybody poorer.
182
Very good article but some of the usual suspects are there squawking “The Science”, “peer review” etc. Patricia and sillyfilly don’t seem to have read it yet.
52
It was fun yesterday taking them on and arguing with that pair. You didn’t mention Stan – always good for a laugh. Then we had a discussion about the dangers of Hydroxic Acid. Looking for a repeat today but no such luck so far.
00
In a land of drought and flooding rain, Wenju Cai is a staunch member of the Klimatariat but we should hear him out.
http://www.gewex.org/gewex-content/uploads/2015/07/4_Wenju_Cai_Australian_Drought.pdf
As a matter of interest the drought in South West Western Australia (SWWA) was regarded as a climate change litmus test, but now that SAM has flipped we can put that theory to rest.
41
June 2004.
Tim Flannery, Future Eaters: “He remains uninhibited about making big calls on where this society is going, which sounds as if it could be in the same direction as Burke and Wills.
“I think the chances are that, in the next 50 years, Perth will face challenges it simply won’t be able to overcome,” he says.
“You don’t want to lead people to despair, and it’s not too late, but there is a possibility Perth will become western civilisation’s first ghost metropolis.”
https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-flannery-eaters-20040605-gdj2eq.html
Factcheck August 2018: AVON Descent records are under threat after the recent heavy rain swelled river levels to their highest in a decade.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/swan-river/avon-descent-2018-recent-rains-puts-whitewater-race-records-under-threat-ng-b88917731z
What did the IPCC (CSIRO) say in 2007?
Too many quotes for this space.
Pick your favourite failed doomsday ‘science’ prediction here:
“According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity are a major driver of climate change.”
https://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/attached_files_publications/PDF Report Card Low Res.pdf
51
link not working.
climate change in WA 2007
https://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/attached_files_publications/PDF%20Report%20Card%20Low%20Res.pdf
20
Flannery has demonstrated his foolishness time and again. The man has no credibility at all. His foolishness knows no bounds.
Perth is for above average rainfall this year after an above average rainfall last year.
https://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply/rainfall-and-dams/rainfall
11
Drought. Dorothea Mackeller (1908):
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
Drought. Said Hanrahan by John O’Brien. (1921)
“The crops are done; ye’ll have your work
To save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o’-Bourke
They’re singin’ out for rain.
“If rain don’t come this month,” said Dan,
And cleared his throat to speak –
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“If rain don’t come this week.”
In God’s good time down came the rain;
And all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane
It drummed a homely tune.
And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“If this rain doesn’t stop.”
“There’ll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.”
150
This terrible drought is doing very real harm the same way that terrible droughts have always done in Australia as far as time goes back.
A quick look at the winter minimum temperatures that were supposed to warm faster than the maximums due to GHG warming shows it has been cold and they refuse to warm. But minimums have been cold everywhere not just where the drought is. So looks like they never had it correct. Not then not now.
http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/minanom/3month/colour/history/nat/2018050120180731.hres.gif
81
This is Australia – It doesn’t matter where you go it can ‘not rain’ long enough the send you broke.
At 55 this is my 5th – worst drought ever, living memory , 100 years, ect,ect.
My first drought as an actuall farmer was when I came home from school in 1980. My dad told me when he first came home from school. He was put under the care of an old aboriginal, who reckon he could remember the first time he ever saw a white man. One day when they were checking a normally reliable waterhole, he ask ‘Old Alex’ What did they do when this happen in the old days. The blunt reply was “Walk to the next waterhole but first, knock any kids that are too big to carry and too small to walk that far, on the head”
. As dad said if ever you’re feel a bit sorry for youself about haveing to make a tough decision in the face of a drought – Have a think about haveing to make a decision like that!
If you sell $50,000 worth cattle going into a drought, you can buy $50,000 worth when it rain. The number of cattle doesn’t matter, you might sell 100 and buy back 50. You still have $50,000 worth of cattle. The number of people who don’t sell, then have their cattle die. So when it does rain thay have no money and no cattle, amazes me.
10
The CC™ hysterics and rentseekers relish any and all weather and climate related misfortunes.
If they bothered to visit the BOM Climate Change pages they would see Australia overall has had an increasing rainfall linear trend since 1900 as have Eastern Australia, Northern Australia, Southern Australia and the Murray-darling Basin.
The only area showing a serious decline is Southwestern Australia.
61
BOM does publish some useful charts on annual rainfall across Australia.
The Murray Darling Basin is one area that comes under regular scrutiny. Here is the chart of annual rainfall from 1900 to 2017. A cyclical pattern is evident, no change overall. In other areas:
Eastern Australia.
Northern Australia.
South Western Australia.
Total Australia rainfall 1900-2017.
So an increase in total rainfall in the north, a decrease in the southwest, no change in eastern Australia. Overall, more rain.
51
Also known:
Coal miners to blame for Queensland floods, says Australian Greens leader Bob Brown.
https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/news-story/cbfe12042fa9c4149ea3c10524f57344
40
Well if the Greenies really believe that they have to get used to more floods because even if we closed down all our coal fired power plants the rest of the world is going the other way and building many more of them. That means Australia will remain as one of the most largest providers of coal if not the largest. SO what are the Greenies going to do about it? Shut down our mines? If they try that their dream of us becoming a province of China might actually come true once our economy collapses.
41
If according to the alarmists record heatwaves are “proof” of CAGW then how come record cold temperatures are not “proof” of a coming mini ice age? Actually the temperatures are in balance:
Record Heat Everywhere, Why are Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Balanced?
42
European heatwaves happened even in the depths of the LIA, because the jet stream takes on the appearance of a sine wave with associated ‘blocking’.
This is now happening in both hemispheres, so my hypothesis suggests we are witnessing the start of global cooling.
43
Years ago I’ve studied the research on sunspots and the link to climate change. It’s certainly far more convincing that the Al Gore story of CAGW (hoax in fact). However, let’s not get carried away and start predicting global cooling, at least no of a catastrophic kind. Time will tell if the trend continues. In any case all the screaming and yelling by warmists demanding we close down our coal fired power stations and not build any new ones is based on false science and as far as I’m concerned tantamount to treason and terrorism combined.
53
We are returning to the 1950s cool spell, not catastrophic yet.
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_394-may-21-04-37.jpg
14
Extrapolating the current trend often leads to a huge and embarrassing mistakes. Cycles are far more common. If we do end up having a significant cooling spell then so be it but it will end too and return back to more normal climate conditions.
32
Exactly, it’ll take on the appearance of a down escalator, but along the way we need a return to the early 1960s in Britain when the Thames froze solid.
A cold hard shock like that would totally falsify AGW in the public mind.
00
The other observation is that the Medieval Warm Period in Australia was more droughty and the Little Ice Age moister, possibly caused by a quiet sun producing increased cloud cover closer to earth.
11
I know. The sunspot evidence is clear on that. Yet there are scientists and warmists who refuse to admit it has any relevance today, which goes to show they are fakes.
22
Cosmic ray bombardment seems to play a part in cloud formation and ENSO behaviour is also important, more La Nina should materialise in the decade ahead.
22
Record cold can’t be evidence of cooling because it is evidence of warming!
It’s bitter cold in parts of the US, but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis.
(via Al Gore’s climate web page)
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/perfect-storm-extreme-winter-weather-bitter-cold-and-climate-change
31
but the alarmists have climate geniuses like Dana and Lisa:
6 Aug: Gateway Pundit: Soros-Backed Media Matters Pushes Facebook to Eliminate Global Warming Deniers
by Jim Hoft
Global warming fanatics have been wrong on EVERY MAJOR PREDICTION of devastation since 2008…
Now the George Soros-funded Media Matters activist group is pushing Facebook to eliminate platforms that question global warming…
Via Media Matters (LINK “Facebook has a climate-denial problem” by LISA HYMAS 31 Jul 2018):
Facebook, well-known as a breeding ground for misinformation, has a particular problem with disseminating false and misleading messages about climate change science. The platform spreads climate-denying videos and other posts, hosts climate-denying ads, and officially partners with climate-denying media outlets and organizations.
Climate-denier videos get millions of views on Facebook
A recent video promoting false arguments against climate change science got more than 5 million views on Facebook, The Guardian‘s Dana Nuccitelli (LINK) reported last week.
The video — posted in June by The Daily Signal, an arm of the right-wing Heritage Foundation — is titled “Why Climate Change Is Fake News.” It features Marc Morano (LINK), a longtime spokesperson and blogger for the climate-denial cause, who outlines three things that “the left gets wrong about climate change.” Nuccitelli points out that all three are common and easily debunked myths…
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/soros-backed-media-matters-pushes-facebook-to-eliminate-global-warming-deniers/
2010: GreenProphet: Grist’s Senior Editor Lisa Hymas, in Blue, Waxes Green
Hymas: My colleague Chip Giller (left) and I started Grist in 1999…READ ON
https://www.greenprophet.com/2010/10/grist-editor-lisa-hymas/
Guardian: Grist Editor Lisa Hymas explains her views on population and why she decided to become a GINK – green inclinations, no kids.
00
besides, they have academia and the foundations, plus the MSM, behind them:
Apr 2017: VermontDigger: 3 Environmental Journalists Named Vermont Law School Media Fellows
The 2017 Summer Media Fellows are:
***Lisa Hymas of Grist. An environmental journalist with 20 years of experience, Hymas focuses on politics and policy related to climate change and energy. In addition to her responsibilities as a senior editor, assigning and editing stories, she writes about the Trump administration and the environment for Grist’s “Trump Tracker” series. Her most recent installment is titled “Trump’s Latest Environmental Evildoing: More Pollution, Less Protection.”…
Renee Schoof of Bloomberg BNA. Based in Washington, D.C…
Peter Schwartzstein, a freelance journalist who regularly contributes to National Geographic, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, Newsweek, and more…
The Vermont Law School Summer Media Fellowship program has been made possible since 2002 by a generous grant from the Johnson Family Foundation.
https://vtdigger.org/2017/04/12/3-environmental-journalists-named-vermont-law-school-media-fellows-2/
TWEET 6 Aug: VT Digger:
Vermont’s 2028 greenhouse gas emissions goal: 50% below 1990 levels.
Last available data from 2015: 16% above 1990 levels.
