JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Another expert climate professor *** becomes outspoken skeptic

Look, another climate expert the BBC won’t be interviewing

Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books. He is just retired, and finally able to speak his mind. [Updated] …though he’s been a climate professor and a skeptic for some years, somehow the media didn’t beat a path to his door. He commented below that rather than staying silent til his retirement he has been skeptical for many years and was free to say so at his university (such a rare thing, how many other profs can we say the same about?). His University of Wisconsin  site is here, and his statement here.]

The overblown and misleading issue of global warming

Washington Times

Anastasios Tsonis, Photo, Skeptic, "Denier".

Anastasios Tsonis

The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life.

Lives are not at risk, but careers sure seem to be. Not medieval times but perhaps modi-eval?

So how many of the 97% of climate science believers are actually skeptics? Even after they retire there are lots of reasons for them to stay quiet. [Obviously, not the case for Prof Tsonis].

He’s willing to debate

Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.

All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics.

The models were wrong. If they can’t explain the pause, they don’t understand the cause. (h/t HockeySchtick for that phrase.)

All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.

My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.

Good on him for speaking out. Shame he didn’t feel he could when he was employed.

h/t Climate Depot and Pat.

 

***Edited headline to remove the incorrect “retires and”. Thanks to Prof Tsonis for commenting:

 

Anastasios Tsonis

For the record, I would like to state that the header “PROFESSOR RETIRES AND BECOMES A CLIMATE SCEPTIC” is wrong and misleading. I did not wait to retire in order to express my opinions. I am expressing my views for many years and while I was employed. In fact, my article in Washington Times is a summary of my “Statement” posted in my website years ago. My university never interfered with my research.

This is exactly what I meant in the article by “ignorant people abusing the internet”.

I would hope that this mistake is corrected.

Anastasios Tsonis

00

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (132 votes cast)
Another expert climate professor *** becomes outspoken skeptic, 9.5 out of 10 based on 132 ratings

605 comments to Another expert climate professor *** becomes outspoken skeptic

  • #

    Good on him for speaking out. Shame he didn’t feel he could when he was employed.

    He can forget about any post-retirement jobs now!

    321

    • #

      Not many Galileos or Giordano Brunos are in science. Science is not only about a sharp mind, but also about courage.

      100

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      FijiDave, friends send me stuff: Confessions of a climate change sceptic, 8 Jan 2019.

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-country/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=12178329

      “But remember models are not evidence. Models can be useful tools if they accurately predict the empirical (actual) evidence and none of the 90 odd climate models developed by scientists to date, have predicted the 20 years hiatus in warming that we are now experiencing. The normal practice in science in such circumstances is to set the models aside.” Dr Doug Edmeades, MscHons, ONZM (Services to Agriculture), is an independent soil scientist based in Hamilton.

      This appears to be a re-run of an earlier article from last year – Doug Edmeades: Why I’m a global warming sceptic.

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/opinion/100489407/doug-edmeades-why-im-a-global-warming-sceptic

      Speed-reading just a few of the comments shows this country is still divided between the religious/cult/faithful believers and the more pragmatic evidence-based realists. Checked out The Remarkables Ski Area webcam (Queenstown) this arvo and whaddaya know – snowflakes wafting out of a storm leaden sky. Ah yes, summer!

      90

      • #

        Thanks, Greg

        As I no longer read Stuff due to its egregious untruths, I missed Doug Edmeades’ Opinion Piece, which is a courageous move on Doug’s part. One doesn’t need to know any science, or indeed to know anything at all about the climate to judge whether it is warming or not. One just needs to read the slimy, vicious and ignorant comments on his article to know who his correct.

        I am familiar with Doug’s stance – he had a very good article in the penultimate NZFarmer edition of March 19 2018.

        As for snow in Queenstown, I am familiar with the vagaries of summer weather there, having been born there. A “place” from the airport roundabout is named after my father. I remember snow on the ground on Boxing Day in the 50′s.