LINKS TO: VT Digger article:
5 Aug: Vermont climate panel urges action as carbon emissions rise
By Elizabeth Gribkoff
Gov. Phil Scott formed a commission last December charged with crafting a plan for meeting Vermont’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals while spurring economic development and increasing energy affordability…
Transportation
Transportation makes up the largest chunk — 43 percent in 2015 — of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. The commissioners recommend building on existing efforts, such an the increase in charging stations around the state, to encourage Vermonters to switch to plug-in electric vehicles.
The current electric vehicle ownership figure of 2,500 falls far below the state’s 2016 Comprehensive Energy Plan goal of 45,000 electric vehicles by 2025…
Vermont also needs to encourage more use of public transit, biking and walking, according to the report…
Electricity
Many of the recommendations for transportation and heating call for switching from fossil fuels to electricity. Vermont has among the strongest renewable energy standards in the country, according to a report from Food and Water Watch…
Absent from the recommendations was a call for additional incentives to spur installation of new solar arrays or wind turbines…
(COMMENTS BY READERS – NOT IMPRESSED)
https://twitter.com/vtdigger/status/1026602820328275968
10
A megadrought in Australia, lasting 39 years from 1174-1212AD, comes as a complete shock. The Coalition ginger group needs to be informed.
31
I recall a report published that mentioned a 1,000 year ancient drought period in Aboriginal Australia?
00
That awkward moment when the most thorough analysis ever finds no precipitation trend – in the last couple centuries
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169415008744
Highlights
•
Over 1½ million monthly precipitation totals observed at 1000 stations in 114 countries analysed.
•
Data record much longer than 3 recent conflicting studies that analysed a few decades of data.
•
No substantial difference found for stations located at northern, tropical and southern latitudes.
•
No substantial difference found for stations experiencing dry, moderate and wet climates.
•
No significant global precipitation change from 1850 to present.
61
Earth Two degrees from Hothouse..
Climate Comissioner Will Steffen is at it again.
It’s all over, even if Paris targets are met. We just happen to be in a very fragile system with no equilibrium, no forces which constain the climate. Even the smallest change leads to Armageddon, according to Dr. Steffen, an American Industrial chemist and clearly now a leading expert on climate feedback systems.
Anyway, I wrote to him years ago and asked why CO2 did not come out of the oceans as they warmed, why we could not use C14 to prove there was no industrial CO2 in the air. First year stuff. He referred me to the IPCC report. I examined it and read in one place that CO2 stayed in the for 80 years on average and in another, for thousands of years. No proof of either contradictory statement. Good old IPCC. Good old Dr Steffen. There is no inconvenient science question which cannot be ducked. Faith is needed, not facts.
So he made his living, fame and occasional fortune like the other Climate Commissioners and now members of the self created “Climate Council” without any expertise or formal qualifications in meteorology at all. One former Commissioner made her Green fame by recycling steel belted tires in a blast furnace. Very Green. Clearly knew enough about climate. More than the BOM obviously. Remember, Meteorologists know nothing about climate. Completely different.
You can only think it is his job to push the somnolent Council and its vital importance to our survival with Armageddon looming.
We must decarbonize society according to Dr Steffen. “decarbonisation of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioural changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements and transformed social values“. Spot the non science removal of democracy. Clearly only a dictatorship by the Climate Council will save us. Democracy is the problem.
Funds must be running out.
91
Other natural events probably play a part in droughts in Eastern Australia. Some 28 years ago I looked at the topic of ENSO events, volcanoes and droughts on the Eastern Australian continent.
When there has been large volcano eruptions, regional cooling has occurred and often droughts here. More so when they occur in the Central America region and tropical Asia. The proposed mechanism being that particles and some gases in the upper atmosphere and stratosphere diffuse the sunlight of the tropics, reduce the trade winds blowing west with a reduction of moisture reaching Australia.
Of late there have been several medium-sized eruptions, some intermittent over time, possibly enough to reduce rain-bearing moisture without cooling, also maybe still enough warmth from the last ENSO event. The SIO has been up and down for a while leading to an “ENSO watch.” The paper was published in the AMOS Bulletin, but one of the experts rubbished it, so was ignored.
42
Something of interest: the Year Without a Summer following Tambora’s eruption had been preceded by two Years Without a Summer…before the eruption. The summers of 1812 and 1814 were wipeouts, and the winter of 1813/14 was one of the coldest in the CET record. People think Napoleon was beaten by the Moscow winter, but Napoleon was never even in Russia (as it is today) in the winter and only spent a short time in Belarus in winter as he retreated. The 1812 disaster was an autumn affair.
Needless to say, the effects of the Tambora eruption in 1815 were very real and very bad. There may be a bit still to know about climate and Earth’s guts. In an age of dogma and Publish-or-Perish we may be slow to find out.
51
In the few years before Tambora’s eruption there had been several medium-sized eruptions which produced cooling. Tambora added to the dust veil.
00
Climate bothering is built on absurdity. And numbers.
Why was a certain month in the record so cool by mean max? Cloud. Why were minima so high? Cloud.
There is no number for “cloud”. You have to say it.
Why do Sydney and Melbourne have so many high max readings clustered into recent years? Why do so many rural sites not show this effect in so marked a way? UHI.
There is no number for “Urban Heat Island”. You have to say it.
But the greatest absurdity is the expectation that in a sluggish two-horse race there must be no lead runner. So much effort to prove a bit of warming (which I think may be real) when there can only be one other temperature effect. That’s right: the temp can only go up or down, it can’t wiggle the hoola-hoop or whistle Dixie or tap dance or collect stamps. With longer-term temps you get up-a-bit (good for cathedral building in Europe and cropping in Canada) and down-a-bit (good for glacier-making if not too droughty and strait-crossing).
Anyway, it’s been Quaternary rules for the last few million years. The horse called Cold gets to win in the end. Shouldn’t be long now…and I expect a few more people know about the end than talk about it.
41
Now Malcolm Turnbull is beating the Climate Change drum.
I am so sick of this posturing, wrecking our country, stopping everything. We should be spending the tens of billions on drought proofing this country, changing the rainfall, changing the climate. Nothing is sacred. We are not the custodians of the land. We are the people dependent on agriculture, mining, coal, iron ore and above all, water.
So we should flood Lake Eyre, cut a wide 400km channel to the Spencer Gulf. Fill the centre of Australia with water. That will change the climate. Even the ab*riginals would be cheering. They don’t love the desert. As in the film Lawrenence of Arabia, Sir Alec Guiness as Prince Faisal said “No Arab loves the desert” 60 seconds in.
We could also build a black strip of rutile, 200km long to create a massive updraft and make it rain in Western NSW. There is water in the air, but the rain does not fall. We lack mountains, the key to rainfall. Mountains make updrafts. We can do that too.
Then husband every drop. Concrete canals. Green the country. If it could be done for Babylon in the desert 3,000 years ago, why can’t we do it now? Instead of spending a hundred billion to stop our quality of life, desalination plants, windmills, giant batteries, massive illogical diesels and pumping water uphill, why can’t we terraform, engineer and change this country. At the very least plant millions of trees and create an ecosystem of rain and evaporation. Let’s call it Direct Action.
102
We have waffle on.
20
He always was on the climate change bandwagon. What amazes me is much of the the LNP is now in agreement with him. Many will lose their seats at the next election and so we can say goodbye to Turnbull the scam artist. We can then say hello to an even worse PM; Shorten. How clever we are – not! Still there is the possibility of a hung parliament and then we might see some common sense restored. I can dream can’t I?
41
like a fly to something sticky. Evolution: Turnbull. Climate models: Turnbull. This guy’s reach is incredidible. Is our Mal a polymath?
60
Yes he has much knowledge and experience. So do the likes of Shorten and Al Gore. They all share the same bandwagon.
71
At best he’s a lawyer and single child who inherited millions forty years ago and set himself up as a merchant banker. Polymath? No.
40
Hey, thanks for reminding me that I haven’t bashed Turnbull today.
Because we need to boot this slippery plutocrat before anything else can proceed. Every time we get steered off the subject of Turnbull we need to steer back to it. Steer hard and immediately.
The Posh Left and green carpetbaggers have a big stake in this puppet government. Turnbull is their win-if-we-win and win-if-we-lose guy. The ABC, networks and Murdoch have taken a lot of trouble over boosting this preening turkey. We are led to believe that it is Malcolm’s own millions keeping him afloat in Wentworth, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the people keeping his retirement slippers warm aren’t also willing to warm his seat. So to speak.
Turnbull, Frydenberg and Ben Ean Julie. Give it to ’em every chance you get…especially when you get told to lay off.
00
As an old engineer it has been my dream to flood lake Eyre for thirty years and terra form the middle of OZ.
11
Might be a bit salty if we do that!, creating another dead sea doesn’t help much.
00
TdeF @ # 25
Israel is doing this right now and using undrinkable brackish aquifer water in the desert Negev to grow huge tonnages of fruit and vegetables, half of which are exported to Europe and elsewhere.
Israel is 20, 700 sq kms in area or about a third of the size of Tasmania’s 64,000 sq kms.
As an old retired / tired farmer, after reading the folowing article I can only imagine the immense impact on the world if the Arab nations made their peace with Israel and could then co-operatively use Israeli technology to advance their nations interests, agriculture and and economies
Turning sand into land. Desert farms in Israel grow lush crops from sand and salty water
30
There are only three essential elements of growing things, water, sunshine and carbon dioxide. The Greens want to get rid of one of them.
10
Where are our scientists, our 5,000 CSIRO, our BOM, our universities? Is it just about handouts like $441Million to a problem which does not exist and cannot be solved?
Where are the ‘problem solvers’? Why apart from medical research is all our science imported, our opinions, our politics? Why are our heros and founders being vilified? Why is every other culture and religion and people superior to the British Christian one which built this country? Where are the ideas for the future?
Rudd had his collection of minds, his actors and singers and socialists, his Australia 2020 summit. What came of it? That’s 16 month away now. How far have we come? What does Russell Crowe think of our progress? Or Cate Blanchett?
Where are our far thinking politicians, our engineers, our scientists? Is it our lot to serve coffee to tourists while paying interest on $700Billion in borrowed money while everyone works for the government?
Since when was a banana Republic the objective of Government?
Since Malcolm Turnbull seized power.
61
I have to admit (smack on wrist time!) that I couldn’t give a tuppeny d@mn for the opinions of the likes of Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. I’m sick of jumped-up celebs. pretending to be experts in everything. I’m also sick of all the non hard-science ‘experts’ who know nothing worth knowing about real science but just keep bullying us. I’m sick of all the sycophantic behaviour of those who want to join in feeding at the trough of taxpayers’ money.
Sorry; there is so much climate hype going on at the moment…evil is abroad.
122
Such celebs are only experts in acting, which has a heavy emphasis on telling untruths.
60
To be fair to our celebs, they were invited by an attention seeking PM, Rudd.
If only Rudd’s vision and intelligence matched his ego and massive personal wealth. The same for Turnbull.
However Turnbull was also the backroom assassin, numbers man, like Shorten. There is nothing to like about either.
20
You have a point though. As the all knowing Galadriel, Cate should have known to keep away from evil opportunists and that Canberra was Mordor. She was summoned by the one ring, as were they all. One ring to bind them all and in the darkness find them.
00
The Today Show on Sunday, ch9, interviewed Russell Reichelt.
Sadly the money shot quote not included is after the excerpt above when Reichelt declares there is no “deniers” involved in the distribution of the money.
Its via twitter:
https://twitter.com/TheTodayShow/status/1025868647099584514
00
6 Aug: AmericanThinker: Thomas Lifson: Killing coal by private means
The warmists have discovered a way. Make insurance for power stations and coal mines unavailable, thereby making the risk of building or operating them unacceptable. That can be accomplished by getting the highly concentrated business of reinsurance to reject coal facilities.
The reinsurance industry is falling in line. The largest reinsurance company in the world, Munich Re, has just announced that it will no longer reinsure coal mines and power plants and will also not invest in the bonds or shares of companies that generate 30% or more of their sales with coal-related business.
Reuters (LINK) reports…
The capitulation of the industry leader caps a successful campaign that already persuaded the number-two competitor in the reinsurance industry to comply:
(Reuters) Swiss Re (SRENH.S), world number two by share value, said in July it would not reinsure any company for which thermal coal represents more than 30 percent of its business, following French peer Scor…
It’s clear that President Obama’s promise in 2008 (LINK) is being fulfilled by big-money financial elites in Europe:
Obama: “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
Hat tip: John McMahon
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/killing_coal_by_private_means.html
40
They are idiots…let the power fail, let them try and make squillions by candlelight….as dusease and unsanitary conditions take over….
Bring out yer dead… * ding*….
00
In some of my very old posts I stress the irrationality of A cAGW belief. Here are the basics again.
&
To believe in the cargo cult of climate action one has to believe.
1. That a change in a trace gas comprising 0.04% of the atmosphere can induce warming.
2. That that warming can be feedback multiplied by 3 implying a loop gain of 0.95 (precariously close to the bode singularity)
3. That the warming will occur in the hottest Inhabited places rather than in the coldest or uninhabited places.
4. That the warming will affect maximums rather than minimums. Eg. (0+40)/2 < (5+38)/2 you can get higher average temperature with lower maximums. On earth this is what happens as you move from the poles to the equator.
That the warming and CO2 is not in fact good for us, the ipcc actually say that it expects 2 degrees of warming and increased plant food to be Nett beneficial (why then the 1.5deg target :-/ )
That money can influence the climate even though the carbon tax proved the cost to be over $200 quadrillion per annum per degree C.
If you disagree with any one statement then you logically disagree with climate action
22
Ooh 21 points so far
10
On AndyG55 rating I’m assuming?!
00
MSM not interested in reporting this big story as yet – except for China’s English-language media, but RE stakeholder websites carrying it:
6 Aug: PV Mag: Beijing about-turn influenced collapse of polysilicon deal
Shanghai Electric says the Chinese government’s abrupt decision to rein in solar was a significant factor in the collapse of its planned $3.64 billion acquisition of a controlling stake in the world’s biggest poly maker.
by Max Hall
Electrical equipment manufacturer and wannabe polysilicon giant Shanghai Electric this morning revealed May’s change of solar policy in Beijing played a significant part in the collapse of its planned acquisition of a controlling stake in China’s largest poly maker.
The company’s planned CNY25 billion ($3.64 billion) purchase of a 51% stake in GCL-Poly subsidiary Jiangsu Zhongneng collapsed on Friday after both parties announced the market was not “mature enough” to complete the transaction.
With analysts wondering whether the deal had fallen victim to the decision by the Beijing authorities to rein in PV subsidy commitments at the end of May – which solar watchers are predicting will lead to huge global oversupply of polysilicon – Shanghai Electric this morning told investors the policy change was a contributory factor in the cancellation of the agreement.
“An important new policy concerning [the] photovoltaic industry was issued on 31 May 2018, the subsequent impact of which is still uncertain,” Shanghai Electric stated, in an online “SSE Roadshow” to address investor concerns about Friday’s decision which went ahead in the early hours of this morning CET…
Adding that predicted solar capacity worldwide by 2022 will be 1.01 billion kilowatts, Shanghai Electric stated: “Our company is optimistic about the photovoltaic industry in the long run, and has been paying attention to any opportunity to tap into the photovoltaic industry.”
A subsequent announcement to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange stated trading in Shanghai Electric stock will resume tomorrow.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/08/06/beijing-about-turn-influenced-collapse-of-polysilicon-deal/
10
China has been demonstrating mach 6 hypersonic attack aircraft…i think they have the tech…but the king of the deplorables gave it to them…so…
00
“NO, MALCOLM, WARMING ISN’T MAKING MORE DROUGHTS”
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/no-malcolm-warming-isnt-making-more-droughts/news-story/2941db83ad1ba1106f0ffae1bc1ad40b
41
What more evidence is needed to show Turnbull is as much an anti-coal, pro-renewables CAGW alarmist as Shorten and Richard Di Natale? Yet people still want to vote for 1 for LNP, ALP or Greens. Stupid is as stupid does.
30
Yeah well the ginger group is still fighting back.
‘Malcolm Turnbull says the Coalition party room has endorsed the NEG, but Liberal MP Tony Pasin doesn’t agree.’ Oz
Cory still missing in action.
20
Cory is not part of the LNP. It appears you have a problem with him. Cory is more anti-Green, anti-renewables, pro-coal and pro-nuclear than all of the other major and minor parties combined. You must dislike him so much for some illogical reason.
10
Oh at least he exists. As for your so called ginger group – where is it? Who are they? What are they waiting for? To grow a spine?
10
Tony Pasin is another ginger man.
‘Cory is more anti-Green, anti-renewables …’
Just yesterday he was gushing over renewables.
11
If indeed he had then he is a two-faced hypocrite given his policies on energy below, which BTW are being followed at least in part by Abbott and others who are against Turnbull’s policies on energy. Does that make him and the others also “gushing over renenwables”? I think you are being extremely unfair. I say again I think you have some sort of grudge against him for whatever reason. Sure he’s not perfect but then again he is light years ahead of the others when it comes to energy policies. If you disagree then please explain how so. Otherwise, stop sprouting rubbish.
Key Points:
Australians deserve the most reliable and affordable energy in the world.
With electricity generation, we are technology-agnostic but subsidy-averse.
We support nuclear power and a nuclear fuel cycle industry.
We support all forms of electricity generation and will provide them with legislative certainty and legal protection.
We do not support any renewable energy targets.
We will remove all taxpayer and cross subsidies to electricity generation.
We will require all electricity supplied to the grid to be useable – that is, predictable and consistent in output (kWhrs) and synchronous (at the required 50 Hz range).
We will allow market forces to provide the most efficient power generation available.
We will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.
10
What does he have to say on climate change, apart from the Paris Accord?
11
Lots. For example:
Climate Change Delusion and the Great Energy Ripoff
What should we do about climate change? with Cory Bernardi & Dave Pellowe
He has been saying these things long before Abbot and others started to say similar things. Get over it; Cory Bernardi is light years ahead of every other politicians when it comes to climate change and energy policies. You clearly have some sort of grudge against him. Part of his problem though in trying to express his views is the MSM ignore him and partly because he’s pretty much a nobody unlike say Abbott and Hanson. The two reasons are probably related.
10
‘Part of his problem though in trying to express his views is the MSM ignore him ….’
When he went out on his own the MSM saw him as a non entity and Cory will remain that way until he rejoins the Liberals. Otherwise he could say CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, the oceans aren’t becoming more acidic, sea level has stopped rising and global cooling has begun.
This is no time to be backward in being forward.
00
Rejoin the Liberals? You’ve got to be kidding. Meanwhile, the ginger group still has a long way to go to catch up with Cory’s energy policies. When they do and they manage to get rid of Turnbull and his cohorts then Cory might come back. Perhaps that’s why you dislike him so much – he should have stayed and helped them fix the broken Liberal Party.
10
All of us here acknowledge that the Liberal Party is broken and needs to be fixed before the election, but the Libs don’t particularly want Cory back after his recent bad publicity in Victoria.
01
‘One of Australia’s largest coal producers praises a Labor MP for saying there could be a future for new coal-fired power stations.’ Oz
10
AND
“Chairman Mal says “Everyone thinks climate change is increasing droughts” ”
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2018/08/chairman-mal-says-everyone-thinks-climate-change-is-increasing-droughts.html
00
A term adaptable to Canberra IMO
”
Nick Werner
August 7, 2018 at 2:25 am
Aw, don’t be so critical… the Pride Piper of Ottawa has a busy schedule. ”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2018/08/06/oh-shiny-prime-minister-10/#comment-1135910
00
TdeF (comment #22) posted The Australian’s coverage; here is ABC:
7 Aug: ABC: Earth at risk of ‘hothouse climate’ where efforts to reduce emissions will have no impact, study finds
By Elise Pianegonda
The study titled Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene, which involved researchers from around the world, was published in the international journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)…
Lead researcher Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University (ANU) said at that point much of the earth would be uninhabitable.
He explained that if human emissions raised global temperatures to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures it could trigger earth system processes — or feedbacks — that could then cause further warming.
“The real concern is these tipping elements can act like a row of dominoes,” Professor Steffen said.
“Once one is pushed over, it pushes earth towards another.”