        50

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          Cool – literally and figuratively. I, too, have a ‘Place’ on Q-town Hill and a ‘mountain’ out the back of The Remarks off Coal Pit Saddle with my father’s surname attached to it, however it was named after an early 1900s fire-and-brimstone preacher in town from a different clan. We also had a White Christmas in 2002 – not to town-level but the tops were all coated in fresh after a summer southerly snap.

          https://www.metservice.com/skifields/mt-hutt

          And what do you know, it snowed on Mt Hutt today, 14 January 2019. The webcams were still frozen, covered in ice/sleet/snow last time I checked (6 pm NZ-time). Their still images update regularly, so there may be a frame of ™catastrophic carbon-weirding fallout powder™ coating the summit. As for Herald/Stuff/etc. I avoid like the plague as well, yet they’re a reference when they DO cover a voice from the wilderness or snow in summer, which, really, is no change at all.

          20

    • #
      Anastasios Tsonis

      For the record, I would like to state that the header “PROFESSOR RETIRES AND BECOMES A CLIMATE SCEPTIC” is wrong and misleading. I did not wait to retire in order to express my opinions. I am expressing my views for many years and while I was employed. In fact, my article in Washington Times is a summary of my “Statement” posted in my website years ago. My university never interfered with my research.

      This is exactly what I meant in the article by “ignorant people abusing the internet”.

      I would hope that this mistake is corrected.

      Anastasios Tsonis

      20

      • #

        Professor Tsonis, I will correct it immediately and add your comment to the post. Thank you.

        Perhaps we can add a link to your site as well?

        Jo

        40

  • #
    Walter Paul

    Good for him, although he looks freakishly like the actor Hans Conried.

    71

  • #
    ivan

    It has never been about the science, it has always been about the money. Pay a mediocre climatologist enough and he/she will produce research papers supporting what you want, even the older and wiser ones will eventually comply to enable them to keep the job they studied for

    The UN has enough money to buy governments and scientists to spout their Agenda 21 and 30 world government aspirations and everyone else suffers.

    544

    • #
      Tom O

      It’s not about “the money,” it’s always been about world government and population reduction. When you put it in perspective, that is the only possible conclusion, especially in light of a cooling world as opposed to a warming world.

      332

      • #
        Dennis

        It’s both.

        362

        • #
          el gordo

          Correct, its being politically correct to avoid abuse from work colleagues and family, and of course the house mortgage.

          193

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            The good news is, the Chinese have made progress in plasma-based power generation.

            Basically its a whacking great superheated toroidal plasma that runs super hot.

            I guess that will make the lefties heads explode – clean and fairly limitless power, not beholden to any left wing temper tantrums that usually result in power station shut downs.

            51

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              Speaking of power generation…air con is slowly killing the world….we must not give people electricity….tsk…how dare they….

              Another economist in the science world….

              https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-12/rising-demand-for-air-conditioning-alarms-climate-change-experts/10710956

              “Laszlo Varro, chief economist for the International Energy Agency (IEA), told a recent conference of greenhouse gas scientists in Melbourne that Asia was experiencing an energy transformation unlike anything in history.

              “The overwhelming majority of electricity-demand growth comes 10 years after you provide electricity to the village,” Mr Varro said.

              “You provide electricity to the village and then the kids go to school. Then they work in a factory and they buy a refrigerator and a television.”

              60

              • #
                AndyG55

                Let the ABC (and the IEA) be the first to disconnect its air conditioning.

                NOPE…. its ok for them, because they are “IMPORTANT” !!

                112

        • #
          The Cob

          It is both. But considering half the west has a contagion which forces them to virtue signal; leftism is also a driving force behind this and is being used by the IPCC et al expertly.

          20

      • #
        sophocles

        TomO said:

        it’s always been about world government and population reduction.

        … and along the way, the destruction of the Nations of the West: United Kingdom, Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand.

        50

      • #
        RoHa

        When Margaret Thatcher pushed the idea into international politics, it was about gaining credibility for herself, and cracking down on the miner’s unions. She is responsible for this mess.

        https://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

        (Yes, she changed her mind later, when it was too late.)

        10

    • #

      He didn’t lie. Many references to what he said at Climate Etc.

      Yes, Ivan, the UN Brundtlant Commission and a new mind virus born, ‘Susstainable Development’ and an invasive micro-control project, Agenda 21 to bring it about. https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2018/11/01/55th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/

      200

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        I love that new word: Susstainable.

        KK

        70

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        “Agenda 21, is part of the design to transform land from public ownership to large tracts of no-go wilderness managed by technocrats, each eco-area protected by buffer zones and with designated corridors linking human habitation areas. In the United States, in 1993, the Clinton Administration adopted the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project Plan and here it is, easily available on the internet.”