“It may be very difficult or impossible to stop the whole row of dominoes from tumbling over.”…
Professor Steffen said countries needed to work together to “greatly accelerate the transition towards an emission-free world economy”…
The study did not lay down a timeframe for when such events would begin to occur, but theorised — if the threshold was crossed — it could be within a century or two…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07/climate-heading-for-tipping-point-and-risk-of-hothouse-earth/10080274
6 Aug: PNAS: Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene
Will Steffen, Johan Rockström, Katherine Richardson, Timothy M. Lenton, Carl Folke, Diana Liverman, Colin P. Summerhayes, Anthony D. Barnosky, Sarah E. Cornell, Michel Crucifix, Jonathan F. Donges, Ingo Fetzer, Steven J. Lade, Marten Scheffer, Ricarda Winkelmann, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved July 6, 2018 (received for review June 19, 2018)
Abstract:
We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene…
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115
10
UNBELIEVABLE FAKE NEWS:
6 Aug: Guardian: Most Australians want more renewables to help lower power prices – poll
Survey comes as Victoria and Queensland urged to block national energy guarantee and business groups call for deal to be approved
PIC: More than 70% of Australians agree that the nation ‘should set an ambitious renewable energy target to help put downward pressure on electricity prices’.
by Paul Karp
(Paul Karp was previously a journalist at Thomson Reuters covering industrial relations for the Workforce news service and has written for Justinian, the Gazette of Law and Journalism and ABC’s The Drum)
The ReachTel poll, commissioned by Greenpeace, was released on Monday as progressive campaign group GetUp and environmentalists stepped up pressure on the Victorian and Queensland governments to block the national energy guarantee and business groups called for it to be approved…
***According to the ReachTel poll, when told that energy market analyst Reputex found that more renewables in the energy mix lowers electricity prices (LINK), more than 70% of respondents agreed that “Australia should set an ambitious renewable energy target to help put downward pressure on electricity prices”…
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/06/most-australians-want-more-renewables-to-help-lower-power-prices-poll
Guardian, as usual, has links galore, but none to the actual poll. it’s available here:
6 Aug: Greenpeace: POLL: Australians want renewable energy
More than 70% of Australians want ambitious renewable energy target to drive down electricity prices
DOWNLOAD POLL
In other signs of the NEG’s unpopularity, 66.7 percent of Australians agreed that the best way for the government to ensure low cost reliable electricity supply was to invest in renewables, along with dispatchable storage solutions like batteries. They are right, as was demonstrated by a recent Reputex report on the impact of the NEG on wholesale power prices, which concluded that by 2030 prices would be 25 percent lower under a more ambitious 45 percent renewable energy target than under the government’s proposed 26 percent emissions reduction target.
The poll conducted on Monday July 30 surveyed 3,999 Australians on their views on renewable energy and the NEG, which states will be asked to vote on at next week’s COAG meeting in Sydney.
https://www.greenpeace.org.au/research/polling-australians-want-renewable-energy/
from the poll:
Question 3: Do you agree or disagree with the following Statement? “By the year 2030 energy sources such as solar and wind will provide the majority of Australia’s electricity.”
59.7% strongly agree/agree
Question 4: Do you agree or disagree with the following Statement? “Renewable energy should receive more government support than fossil fuels such as coal.”
67.6% strongly agree/agree
Question 5: A recent report by Australian energy market analyst Reputex found that more renewables in the energy mix lowers electricity prices.
Do you agree or disagree that Australia should set an ambitious renewable energy target to help put downward pressure on electricity prices?
70.4% strongly agree/agree
Question 6: Do you agree or disagree that installing rooftop solar is an effective way of reducing electricity bills.
78% strongly agree/agree
Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with the following Statement?
“The influence of coal and energy companies over politicians means that Australia has a lower percentage of renewable energy than it would otherwise.”
60.3% strongly agree/agree
10
No wonder Cory has gone to the dark side.
11
I don’t get it. I thought the Greens were the dark side. Are you saying Cory has joined the Greens? That’s news to me.
10
Yes, if Cory is Australia’s last hope then we don’t have a hope.
His blog logo is covered from end to end in wind turbines and batteries, and I don’t think it’s meant as a bad joke either. Only last week he was waxing orgasmic about driving a new Tesla. His statements on renewables are very much 2 bob each way; he doesn’t come out and do a Barnaby and tell it like it is. (I don’t think much of Barny’s complicity with Mal over the past few years either by the way.)
Cory has been stupendously silent in his support for the Gingers. When was the last time we heard a public utterance from him? Now he’s lost his only other MP. He’s a non-event.
52
Clearly you didn’t read the article. He is displaying the turbines in front of batteries that are running our of power to highlight the deficiencies of solar and wind power, and comparing it to the Tesla car running our of gas/petrol when taking a cruise. He concluded by saying:
“And that is the killer with this focus on wind and solar power. Sure, the fuel source is free when it is available but you can’t bank on it being there when you need it. Much like the Tesla. It’s great fun around the burbs but simply impractical if you want to head out and explore Australia’s beautiful countryside.”
I suppose you don’t agree with his policies on energy and instead prefer Turnbull’s or Shorten’s?
41
Actually I did read the article and of course I loathe both those leftie snakes, but that doesn’t make Cory our saviour either. Far from it. This is his big chance to be relevant, and so far his response has been thoroughly underwhelming to put it mildly. On top of that his only AC ally has just jumped ship. If he was fair dinkum he would be out there yelling from the rooftops supporting the Gingers. Instead we get silence. He’s playing his own little game and achieving nothing but further splitting the conservative vote.
What use is a silent one-man band?
As to his big blog finish that you quote: I’ve re-read the entire blog post and like I said, half-hearted, 2 bob each way. If that’s Cory at his fiery, passionate, articulate best arguing against renewables, then he should quit while he’s behind before he gets further behind. It has about as much oomph as a full nappy. I reiterate — he’s a non-event.
Even with her limited educational background and debating skills, Pauline would leave him in her dust. She is out there and she is genuine, and no — I don’t think she alone is our salvation either, but she is part of it.
11
CORY BERNADI
Was Carlin Jenkins an ally? I never heard a word from her when she was a representative of Autralian Conservatives. She was involved in some sort of rort scandal, bringing the Party into disrepute.
She was a turncoat when she left the DLP to join the Aus Conservatives and now she is disloyal again.
I hope that I do not see her like again.
10
Look at the organizations involved in this BS poll……..
The Guardian and Greenpeace.
No credibility whatsoever !
83
If droughts being severe shortages of rain are caused by coal burning power generation plants and the CO2 they release in the burning of coal process then I guess that floods being excesses of rain must also be caused by the burning of coal by power generators as both of these phenomena are events well outside of the boundaries of the perfect and completely stable climate we have come to expect is the norm in Earth’s climate and weather from the prognostications of climate scientists and climate modellers and the green latte sipping, smashed goat cheeses circle of the green scum.
As the old poets who knew the australian nbush use to write, “Australia is a land of drought and flooding rains”:
So on flooding and as the Murray river basin is Australia’s largest catchment we can look at a couple of indicators of flooding in the Murray long before the dread of that deadly rise of a few percent of the dangerous “carbon” as it is known in the green city elites by those who can barely bother themselves to read and whose concenrtration runs out by the end of a twitter message.
——-
It seems that scientists might have stumbled onto a new lot of proxies for both seasons and Murray river flows going back some 9000 years.
9000-year Murray River flood record discovered
……
This next one surprised me;
Murray Darling average flows and the flood of fifty-six
That 1956 flood was one heck of a flood. There are lots of photos on various sites of that flood.
I was chasing skirt at the time over Murray Bridge way but having no luck in that field I and one of my mates had lots of time to check out the 1956 flood at Murray bridge, Mannum and other river towns over a few days .
I have been back a number of times over the years past and have marvelled at the heights that 1956 flood reached compared to where the river flows today.
……….
And then there is this!
The greatest River Murray flood eclipses 1956 levels
On another forum a few years ago , one of the commentors when the subject like this one came up told of story that the aboriginal people had of a massive flood, not that many decades before the white man appeared on the scene near the head waters of the Murrumbidgee River in Eastern NSW .
They pointed out the high water mark on a number of old trees , a mark that was literally many meters above any previously recorded floods in the area.
———–
On centuries long dry periods here in western Victoria.
There is a series of salt lakes north of and west and SW of our local lump of rock, Mt Arapiles [ regularly covered by “rock monkeys” when the weather is good ] that sticks up from the plains around it.
On the eastern and down windside of these lakes from the westerly prevailing winds, there are huge 30 0or 50 metre high blown sand drift “moon dunes” .
Those Moon Dunes, so named because of their crescent shape like a new Moon, have been there one heck of a long time and are the direct evidence of periods perhaps centuries long where dry westerly wind conditions were the norm as contrasted to my post on the Murray river floods above.
.
[Reminder: long comments can get stuck in moderation so try to keep them shorter, not longer. Thanks.] AZ
00
Comment # 33 is in moderation
00
JoNova is always at their worst when they try to talk actual science, it’s a Gish Gallop.
OK lets ignore extreme weather events for now, it is a huge area of science. Things that are pretty certain to happen before 2100 I have listed below. And don’t forget that it does not stop at 2100, it continues.
– the global mean temperature will increase.
– the Arctic ocean will become increasingly ice-free until it is ice-free most summers.
– average global sea level will rise.
– the oceans will become more acidic.
314
Ocean Acidification Scam
https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/ocean-acidification-scam/
Ocean Acidification: Your Chance To Help Kill This Dodgy Scam Once And For All!
https://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/29/ocean-acidification-your-chance-to-help-kill-this-crooked-scam-once-and-for-all/
63
“Breitbart” 🙂
Good to see you are well-read…
48
as opposed to what, “the age”, guardian, abc, ipcc, the drum……..
moron.
did you, can you, actually read the content of the article ???
how much are you making from the global warming scam?
selling solar bs to the gullible methinks.
64
Ah, the good ol’ “I can’t think of an argument, so I will change the subject”.
Why would I read anything from a know Alt-Right fake news website? Life is too short. If you think the article gives good references, just post the links to the references directly.
I would love that someone pays me, I should set up a tip jar like what JoNova has. But to be honest I do debunking for free, honestly it is so easy there is no point paying anyone to do it.
59
The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet 91% of the world’s glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees. So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes’ principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Yet at the opening of 2011 we find the following unashamed lying by James Hansen: “We will lose all the ice in the polar ice cap in a couple of decades”. Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very partially true: “Lux in tenebris lucet”. There is still much darkness in the minds of men
84
Greenland.
37
Do you not understand “Archimedes’ principle” ????
back to school!
43
Greenland.
21
Why was it called Greenland? You dope.
11
“Why was it called Greenland?”
Ummm because that is what it is called. A bit like Orange County maybe.
03
Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that “liberals” (American version) will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists
64
There is a red under your bed.
28
I hope it’s not you hiding under my bed……..
CREEPY!
62
That’s a great list of things which have not happened in the last thirty years.
Do you really believe these things?
When do you expect it all to start? I have been down the beach most days. No sign of this rapid sea rise yet.
When exactly do you expect the oceans to become acidic? Soon?
82
As for the missing sea ice, also a good friend was on Svalbad last year mid summer. 80 North. The ice reached him. You could walk to the North Pole, only 1,000km. So if the ice is missing, it is news. Have you been there? Recently?
62
Also, if all the sea ice melted in summer, great. That would make navigation so much easier. As noted before, the average summer temperature at the North Pole is 0C. So at -0.5, lots more sea ice. At +0.5 lots less. Does it matter and is it significant? No.
By the way, the average winter temperature is -40C.(or -40F). With Global Warming, maybe -39.5C.
53
“That’s a great list of things which have not happened in the last thirty years.”
You just keep telling yourself that – “denial” is not a river in Egypt.
311
Yes it is.
42
I thank comrade Harry for this extensive list.
– the global mean temperature will increase.
– the Arctic ocean will become increasingly ice-free until it is ice-free most summers.
– average global sea level will rise.
– the oceans will become more acidic.
My gut feeling is that world temperatures are about to drop quite sharply and remain below the Spencer Line for at least a decade.
Arctic ice will come and go depending on the vagaries of currents.
Sea level has stabilised and will be exactly the same in 100 years.
Its impossible for the oceans to become more acidic because of industrial CO2, being only a minuscule part of the overall CO2 content in the atmosphere.
73
Harry has a point. I understand the lifeguards at Bondi will be getting an automated Ocean Acidity Alarm in time for this summer to supplement the existing shark alarm. The alarm will be a foghorn sounded whenever the pH drops below 7.5 — based on the precautionary principle of course.
There has been a desperate need for such a device as many backpackers and tourists have been dissolving at Bondi. All that is left are some bleached dreadlocks, eroded false teeth and forlorn boogie boards washed ashore without their former owners.
It is now known that many historical cases classified as shark attacks were in fact acid ocean attacks. Likewise with blue bottles which have had a bad rap. Thank goodness science has finally laid the blame where it truly belongs.
123
“Things that are pretty certain to happen before 2100”
That is ridiculous on stilts.
Everyone knows the world ends by 2030 at the latest.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/bob-geldof-the-world-could-end-by-2030-8864186.html
32
I see that Harry Twinotter has now become this century’s new Nostradamus with his truly uncanny and self described ability to predict far into the future;
…………..
– the global mean temperature will increase.
Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era.
——-
– the Arctic ocean will become increasingly ice-free until it is ice-free most summers.
Headlines; in their own words
.
Ages-Old Icecap at North Pole Is Now Liquid, Scientists Find – NYTimes.com
.
NASA Climate scientist Jay Zwally said; At this rate the Arctic ocean would be nearly ice free at the end of summer in 2012
.
BBC News ; Arctic summers ice free by 2013; It will all just melt away quite suddenly ; Peter Wadhams
.
Gore; Polar Ice cap may dissapear by 2014
.
Wadhams think polar ice cap gone by 2015
Etc & etc
NASA; Current State of the Sea Ice Cover
——
– average global sea level will rise.
Sea level is rising at the rate of about 1.7 to 1.8 mm’s / year [ 107 / 108 mms century ] and has done so at close to this rate for last 30 to 40 years as measured by the 240 sea level stations in the PSMSL program ;
——–
– the oceans will become more acidic.
Some very simple and basic science;
if global warming resumes after the “pause,” ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:
“Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
Take your pick – REAL SCIENCE says you can’t have both.”
————–
113
“Things that are “pretty certain” to happen before 2100 I have listed below.”
“Pretty certain”, well that is definitive and scientific………
NOT!
33
“Gish Gallop”,
Is that your superhero moniker?
33
The twatter brings his UNScience along.
1. Global temperature may rise by 1/2 a degree or so or might fall by the same amount nobody knows – and so what. The IPCC says a degree or so is Nett Beneficial so why worry. The extra plant food in the atmosphere that is allowing our crops yield to keep pace with population doesn’t hurt either.
2. Do I care if the Arctic ocean becomes navigable in Summer? Nup, coz it seems like that might be good for us too – assuming it happens which see (1). NOBODY KNOWS
3. Yes Average sea level will probably rise just like it has been doing since the start of the Holocene 12000 years or so ago, this one IS predictable but nothing to do with AGW. How much will it rise, HMM about 0.1M the size of a besser brick in a hundred years. YA KNOW, I THINK WE ENGINEERS WILL COPE.
4. Is a out and out lie, The PH of the oceans is about 8.2 which is alkaline (basic), so any added CO2 can only neutralise the alkaline salts to make the ocean less basic carbonic acid (CO2 in water) a very weak acid can never overcome the alkaline salts in the ocean. Plus Harry, Henry’s law says that the dissolved CO2 in the ocean depends on the water temperature with warmer water being capable of holding less CO2. If global warming were to happen in spite of – (1) nobody knows – the ocean would give up CO2 and become more alkaline, not less. You can’t have it both ways, if it is warmer the oceans will have less dissolved CO2.
So Harry, so much for your doomsday cult prediction
41
Good stuff. UNScience. Also the ocean is what chemists call a massively buffered solution. Yes, there are the alkali ions currently in the water, but there are also the incredible trillions of tons of limestone, shells, coral which would release basic ions into the water and would all have to vanish completely before the oceans could become acidic. The White Cliffs of Dover are just a sample. We humans have used limestone for millenia. Under Paris. Under Odessa. Under Rheims. Where we store real Champagne. Used extensively to hide the population during shelling in the battle of Verdun outside Rheims. The caves under Odessa total thousands of Kilometers and in fact the plateau on which it is built is solid limestone.
Then you get the public buildings of Europe. Limestone. So it’s goodbye to the coastline of England first. There is an argument that the acid rain will affect rivers and estuarial regions, but that’s it.
Acid rain is now far more likely to come from NO2 or HNO3 (nitric) and diesel engines which are being used to avoid mild H2CO3, carbonic acid. Soda water. Frankly, we are far better off with carbonic acid or beer than nitric acid which will eat your lungs. So all the diesels of South Australia and Tasmania replacing coal are an ecological nightmare which will eat the sandstone of Adelaide and Hobart and Richmond and are a real environmental hazard. That was what the VW scandal was all about, but you cannot expect a Greenie to understand chemistry. Diesels are being banned from London. Using diesel to replace coal is just nuts, but for politicians that is a common qualification.
41
The temps have already risen by around 1C. I can’t see anything that will stop them increasing. And observations agree with me.
By all means deny science all you like, if you have the faith for it. There are plenty of superstitious people in the world, so you will be in good company.
03
earlier I posted stuff about Lisa Hymas/Media Matters/Grist, incl how she has been named a Vermont Law School Media Fellows.
coincidentally, I was just on E&E News & noted the following behind paywall:
6 Aug: E&E News: Vermont Law School hires new director
by Amanda Reilly
Vermont Law School has tapped a lawyer for a New England-based environmental advocacy group who won a major climate case in Massachusetts to be its next director of the Environmental Law Center…
***Jennifer Rushlow will replace David Mears, who stepped down from the position in June during a faculty restructuring process…
(note Wikipedia: The school has one of the United States’ leading programs in environmental law, and has maintained consistently high ranking in Environmental Law by U.S. News and World Report…The Law School has partnered with different domestic and international universities to offer dual-degree programs. Domestic schools include: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies)
***17 May 2016: Common Dreams: Teenagers in ‘Historic’ Climate Victory
‘This is an historic victory for young generations advocating for changes to be made by government,’ said 17-year-old plaintiff Shamus Miller.
by Deirdre Fulton
Siding with four teenage plaintiffs and the environmental groups that backed them, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday ruled that the state has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…
“This is a historic day,” said lead attorney Jenny Rushlow, of the Conservation Law Foundation, which brought the case along with Mass Energy Consumers Alliance and with the support of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based organization orchestrating youth-driven legal campaign in the United States. “Today our highest court declared clearly and unequivocally that our leaders can no longer sit on their hands while Massachusetts communities are put at risk from the effects of climate change.”
Tuesday’s win follows two other recent landmark victories in youth-led lawsuits against the federal government and the State of Washington.
“In agreeing with the youth plaintiffs in this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court joins growing global judicial recognition of youth’s rights to demand that their governments act in accordance with the urgency of the climate change crisis,” said Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust…
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/17/massachusetts-court-sides-teenagers-historic-climate-victory
the CAGW mob are embedded everywhere.
20
As the Childrens Trust is now obviously a legally defined organisation having status in the court legal system can it be sued and legal action taken against it by any number of other parties whose work, existence, living standards and etc have been compromised and / or degraded by the actions of the Children’s Trust and the four teenage plaintiffs ?
Most would answer No to this but what is today does not mean it is for tomorrow as well.
And tomorrow can mean that people / citizens look at the past decisions in a whole new way and then go onto change them or eliminate them and demand recompense for the actions of those who believed they had the situation all tied up for eternity
e; australian Banks , insurance companies, super annuation organisations.
Coming up are renewable energy as costs of power skyrocket and blackouts become the norm as the coal fired generators are shut down , removing the ban on drilling for gas in Victoria as the stupidity of shipping vast tonnages of gas overseas whilst Australians pay exorbanite prices for gas finally gets through to the FW politicians in the Victorian and Federal parliaments .
Removing of all subsidies to renewable energy and the hell with their screaming, at every level as the governments run out of OPM and the citizen’s facilities begin to decay everywhere because of lack of government money.
20
Argumentum ad absurdum, 1. Argument to absurdity. 2. Logic: reductio ad absurdum, reduction to absurdity. 3. A form of argument that disproves a statement by showing it leads to an absurd or contradictory conclusion. 4. Climate-craft: a form of argument that leads to a desired conclusion, however absurd. See haruspex.
“We can absolutely expect further increases in hot events if global warming continues. But our results also highlight how complex climate change can be. We should be prepared for both warm and cold extremes – sometimes simultaneously – now and in the future.” (N Diffenbaugh, climate scientist, Stanford University, 1 September, 2016)
Reference: The Devil’s Dictionary of Climate Change (2018)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/21/friday-funny-the-devils-dictionary-of-climate-change/
71
Alice.