        A.k.a “Rewilding”. Some think hurricane Katrina and New Orleans was the first real rewilding “hit” on a western nation. New Orleans was left to fester, and I believe some of its been “rewilded” by lack of rebuilding. In Australia, we have mountain cattlemen kicked out of parks, chunks of coat turned into marine parks ( to encourage charks in close to scare punters out of the water ) etc. Its all about the New Age stupidity of favouring the animals over humans. Interstingly, from a Biblical perspective, huamns are *always* deemed higher than the animals, with the new eco religion, its the other way. Just another way the eco lunacy is the UN-driven planetary cancer that just keeps on growing….

        150

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Good article Beth

        10

    • #
      glen Michel

      Look I have to say it, they are “flat earthers” those who believe in climate catastrophism. Henny Penny’s.Union of concerned scientists . It’s WORSE than we thought!

      130

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        If the earth is flat and it tilts, the water will slosh to one end and create a form of sea level rise…..

        60

  • #
    Tom O

    ” All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). ”

    This is the truth, and WHY “climate models” do not work. In order to “model” something, be it in oils, acrylics, marble or computer code, first you have to have a very good understanding of the thing you are attempting to model. You cannot model something you have to make “guesstimates” at in order to make it function. What you have is a simulation, then, not a model, and it will reflect exactly what you expect it to, not necessarily what you are attempting to – that is, unless you are attempting to have it reflect a distortion and not reality in the first place. The difference can then be as drastic as comparing a da Vinci to a Picasso.

    393

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      I first read that “a good scientist is always sceptical” (my quote may be inaccurate, but not the meaning) in a business magazine on a flight to the US in the 1970s. And sorry, which one escapes me.
      No, I’m not a scientist, but appreciate its strengths, and have kept this principle up front in my thinking. It was reinforced some years later when I discovered Edward de Bono’s six thinking hats, of which the entire set is rarely used in public discussion.
      Many thanks to Professor Tsonis for speaking out, and for his getting published in any media.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      250

    • #
      Bobl

      Yes, I put it this way, in a computer program I can simulate anti-gravity or teleportation that doesn’t mean these things are real.

      91

    • #
      Don Edwards

      Yes, you CAN model things you don’t completely understand – but you need to remember that doing so does not grant understanding, and that the model is not the thing modeled. It can be WRONG. In which case maybe you go back and adjust your guesstimates – and/or make structural changes in the model – until it handles what HAS happened and gives correct-so-far answers.

      Then you wait a while and see if it KEEPS giving correct answers. Correct being defined as accurately predicting (in advance) what’s going to happen in the real world – not what the politicians and grant committees want to hear.

      You don’t make predictions of what’s going to happen in the real world, based on the model, until it has a significant track record of being RIGHT without further adjustment.

      That’s how scientists make and use models of things they don’t understand.

      Someone who makes a model and then assumes it’s correct, without that validation, may be a Ph.D in climatology, may be a professor of the subject, may have a gazillion research papers published in reputable journals, but they are NOT a scientist.

      00

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    According to warming proponents there is only CO2 initiated Global Warming.

    Unfortunately this theory is a scientific Joke.

    Human Origin CO2 doesn’t Heat the atmosphere in any discernible way.

    Then we have the urban heat island effect: i.e. The energy we put in the atmosphere from direct combustion in cars, industry and electricity use. The residual “heat” created is so small that every day we must pray that the Sun rises.

    If the Sun don’t rise we will all be frozen within 48 hours.

    The whole climate scare is unscientific, political manipulation.

    KK

    565

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Interesting model you’re proposing Keith. You seem to be saying that non human origin C02 does heat the atmosphere (here I’m assuming that you are referring to the greenhouse effect), but Human C02 does not. How does that work?

      940

      • #
        el gordo

        The increasing CO2 is directly related to out gassing from the warm oceans and human induced CO2 is minuscule in comparison. Not that it makes any difference to world temperatures either way.

        314

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Sorry not quite true.
          Measurements of carbon isotopes and falling oxygen in the atmosphere show that rising carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels and cannot be coming from the ocean. from New Scientist

          From Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report.
          Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

          The key word is cumulative here

          952

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Re paid blogstalker 4.1.1.1

            Rubbish

            KK

            255

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              then prove it.

              620

              • #
                AndyG55

                You said it , pftuz.. of course its rubbish.

                About 10-15% of the highly beneficial, shall we call it “ENHANCED” atmospheric CO2 id possibly from human origin.

                Probably far less.

                The extra human CO2 is NOT cumulative, it is absorbed by the growing and expanding biosphere, just like any other CO2.

                326

              • #
                AndyG55

                Furthermore, if humans are 100% responsible, then thanks to China, India and many other countries building long -lived coal fired power stations (well over 1000 planned and being built, with a 40% or so increase in global emissions,) then human global CO2 emissions are guaranteed to continue to rise for at least the next 40-50 years.

                And guess what..

                There is absolutely NOTHING the AGW anti-CO2 agenda can do about it :-) :-)

                337

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                PF, what part of CAGW or ‘climate change’ is a (provable) SCAM dont you get?

                82

          • #
            Bill In Oz

            Peter that’s the IPPC ideological line to all the Greenist zealots…

            But there is lots of scientific evidence that this is NOT & was NEVER so.

            Here is one BLACK SWAN showing this is the recent study of Greenland.!

            It is peer reviewed research of ice cores. And surprise surprise Greenland has been cooling for the last 7,000 years while CO2 levels have been increasing…

            Look at the chart in the link. It matches temperatures for the last 9,000 years against CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And for the last 7000 years the temperature on the Greenland Ice cap has gradually been getting cooler.

            Simultaneously the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as scientifically measured in ice cores have been rising

            CONCLUSION : CO2 does not make the Earth “Warmer” …

            Now isn’t that WONDERFUL NEWS ! We can all go back to living our normal lives without being worried about a global warming catastrophe.

            It’s just normal changing weather folks.

            We don’t have to feel guilty about & close down our reliable cheap coal fired electricity plants to save the planet !!

            We don’t have to subsidise expensive unreliable wind turbines or solar panels either !

            Here is a report of that research :https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/01/08/greenland-is-way-cool/

            305

            • #
              Bill In Oz

              PS Peter Fitzroy, I doubt you will read this or look at the link..
              It might just be too challenging to cope with psychologically..

              But the evidence exists all the same.

              now that’s Science mate.

              275

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Bill,

                Matching that northern chill, the oceans have dropped, let me repeat that, Dropped by 6 metres or so in that same period of 7,000 years.

                Is it just possible that the cooling poles secure and lock in more rain water as ice so that sea levels fall.

                Oh my goodness!
                Of course it wasn’t a straight drop, there were two oscillations on the way down.

                The amazing thing is that our current situation for the last few hundred years has been the most stable of the last 7,000 years wrt sea levels.

                Making a big issue of sea level variations of a millimetre here and there is scientifically farcical: the world really is a Big place.

                But then that’s climate science, unable to blend with reality.

                KK

                215

              • #
                Bill In Oz

                Good grief..I put up scientific evidence and get 2 red thumbs !

                What’s up you two ? Can’t you cope with science ?

                172

              • #
                sophocles

                Bill in Oz said:

                Good grief..I put up scientific evidence and get 2 red thumbs !
                What’s up you two ? Can’t you cope with science ?

                Nope, they’re the Science Deniers.

                It must make their pointy little heads spin …

                91

            • #

              That Paper by Rud Istvan, too inconvenient re millimetre measurements on a bumpy sea. But not to worry, our susstainable guardians have got it down pat. They rely on an oft repeated massaging effect on their audience, product of a dumbed-down by design education system, and they rely on their gender campaign, sidelining the inconvenient criticism of obstreperous white male critics, often engineers, and quashing sceptics in general. Quash!

              193

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              a temperature anomaly is not a temperature record -it is the variation from a baseline. If the paper had used a rolling baseline (of say around 30 years) instead of just one, pciked seemingly at random I might give the paper more thought. As it is this is just playing with numbers, there is no science in it.

              528

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yep the AGW scammers always choose the period around 1970 or just after, which just happens to be the coldest period since the LIA, especially in the NH.

                It is just playing with numbers, but its all that the AGW scammers have to play with.

                283

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                You CANT average the earths temperature!