Personally I do not see many new cold extremes – have a look at the ratio of new hot records to new cold records, it is in hot’s favour.
But the quote is right in that the climate is variable. If the sluggish jetstream thing turns out to be correct, it caught the climate scientists by surprise I don’t recall anyone predicting that. But once the details are worked out, it becomes obvious.
Refer to a normal distribution of temperatures. If you increase the average temperature (which is happening), it also tends to increase the extreme hot end of the distribution. This is not rocket science, it is just statistics.
36
A sluggish jet stream in both hemispheres will produce extremes of heat and cold, but I make the point that its a global cooling signal.
43
Well its F’n cold at my place, never seen so many frosts in one season.
31
The plot that you give that claims to show rainfall mega-droughts in Australia has not be compared to the measured instrmental rainfall record of the 20th century. If you actually compare it to the instrumental record, you will find that the proxy does not match the actual observations. This is study is a prime example of climate science at its worst. The sad thing is that a lot of people on both sides of the debate present this data without doing the due-diligence checking that is necessary.
31
True, but I still need confirmation that megadroughts were more common during the MWP.
10
Michelle Ho et al say ‘the dry periods around 300 B.C.E., ∼100, ∼400, late‐1100s, 1500s, mid‐1700s, and early‐1900s’ are notable.
They were focussed on the MDB and its unequivocal, droughty times can also happen during cool epochs.
00
Professor Ian Plimer on the carbon dioxide panic………..
http://morningmail.org/professor-ian-plimer-carbon-dioxide/#comment-83337
23
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman
52
LOL Why would anyone give this comment a red thumb?
Does this denote objection to testing yr theory, to
compliance with evidence? Does this denote objection
to science?
41
Of course Richard Feynman was perfectly right in what he stated. Anyone who disagrees doesn’t believe in real science but fake science instead, such as man-made catastrophic climate change.
31
Oh?
And which theory and experiment are you referring to?
03
Has anyone read about the snow in WA
https://thewest.com.au/news/weather/snow-continues-to-fall-on-bluff-knoll-near-albany-much-to-the-delight-of-snow-hunters-ng-b88918311z
Not in the Main Stream Media?
32
The MSM is following Big Brothers handbook on memory holing anything that exposes their fake news.
10
I keep pointing out that it regularly snows on WA’s south, mainly Bluff Knoll and the Stirling Ranges. Also I’ve mentioned that it snowed once on Perth’s foothills in 1956.
00
6 Aug: Bloomberg: Power Worth Less Than Zero Spreads as Green Energy Floods the Grid
Wind and solar farms are glutting networks more frequently, prompting a market signal for coal plants to shut off
By Jesper Starn
Bright and breezy days are becoming a deeper nightmare for utilities struggling to earn a return on traditional power plants.
With wind and solar farms sprouting up in more areas — and their power getting priority to feed into the grid in many places — the amount of electricity being generated is outstripping demand during certain hours of the day.
The result: power prices are slipping to zero or even below more often in more jurisdictions. That’s adding to headaches for generators from NRG Energy Inc. in California to RWE AG in Germany and Origin Energy Ltd. in Australia…
“There is no time pattern for having negative prices in Belgium,” said Marleen Vanhecke, an official at the nation’s grid manager, Elia System Operator SA. “This phenomena is mainly determined by high wind generation in Germany and enough import capacity towards Belgium.”…
Periods with negative prices occur when there is more supply than demand, typically during a mid-day sun burst or early morning wind gust when demand is already low. A negative price is essentially a market signal telling utilities to shut down certain power plants. It doesn’t result in anyone getting a refund on bills — or in electric meters running backward.
Instead, it often prompts owners of traditional coal and gas plants to shut down production for a period even though many of the facilities aren’t designed to switch on and off quickly. It’s left the utilities complaining that they can’t earn the returns they expected for their investment in generation capacity.
“Energy market price signals are critical to telling generators where to build new resources,” said Abe Silverman, deputy general council at NRG Energy, which is concerned about the anomaly in California. “As negative prices become more prevalent, we’ll have to evolve our energy market price formation strategies to ensure that we will continue to drive efficient investment.”…
There were fewer days of sub-zero prices in Australia during 2017 compared with previous years even as more wind-power capacity was built. There, Origin Energy has a built a big portfolio of gas-fired “peaker plants” designed to switch on quickly and only when needed…
“Bill Gates became the richest bloke on Earth off the end of the mainframe,” said Neil Eckert, chairman of Aggregated Micro Power Holdings Plc, an energy services company that installs small power plants. “We are seeing the end of the energy mainframe. The world will have to learn new techniques — how to invest in small-scale distributed energy.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-06/negative-prices-in-power-market-as-wind-solar-cut-electricity
00
I listened to the news this morning about the current drought in NSW which is allegedly the worse since the 1960s ( l personally think that the millennium drought was far worse) but the BOM are saying that there is a 50 percent chance that this coming summer will be dryer than average. They are really ‘half glass full’ people! I would interpret tis as there is a good chance that this summer’s rain could be wetter or normal.
32
Don’t you love it, there is a 50% chance it will be drier than normal, implies a 50% chance it’ll be wetter than normal. Whether being chaotic and all, oddly there is almost NO CHANCE that it will be NORMAL (Average) weather doesn’t “Do” averages just like time. What is the average of time in a day? How long is time of day ever at the average?
30
“OMG! Rough Language BUT a Very Good Point!”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/08/07/omg-rough-language-but-a-very-good-point/
20
Well, one thing we do have proof of now is that Trump is a complete dick.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/in-one-tweet-trump-confuses-everything-about-california-wildfires-20180807-p4zvy8.html
He really should get off twitter.
12
More like proof of what your are. Trump is exactly right. California failed for decades to clear the deadfall and underbrush and at the same time granted permits for people to build in those fire hazard areas at the same time the current governor killed multiple projects for new reservoirs so that during the dry times the people lack the water reserves then need. It has been bad environmental policy and infrastructure law for the last fifty years or more that has led to this. Joe Bastardi at weatherbell forecast this to be a bad fire season clear back at the end of the winter because weather patterns back then indicated heavy spring rains followed by a summer of dryer and warmer conditions. The forecast was right. Thus vegetation sprouted and then died and became tender. But always leave it up the low information types to accept what the ambulance chasers say instead of really looking into the mater.
11
The Big Lie
‘Global average temperatures are just over one degree above pre-industrial temperatures, but rising by 0.17 degrees every 10 years.
‘Professor Steffen said if temperatures rose to two degrees above pre-industrial levels, a level within Paris Agreement targets, it could trigger natural processes that would cause further warming of the Earth even if all human emissions ceased.
‘If that happened, global average temperatures may reach up to five degrees above pre-industrial levels – the hottest temperatures experienced in more than 1.2 million years.
‘Sea levels could also rise between 10 and 60 metres, threatening coastal areas.
“Many parts of the planet could become uninhabitable for humans,” Professor Steffen said.
SMH
01
As soon we have a heatwave or a dry spell we see the same alarmist advocacy emerge, claiming CC induced droughts. When we have a wet period, the alarmists claim that’s an exception. To make matters worse, our government funded institutions have joined the advocacy, due to the luke of big govt handouts, to tell out how bad it is, when it isn’t.
The actual data from 1900 shows a significantly increased trend in rainfall for eastern AU
A small increase for SE AU
And a moderately increased trend for Southern AU
For the entire nation, it’s a very significant increased trend
Despite the good news rainfall trends, we see this kind of cherry picking from our government funded institutions to create a “fake news” doomsday scenario.
And, not one “good news” report to be found on the increased rainfall trends.
30
video editorial covers Turnbull, ABC’s Fran Kelly and ABC’s Q&A, where Min David Littleproud is jeered by the audience:
VIDEO: 4mins32secs: Aug: Andrew Bolt Blog: PROOF THE PM IS WRONG; THIS DROUGHT ISN’T GLOBAL WARMING
We’ll get through this drought, eventually, like we have so many before – but one thing we don’t need is global warmists spreading not comfort, but fear. I’m talking about you, Prime Minister, telling us this drought is a sign of global warming. My editorial from The Bolt Report. VIDEO
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/proof-the-pm-is-wrong-this-drought-isnt-global-warming/news-story/8dc5111c5aa412f0859e5cc51f33e750
6 Aug: ABC Q&A: Drought Relief and Future Farming
TRANSCRIPT:
MEG NIELSEN: Hello. Hello. Good evening. So, I’m a farmer from Bentley, and every day we see the impacts of climate destabilisation. This is the reality. It’s all around us. Our entire ecosystem is affected. And unpredictable weather events threaten our ability to grow food for Australia and the rest of the world. So my question is, don’t we need to ignore the fossil fuel donors and the lobbyists and have a good bipartisan policy to reduce emissions, encourage the uptake of renewable energies and protect our ability to grow the nation’s food?…
FIONA SIMSON: BLAH BLAH We want certainty that we’re continuing to improve the environment, to be sustainable, to be resilient. We need to have those conversations in the community, but we also need certainty about investment in some of the energy that we’re going to use in the future, and that’s why we need a policy like the NEG…
TONY JONES: Alright, Meg, our questioner, has got her hand up. So jump up, Meg.
MEG NIELSEN: Yeah. I do agree. What we do need is a strong National Energy Guarantee. Unfortunately, the terms that we’ve got at the moment just don’t do the trick. Unfortunately, they don’t. The emissions targets are too low. And so, therefore, we’re not able to encourage the use of renewables pretty much any further than they are currently this year. And, unfortunately, what it does is it encourages the use of coal and gas to continue in business as usual, and it’s…
TONY JONES: Meg, can I just interrupt? From the beginning of your question, your original question, I took it that you’re essentially saying this drought is related to climate change, man-made climate change. Is that correct?
MEG NIELSEN: Yes, I believe so. I… I think… I know that Australia has always had droughts. I know that, you know, the whole world has always had droughts, but we only have to look around the world to see the events that are happening now. The Arctic Circle, you know, wildfires. I mean, it’s very clear that all these effects of our weather are being affected by climate change.
TONY JONES: Now, David… Thank you very much, Meg. David, do you accept that, first of all? That principle?