                102

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                theRealUniverse; This is true. It’s a statistical construct that bears little meaning whatsoever.

                You can’t average an ice continent with a tropical continent and come up with anything meaningful. It is junk, pure and simple, junk.

                81

            • #
              Bill In Oz

              For some weird nerdish reason beyond my capacity to understand then link I posted no longer works ( ACCESS FORBIDDEN !! )

              But this one does https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/08/greenland-is-way-cool/

              30

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘…because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.’

            The sinks have picked up a notch to cope with the minuscule extra and I only noticed the other day that continental shelves are also major sinks.

            150

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              I wish that my lawn would stop sequestering CO2 so energetically.

              He obviously knows nothing about chemical reactions.

              KK

              120

              • #
                Another Ian

                Or lawn mowing apparently

                70

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Unfortunately Ian, the chemical mixing of grass, CO2 and water is one of those reactions where extra ingredient, CO2, causes the reaction to go faster.

                Forgot the technical name for the situation.

                KK

                60

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. “

            RUBBISH, they are restoring the proper balance.

            Returning accidentally sequestered and much needed carbon back into the short term carbon cycle.

            And the biosphere is LUVING it. ! :-)

            204

          • #
            AndyG55

            “because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.”

            What a load of RUBBISH.

            The biosphere is expanding rapidly, 15% mass increase over 20 or so years iirc.

            What makes you think that the biosphere, which for too long was on bare survival rations, is not capable of eating one square meal a day. Far better if it could get even more, like 700ppm to 1000ppm

            Why do you hate plant life so much that you wish them back into “struggle for survival” levels of atmospheric CO2.

            Go for it China, India, Asia, Germany….

            … keep pumping that PLANT FOOD out as fast as you can, the world needs it. :-)

            204

          • #
            el gordo

            The carbon sinks are working properly again, which by coincidence kicked off at the start of the hiatus.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21068

            90

          • #
            peter

            Fitzy,

            Australian Prof. Murray Selby has completely demolished your claims. See a video of his talk in Germany from last year:
            <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtIgMftbUuw&feature=youtu.be

            91

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Jeez – he has been kicked out of a lot of universities. Still an interesting talk though

              528

              • #
                AndyG55

                Because he knew too much,

                FAR more than any of the AGW apostles could comprehend

                His understanding of the atmospheric system was too great and his maths too solid..

                Again.. You are INCAPABLE of showing any of his science to be wrong.

                174

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Still an interesting talk though”

                WAY beyond anything you could counter or even comprehend.

                114

              • #
                David Maddison

                Peter Fitzroy – do you work for Big Green?

                61

              • #
                AndyG55

                I suspect he is basically unemployable,

                .. so yes, probably working for Big Green.

                53

              • #
                Greebo

                Getting kicked out of universities in this ‘climate’ is a badge of honour he should wear with pride. Going against the ‘groupthink’.

                71

              • #
                peter

                Fitzy,
                24 minutes from my post on Prof. Murray Salby to your reply? His video went for 1.5 hours. So obviously you never even watched it. Now that’s interesting.

                81

          • #
            tom0mason

            Peter Fitzroy,

            1.Global warming mediated by CO2 was identified as a ‘problem’ by the UN politicians.

            It is not a problem. As the planet comes out of the LIA it should warm up. Both defrosting land, and the oceans should release CO2 during this time. It appears to be quite normal and both the planet’s temperature and CO2 levels are well within historical norms.

            2. The UN set-up the UN-IPCC (a political organization) to examine the ‘problem’ of human caused global warming via increased CO2 levels.

            The warming is not a problem and increased levels of CO2 are not a problem. The UN-IPCC and it’s adherents are a grave problem on the world as they actively seek to slow, or even destroy, Western democracy’s industrial base, and its expansion into less developed nations, by politics and misapplied and unfounded scientific suppositions.

            There is no observed scientific evidence of CO2 being a problem gas in the atmosphere at current levels, or even at double the current level.
            There does not have to be an alternative to CO2 global warming supposition as the basic tenet of the idea is wrong — planet-wide warming is NOT a problem! It is beneficial to life, as is the rising CO2 levels.

            202

          • #
            Bobl

            Wrong in at least two places, measurement shows that only half the emitted CO2 accumulated over a year, the rest is absorbed, This demonstrates CO2 has a half life of 1 year, after 5 years the biosphere has absorbed more than 95%.
            It matters not whether the CO2 is human origin or not next accumulation is the only thing that counts.

            If we were to hold human emissions constant the biosphere would expand (global greening) to absorb all of it in 5 years.

            It’s just as well because all your scads of solar panels and windmills are making so much more of it than coal fired power.

            93

          • #
            Jonesy

            BS! I am sure Peter knows where to find data on the nuclear test induced increase of C14 isotopes above the background level. If he did, he would see a nice little curve wrt time that shows how quickly these isotopes have been absorbed by the environment. No other proof is needed to show the “Half Life” of the CO2 cycle. The partial pressure of CO2 could well be the best proxy we have for the temperature or energy level of the world’s oceans. Henry’s law does rule.

            80

          • #
            theRealUniverse

            I wouldnt trust New Scientist as far as I could throw it. (not far, I used to read it in the staff common room)

            70

          • #
            tom0mason

            Peter Fitzroy,

            The UN-IPCC version of the cAGW paradigm is unfalsifiable and so is not science. It is just a political movement using sciency language, poor climate models and lots of chutzpah to cow its opponents.
            This pseudoscience is the UN’s tool to ensure their ‘third-way socialism’ of transforming the world with ‘sustainable development’ and 2030 Agenda is foisted on all.

            80

      • #
        NuThink

        Peter – Note that Kinky Keith said

        in any discernible way

        113

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Rubbish.

        KK

        125

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Re 4.1.1.1

          More Rubbish.

          As Andy has pointed out this poster appears to be intent on being a Serial Verbal Ejaculator of Pseudo Climate Science.

          A long time ago there was the big T who spent a lot of time here in preparation, so that was a vote of confidence in the effectiveness of Jo’s blog.
          Similarly, the fact that this poster, PF, sees the blog as a serious threat to the scam is renewed confirmation of its effectiveness.
          We can learn a lot from visitors, the only thing is that we post here because we believe in a better world and the interferons are getting paid $50 an hour.

          Drones, operating under the direction of head office.

          KK

          195

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Then prove it.

            I’ve been following this blog for years, from around the time of the BEST Temperature analysis.

            In that time I’ve noticed that common tropes like C02 does not cause warming are presented as fact, but are never backed up with anything plausible.

            Also in that time, I’ve noticed that rather than defend your positions with facts, you quickly move to name calling, ascribing motives, and insulting my intelligence. If that is what passes for debate in your fantasy world fine, but don’t shoot the messenger.

            931

            • #
              AndyG55

              Yes, we KNOW you are incapable of backing up the myth of atmospheric CO2 warming by anything plausible.

              No need to keep reminding us, pftuz

              195

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Rubbish III

              KK

              BSc(Met).
              Metallurgy with substantial courses in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. Minor coursework in Geology and Electrical Engineering. Major coursework in Modeling.

              BSc.
              Psychology, majoring in Psychbiology and Neuroscience.

              153

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                BSc (Biology) Grad Dip in Applied Science, Ten years as a Scientist.

                What proof are you offering in defence of the assertion that C02 does not cause warming?

                721

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor pftuz,

                … still totally empty of any scientific evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2

                Just empty bluster and mindless brain-washed rhetoric.

                So sad !!

                136

              • #
                Mark D.

                peter fitzroy, are you really interested in and willing to listen to opposing views?

                123

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                PF re what proof.

                1. UV from the Sun hits ground/water and is immediately degraded.
                2. Some of this degraded energy is removed to space by conduction and convection of the atmosphere.
                3. The low grade energy remaining can be drawn from the ground as IR which can be absorbed by water and CO2. This energy cannot be “trapped” by water or CO2 because the now, over energized molecules, are surrounded by other atmospheric gases and the system must Immediately Equilibrate. This is a not negotiable point of physics and gas laws.

                In both cases, Conduction and IR absorption, the hotter expanded, less dense parcel of gas Must rise and take the energy closer to its final destination:
                that great heat sink in the sky.

                The action of water and CO2 as greenhouse absorbers has no discernible effect on the daily return of solar energy to space.

                If that process wasn’t there, it’s job is done just as well by conduction, convection and direct movement of IR upwards to space.

                Very basic physics.