DAVID LITTLEPROUD: Let me say that farmers have been dealing with the changing climate since we first put a till in the soil. It’s been changing since we first started agriculture and we’ve been adapting.
TONY JONES: So, David, the fundamental question is whether man-made climate change is causing droughts like the one we’re seeing now? That’s what Meg is suggesting.
DAVID LITTLEPROUD: Well, look, that’s a big call. I don’t… Look, the reality is… The reality is, I don’t really give a rat’s whether it’s man-made or not. If we want to go to renewables, if we move to renewables for a healthier environment, to breathe better air, that’s great, let’s do it, but let’s do it in a responsible way, a responsible way that we can all afford. And we can transition that. But we can’t do it at the moment. We’ve got to be able to turn the lights on, turn the pumps on, and be able to afford.
Because you know what the biggest thing is I get out there? I talk to pensioners, in my own electorate in Warwick, and it’s cold at the moment, bloody cold. They can’t afford to put the heater on. And you know what?
(AUDIENCE MEMBER CALLS OUT INDISTINCTLY)
DAVID LITTLEPROUD: It’s got to be… It’s got to be reliable. It’s got to be reliable…
TONY JONES: Hang on. Sorry. We’re going to have to let the Minister speak so you can hear what he’s got to say.
DAVID LITTLEPROUD: Look, that’s a great aspiration. But at the moment, it’s got to be reliable, it’s got to be sustainable, and it’s got to be affordable. And we’ve got a responsibility to make sure that we do that in a responsible way. Now, we’re doing that through the NEG and working through that to make sure that we do have an energy policy that meets our international commitments but makes sure to each and every one of you, you can afford to turn on the lights – a fundamental right for each and every one of us in a developed country like this, that you shouldn’t feel afraid to turn on a heater or light at night.
TONY JONES: A quick question – we are talking about the NEG, so are you happy, personally, to put in place a mechanism tha
t future governments can use to increase the emissions targets? Because that’s the core… I think Fiona suggested that’s the case. The questioner suggested that’s should happen.
DAVID LITTLEPROUD: Well, look, the reality with energy is the market should decide. We should put in place an environment for the market to decide. That’s what we’re doing, and that’s what we should do. Because if renewables become cheaper, then they will overtake. But we’ve got to be able to provide baseload power as well…
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4871154.htm
00
what theirABC doesn’t tell viewers about audience member/questioner Meg Nielsen:
Farmers for Climate Action: Meg and Peter Nielsen Bentley Farmers
Meg has noticed big changes on her farm that are consistent with the predictions of climate science. Over the past decade and a half, since they’ve been on the property, she has noticed highly variable weather conditions when working out on the land. “Mostly in the form of unseasonable weather,” she explains. “More and more unexpectedly hot days in Spring… even October has much hotter days.”
Peter agrees. “2016 was a clear example of this. And unfortunately this heat was accompanied by long dry periods.” Meg also notes that rainfall is now extremely patchy in the region. “Instead of us all receiving a solid amount, some farmers in the area receive 60ml during a storm whilst others receive nothing.”…
“There are so many reasons why we need to transition from coal and gas to renewable energy.” – Meg Nielsen
https://twitter.com/tinlizard33
Twitter: Meg Nielsen
This is a national Climate Emergency calling for a good strong bipartisan energy policy which sets a sensible, ambitious emission reduction target to encourage further investment in renewables & a just, orderly transition from fossil fuels. Way to go!
LINKS TO ABC Q&A
https://twitter.com/tinlizard33
00
ABC’s coverage has been posted already, but here’s some more from English-language MSM only:
The Australian
Earth ‘two degrees from hothouse’
A two-degree rise in global temperatures could spark a Hothouse Earth cascade of feedbacks with terrible consequences for ecosystems, society and …
NEWS.com.au
Climate Change: Scientists warn Earth could tip into ‘hellish hothouse’
EVEN if humanity slashes greenhouse gas emissions in line with Paris climate treaty goals, the planet could overwhelm such efforts and irretrievably tip into a …
Metro UK
Earth ‘decades away’ from climate change apocalypse tipping point
Earth may only be decades away from a climatic tipping point that triggers runaway global warming and threatens the future of humanity, scientists have warned.
The Sydney Morning Herald
‘Many parts of Earth could become uninhabitable’: Study’s grim warning
Many parts of Earth could become uninhabitable for humans, with the planet at risk of entering an irreversible “hothouse” climate. That’s the alarming warning …
Gizmodo Australia
Welcome To The Future, Where The Air Is Made Of Fire And Your Beach House Is Underwater
Our incredible planet is at risk of entering a “hothouse climate” – that’s an Earth with a global average temperature of up to five degrees Celcius higher than …
FRANCE 24 English
Earth could enter permanent ‘hothouse’ state, scientists warn
The planet urgently needs to transition to a green economy because fossil fuel pollution risks pushing the Earth into a lasting and dangerous “hothouse” state, …
BBC News
Climate change: ‘Hothouse Earth’ risks even if CO2 emissions slashed
It may sound like the title of a low budget sci-fi movie, but for planetary scientists, “Hothouse Earth” is a deadly serious concept. Researchers believe we could …
Express.co.uk
Hothouse Earth: Humanity under threat as scientists predict NINE catastrophes brewing
THE EARTH will reach temperatures not fit for human survival in just a few decades, according to scientists who predict nine catastrophes are coming as part of …
Live Science
The Planet Is Dangerously Close to the Tipping Point for a ‘Hothouse Earth’
A group of scientists argue that there is threshold temperature, above which natural feedback systems that currently keep the Earth cool will begin to unravel.
Daily Mail
Runaway warming could create ‘hothouse Earth’ state and cause sea levels to rise by almost 200 FEET
Earth may be decades away from a climatic tipping point that triggers runaway global warming and threatens the future of humanity, scientists have warned.
New Scientist
Global warming may become unstoppable even if we stick to Paris target
There could be a planetary threshold beyond which the earth will keep warming even if we stop pumping out more fossil fuels – the so-called ‘Hothouse Earth’ …
The Times
Climate change may become unstoppable within decades
The Earth could be locked into unavoidable global warming even if all countries met their targets to cut emissions, a study has found.The 2015 Paris agreement …
Evening Standard
Earth could be plunged into irreversible ‘Hothouse’ state even if CO₂ emissions are slashed, scientists warn
The Earth could be just decades away from being plunged into a “Hothouse” state that threatens the future of humanity with boiling temperatures and towering …
Telegraph.co.uk
Runaway climate change could trigger ‘Hothouse Earth’ with 200ft sea level rises, warn scientists
Earth may be on a runaway trajectory towards a ‘hothouse’ climate which will see huge swathes of the planet become uninhabitable and 200ft sea level rises, …
Aljazeera
Earth at risk of tipping into hellish ‘hothouse’ conditions
The world is at risk of entering “hothouse” conditions where global average temperatures will be four to five degrees Celcius higher even if emissions reduction …
Phys.org
Planet now at risk of heading toward ‘hothouse Earth’ state
Keeping global warming to within 1.5-2 degrees C may be more difficult than previously assessed, according to researchers. An international team of scientists …
Science Daily
Earth at risk of heading towards ‘hothouse Earth’ state
An international team of scientists is showing that even if the carbon emission reductions called for in the Paris Agreement are met, there is a risk of Earth …
The Independent
Earth at risk of entering ‘hothouse’ state from which there is no return, scientists warn
In a summer marked by global heatwaves, wildfires and drought, scientists have warned that things could get considerably worse under a future scenario …
ScienceAlert
Humans Are About to Unleash an Irreversible “Hothouse Earth”, Scientists Warn
The coasts are gone. The waves crash high into what were once mountains. Many have perished, for food is scarce, and the deadly heat is inescapable.
Reuters
World at risk of heading toward irreversible ‘hothouse’ state
LONDON (Reuters) – The world is at risk of entering “hothouse” conditions where global average temperatures will be 4-5 degrees Celsius higher even if …
The Straits Times
Planet Earth at tipping point of becoming ‘Hothouse Earth’: Study
Yahoo News UK
Hothouse Earth: Humanity just ‘decades away’ from runaway climate change meltdown
Stuff.co.nz
‘Many parts of Earth could become uninhabitable’: Study’s grim warning
Climate change could leave much of the planet uninhabitable for humans.
RTÉ News
World at risk of entering ‘hothouse’ conditions
The world is at risk of entering “hothouse” conditions where global average temperatures will be 4-5C higher even if emissions reduction targets under a global …
HuffPost
Even If Emission Reduction Targets Are Met, Earth Still Heading Towards ‘Hothouse’ State
It may be very difficult or impossible to stop the whole row of dominoes from tumbling over. Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if ‘Hothouse Eart…
Sky News
Earth is ‘1C away from Hothouse State that threatens the future of humanity’
Experts have warned that uncontrollable climate change could be just decades away, rendering parts of the planet uninhabitable.
Irish Examiner
Runaway global warming could be just decades away, say scientists
Earth may be decades away from a climatic tipping point that triggers runaway global warming and threatens the future of humanity, scientists have warned.
The Hill
Study warns of looming potential for runaway global warming
A new study out Monday warns of the possibility of out-of-control global warming if humans fail to band together to fight the worst effects of climate change.
Economic Times India
Earth heading towards irreversible ‘hothouse’ state: Study
LONDON: Our planet is at the risk of entering an irreversible ‘hothouse’ condition – where the global temperatures will rise by four to five degrees and sea levels …
ITV News
Earth ‘just decades away from global warming tipping point which threatens future of humanity’
CBC News
Planet at risk of heading towards irreversible ‘hothouse’ conditions, new report says
The world is at risk of entering “hothouse” conditions where global average temperatures will be 4-5 C higher even if emissions reduction targets under a global …
Newsmax
Scientists Warn of ‘Hothouse Earth,’ 200-Foot Rise in Sea Levels
An international team of scientists claimed in a manuscript published Monday by the National Academy of Sciences, that the Earth could be moving toward a …
12
Well done for exposing the media garbage for us all to read, Pat. Full marks for patience!
11
6 Aug: UK Sun: JAWS TOO: Fears shark attacks will increase around the world as global heatwave forces beasts to hunt closer to holiday beaches
It’s not only more sharks in the shallows making Brits nervous – they can expect new arrivals of the Great White variety too
By Ged Cann
British waters may become home to the likes of Hammerheads and Great Whites as they migrate from the Spanish Coast and Mediterranean, according to Dr Ken Collins, a former administrator of the UK Shark Tagging Programme…
The underlying cause behind the predicted shift is becoming less and less disputed, with the American Meteorological Society releasing its State of the Climate report this week, confirming 2017 as one of the hottest years on record.