                KK

                193

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                Peter Fitzroy asks:

                What proof are you offering in defence of the assertion that C02 does not cause warming?

                You say you’re a scientist. If true, you should know that since it is you who asserts the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis it’s for you to provide the evidence.

                And until you do so the Null hypothesis applies.

                Just remember your science method. That is: in science the hypothesis must explain all (repeat all) observed data. The CAGW hypothesis does not achieve that hurdle.

                I challenge you to show the evidence that man-made CO2 (man-made and natural) increases global average temperature exclusive of all other variables.

                193

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Just remember your science method. “

                I very much doubt he ever learnt anything about the scientific method.

                Just how to blindly “believe”

                It really is Borg type stuff we are getting from him.

                But it is funny to watch, and to egg him on to dig deeper and deeper. :-)

                125

            • #
            • #
              Jonesy

              Henry’s Law, nuclear test C14 absorption..EXPLAIN!

              32

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Prove it:

              OK. This is most likely big T , one of our graduates.

              http://www.bze.org.au/tristan-edis-editor-climate-spectator-120728/

              And all you’re getting is $50 an hour. Still, not bad.

              KK

              52

            • #
              The Cob

              As a scientist, and long time reader, I’ve found people like you follow the scam like a religion. You no longer even pretend to follow the scientific method. You blatantly try to prove your hypothesis instead of disproving it. If you did, you would find what we find.

              30

      • #
        AndyG55

        No that is NOT what he is saying, stop your deceitful word twisting.

        You have yet to provide any evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

        You know you cannot, so you slither and slime your way around admitting that fact.

        You are a true AGW empty vassal.

        The only person insulting your intelligence, is YOU, exposing your lack of any with your every post.

        145

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Andy I’ve provided links everytime you issue this challenge, and yet you never ever return the favour. Proof please.

          524

          • #
            AndyG55

            Yawn !

            ZERO evidence, pftuz.

            No links anywhere on this thread.

            IPCC is NOT evidence of anything except the political agenda.

            216

            • #
              AndyG55

              No links on the last 4 topics either.

              You seem to have been hallucinating or just having another nightmare about NON-warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.

              The CO2 GHE has never been observed or measured anywhere on this planet or any other.

              It is a MYTH.

              Waiting. :-)

              166

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              you could try the link posted by El Gordo,

              or

              https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html

              it would be easier to go to the IPCC reports but you, with your bias, will not look at them

              721

              • #
                AndyG55

                No measurements there, just assumption driven model and baseless AGW rhetoric from the AGW scammers-in-chief.

                Basically everything in that little piece of propaganda has been proven incorrect, by measurements.

                Seems you haven’t a clue what “empirical” means.

                206

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Prove it

                622

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao.

                says poor little ZERO-evidence pftuz.

                You just keep proving me correct by your ineptitude..

                Thank you. :-)

                176

              • #
                el gordo

                In some people’s minds its a question of sensitivity.

                https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/03/reconstructing-a-dataset-of-observed-global-temperatures-1950-2016-from-human-and-natural-influences/

                Just scroll down and cherry pick, and always check the comments for clarification.

                112

              • #
                AndyG55

                Seriously though, only a complete and absolute scientific nincompoop would think that model results from models based on the erroneous assumption of CO2 warming, were actual “evidence”

                DOH !!!

                126

              • #
                el gordo

                If my client CO2 is to be acquitted, then we’ll need to find the real culprit.

                ‘Solar activity very clearly predicts that there won’t be any global warming until at least 2035. That will make for a 30-year long Pause that is incompatible with humans being responsible for most of the warming since 1950. If low solar activity can stop warming on its tracks, it is obvious that it also contributed to the warming when it was high.’

                Javier in comments at JC.

                110

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Peter Fitzroy:

                I have looked at the IPCC reports – the scientific part, not the Summary for Policymakers – and they aren’t very convincing with all sorts of “might” “could” “projected etc.

                Perhaps we could change the target slightly to known cases.
                During the last interglacial (Eemian) about 125,000 years ago the world was much warmer than at present. Sea levels were at least 6 metres above current levels (indicating many melted glaciers), and there were lions, elephants, giraffes and hippos in the Thames Valley (from fossils) and rhinoceros (plain not hairy) in Yorkshire. Yet the CO2 level from the ice core measurements was 280ppm.