Sea surface temperatures also rose to levels rarely observed before…
Every winter since 2011 Florida Atlantic University researcher Stephen Kajiura has observed thousands of sharks as they swim along the Eastern Seaboard in search of warmer climates around the Florida coast.
Adapting to warmer seas, the sharks of today are choosing the likes of North Carolina, where waters are now warm enough in the winter, but not too warm as near Florida.
Similar logic was used by Dr Collins after he was commissioned by National Geographic WILD programme to produce a “shark map of Britain”…
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6953389/shark-attack-fears-global-heatwave-closer-beaches/
credit to CarbonBrief for the following lengthy anatomy of a FakeNews story – keep in mind that Murdoch is part owner of NatGeoWild! lol.
23 Jul: CarbonBrief: Daisy Dunne: Factcheck: Will climate change bring great white sharks to UK waters?
Last week, many news publications reported on “a new study” claiming that climate change could lead several shark species to move into UK waters.
For example, an article in the Daily Telegraph said that, as a result of climate change, “dangerous sharks including great whites and oceanic white-tips could be swimming off the beaches of Cornwall within the next 30 years”.
The Independent, Times, Daily Mail, Press Association, Guardian, BBC News and the i newspaper were among the outlets carrying variations of the story…
However, Carbon Brief has discovered that there was no scientific study. Instead, the news was based on the personal opinions of one shark specialist. The scientist had been approached for comment by representatives of Nat Geo Wild – a network TV channel run by National Geographic – who were promoting a series of programmes about sharks…
What happened?
The media coverage first began at one minute past midnight last Tuesday (17 July) when several outlets, including the Press Association, Daily Mail, Times, Independent, Sun, Daily Mirror and the i newspaper, published stories. The Daily Telegraph published slightly later at 6.41am.
The reason most outlets published at this time was because the story had been subject to a press embargo…
The stories all carried identical – or very similar – quotes from Dr Ken Collins, a senior research fellow within ocean and earth science at the University of Southampton. In most of the articles, Collins was described as having led “new research commissioned by Nat Geo Wild”…
A story published by BBC News later on the same day said the news came via “research from the University of Southampton”, whereas the Daily Mirror described it as originating from a “study by respected research institution National Geographic”…
Where did the stories come from?
To better understand why the coverage began, Carbon Brief has located the press release circulated to journalists via email prior to publication.
The press release – which is reproduced in full below – was created by London-based press relations company Taylor Herring on behalf of Nat Geo Wild.
The press release sought to promote “Sharkfest” – a series of programmes about sharks that aired on the TV channel from 16-22 July.
(The University of Southampton also released a “report” detailing the news. However, Carbon Brief understands that this was released after the story had first appeared in the media.)…
However, speaking to Carbon Brief, Collins says the list was created as a result of “simple speculation” and is “by no means a scientific study”. He adds:
“It’s not research. It’s opinion. I’ve looked through distribution records and used personal opinions and it is not formal peer-reviewed research.”…
Carbon Brief approached representatives of Nat Geo Wild and Taylor Herring to ask why they felt it was appropriate to describe Collins’s comments as “groundbreaking new research”. At the time of writing, they had not responded to Carbon Brief’s request for comment…
The press release shown to journalists did not include great whites in its list of 10 shark species that could migrate to UK waters as a result of climate change. Despite this, the possible arrival of great white sharks dominated the news coverage…
The Sun and the Daily Mail carry additional quotes from Collins that are not included in the press release. In both papers, Collins is quoted as saying: “It would not take much of a change in water temperature from climate change, maybe less than one degree, for them to come here.”
However, Collins tells Carbon Brief that he does not believe that climate change would cause great white sharks to the UK.
This is because great whites are already known to swim in sea temperatures similar to those currently found off the coast of the UK. He believes that, at present, the “odd one” might venture close to the UK, but, he says, “there isn’t massive shoals of them ready to eat the entire surf population of Newquay”. Collins adds:
“We don’t need climate change for great white sharks to come to us. Some of the tabloids said, ‘Dr Ken Collins said great whites are running towards us’, but I actually said the reverse. The chances of seeing them year on year are declining.”…ETC
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-will-climate-change-bring-great-white-sharks-to-uk-waters
10
I know that August in the UK is known as the ‘Silly Season’ but this is really the giddy limit! What else can they think up to try to panic the population?
20
Back when witches were burned by the thousands throughout Europe. —
Of note is that in year 1666 when months of heatwave and drought that affected most of Europe.
At that time in England, London had lain under an exceptional drought since November 1665, and the wooden buildings were tinder-dry after the long hot summer of 1666. After such an unusually hot and dry spring, temperatures in the summer of 1666 rose 1.5°C above normal (estimated), and a precipitation shortfall of 6 inches turned London’s mostly wooden dwellings into large tinderboxes awaiting a spark. The same conditions prevailed in much of northwestern Europe, giving rise to fires in scores of German cities. However the published diary writing of people like Samuel Pepys and others who survived the conflagration, such as the child Daniel Defoe (he would later write about the plagues and diseases of that time, and a first hand account of the ‘Great Storm’ of 1703), ensured the spectacular destruction of London were well documented, and it’s infamy was not overshadowed other urban fires elsewhere in the world during this time.
London however was not the only capital city where unusual drought in the mid seventeenth century produced a ‘Great Fire’ —
Moscow in 1648, after several months without rain, ‘within a few hours more than half the city inside the White Wall, and about half the city outside the wall, went up in flames’.
Large part of the new Mughal capital Shahjahanabad, aka ‘Old Delhi’, burnt down in 1662.
Istanbul suffered more, with numerically more devastating fires in the seventeenth century than in any other period of its history: one notable blaze was in 1660 (again after a prolonged drought) when it burned down 280,000 houses and several public buildings.
Major blazes also regularly devastated Edo, the largest city in Japan, notably the Meireki fire of 1657 – which, like those in Moscow in 1648, Istanbul in 1660 and London in 1666, broke out after an abnormal droughts.
[Source: wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London and http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/londonfire.htm
and ‘Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century.’ by Geoffrey Parker.]
All these happened during the LIA.
And yes by December 1666, London like much of Europe was in the grip of a very cold winter, with severe frosts and ice over many European rivers including much of London’s Thames.
10
Well it’s been a while since I posted here so I thought I would check in and let you know how it’s going up here in the corn belt of the USA. This summer here in central Indiana has been pretty typical except for high precipitation and more persistent high humidity than most. With the highest temps of the summer past us now we never hit 100 F (38 C) this year but had quite a few days in the 90s with high humidity. When you look at a general temperature anomaly map for June and July it will show higher than normal temps but that is because the night time lows have been running 8-10 F above average due to all the water vapor. Of course those same conditions will bring another bumper crop this year for corn, soybean, and tomato crops. Indiana sweet corn is fantastic and the first Indiana cantaloupes are just reaching market and are as fantastic.
We’ve had a few good thunderstorms but tornado incidence and EF ratings could very well set an all time low record. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html
Elsewhere in this part of the world the California wildfires getting so much press were totally predictable and are nothing unusual. A wet spring brought lots of growth and a dry summer dried it out and so there was plenty of fuel. All predicted in the late winter early spring by Joe Bastardi and the guys at https://www.weatherbell.com/
And those guys have now lowered their Atlantic hurricane projection for the 2nd time this year already. This despite projecting a lower than average ACE in their first projection. Near record low SSTs in the MDR (Main Development Region), heavy and persistent dust coming off the coast of Africa, and all indications being an easterly flow coming out of the Pacific will strengthen all weigh against an active season this year. Best region for development is close in along the eastern seaboard of the US.
As for you down under? Winter sure as heck ain’t done with you yet from what I’m seeing. Looks like you’ve got a blast of polar air and stormy weather coming in this Saturday or Sunday that will drop your temps well below average. Don’t feel bad. Long range forecasts for my area are indicating a colder and wetter winter than we’ve had in some years now. But for now I’m making the most of it while I can. On vacation and will grill every dinner for the rest of the week if I can fit it in between rain showers.
21
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index reflects an argued 50-80 year pattern of North Atlantic coupled ocean-atmosphere variability. It is associated with changes in rainfall over North America and Europe, the frequency of North American droughts, and the intensity of North Atlantic hurricanes. It may mask or exaggerate signals of global change, though the argument that it is a separate signal from the forced global change signal is disputed.
https://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/amo.php
10
You make a big mistake by not appreciating the role of the stratosphere in climate change. The increase in GCR causes an increase in ionization in the lower stratosphere, depending on the geomagnetic field. This leads to a local temperature increase in the lower stratosphere at high latitudes. It will increase stratospheric intrusions in winter and spring periods.
“Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.”
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
Total ozone in the southern hemisphere.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00969/ii4m04q8lrop.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
01
Because there is strong GCR radiation, the winter in the northern hemisphere will also be dry and cold.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
01
“The increase in GCR causes an increase in ionization in the lower stratosphere, depending on the geomagnetic field”.
Not really. Most of the action takes place in the ionosphere. It’s irrelevant anyone because no one has ever demonstrated GCRs affecting weather or climate.
00
You’re wrong.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
01
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
n + 14/7N→ 14/6C + p
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
The rate of 14C production can be modelled[12] [13] and is between 16,400 and 18,800 atoms 14C m−2s−1, which agrees with the global carbon budget that can be used to backtrack,[14] but attempts to directly measure the production rate in situ were not very successful. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field.
11
Do not write about something that you have no idea about.
01
“Do not write about something that you have no idea about.”
You just busted my irony meter right there.
00
“The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
01
[…] The rise of Climate superstition: Droughts, heatwaves, random noise is “proof” of anything you l… ~ JoNova points out how, by cherry-picking facts, climatists can make any brief weather phenomenon at all fit their pet theory ~ Now, thanks to the discovery of Unscience, any noisy, random short data is fair game to be declared undeniable climate change […] In terms of scientific data analysis we don’t get that many droughts or six-day-August-heatwaves to analyze. They’re complex phenomena caused by multiple factors and we only have short records. This makes them ideal to be oversold to hapless folk as a “sign” of climate change. […]
00