                The old capital of Norway (in medieval times) was Trondheim. The Cathedral was something in 1977 even before restoration. Its location and building surely indicates a reasonably sized population with enough spare time i.e. not subsistence farmers struggling to stay alive. Archeological evidence indicates that wheat was grown there (near Trondheim) and with much extra land as the tree line was 300 metres above the 1970 level.
                Yet the CO2 level (from ice cores) was no higher than 285ppm.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidaros_Cathedral#History

                Perhaps you would explain what caused that warming because it wasn’t CO2.

                162

              • #
                Slithers

                PF at last I thought a LINK, but then I went there and its just propaganda, no science, not even a theory just someone spouting off in support of the IPCC line.
                I had felt a little sympathy for you, but no longer.
                You are an IPCC stooge!

                71

          • #
            robert rosicka

            The proof you have Fitz is that something has to be causing warming so it has to be Co2 , or so your masters say and that’s the science you refer to and your happy with that .
            So Co2 goes to court charged with grievous planet assault with intent and the only witness says he never saw Co2 do it but it must have been him because we think it should , could , maybe have been him .
            The judge is not going to like that very much .

            203

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              By your leave, robert, it was Keith’s post about C02, take him to court instead

              716

              • #
                AndyG55

                You are the one making baseless, scientifically unsupported claims about warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.

                It is up to YOU to present your empirical evidence.

                So far, that is totally lacking

                136

              • #
                The Cob

                Overruled! I find you in contempt of science

                20

          • #
            AndyG55

            ” Proof please.”

            I have said that there is no empirical evidence for warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.

            By your inability to produce any, you keep proving me correct.

            Thanks :-)

            Keep digging.. Its funny. :-)

            125

          • #

            No matter how beautiful a model. if it doesn’t match observations it’s wro-ong.

            A little history of science change. Richard Lindzen, in his paper, ‘Climate Science: is it currently designed to answer questions?’ (2008) looks at reasons, why climate science won’t, and does not, seek to describe Nature faithfully…namely, as a consequence of 20th century politicization of science generally, and of climate science modelling specifically. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

            And Professors Ross McKitrick, Judith Curry papers, McKitrick detailed analysis papers on MBH98 construction of a Hockey Stick that very selective data and flawed methodology, Judith Curry 2016/11/12 Climate Models for Lawyers. problems of uncertainty of model structure, parametizations and initial conditions and those ad hoc addustments to mask the underling deficiency. Most damming of them, argues Judith Curry, coupling of two chaotic non-linear systems, atmosphere and ocean – oh my!

            140

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Very good point. But even by being wrong a model has a use.

              323

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao..

                Yep, if you have the intelligence, you can learn where the model is wrong.

                If you refuse to learn, the model has no purpose whatsoever… hence, we get climate models.

                164

              • #
                AndyG55

                oops, should have said “no scientific purpose whatsoever”

                Great for baseless propaganda and nonsense projections, though. ;-)

                144

              • #
                tom0mason

                Peter Fitzroy

                It must be nice for people like you to believe that their CO2 supposition and all it’s political ramifications are so true, especially as there has been so little observed atmospheric warming, or any of the the much professed impending doom they screeched about. After 40 years you would think there would be something of worth to what they predicted. But no there’s not.
                There’s no skepticism in you, or many other cAGW, Climate Change™ ‘dangerous CO2 warming’ advocates, for like you, they truly believe they and their CO2 suppositions are correct :-) All this despite history and the reality of observations.
                Even after 40 years of no dire climate calamity, there’s just evidence of the usual variable weather.
                All the political maneuvering of the UN-IPCC is just wrong, and it’s as highly variable as their conjecture about the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 levels, built as it is from a failed supposition that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are somehow ‘dangerous’ to the planet.

                However as the solar minimum progresses it is quite likely all this UN inspired expensive, flaky, and unsustainable boondoggles will be seen as nought but expensive political mischief. Though these schemes (wind and solar power, etc) are futile, they have been (for some) highly profitable. But then again the UN has always found deluded ways of profiting when tilting at windmills.

                162

              • #
                MatrixTransform

                biologist’s models are exempt from Laws of Thermodynamics maybe?

                70

              • #
                Jonesy

                IF the IPCC was correct with their belief of CO2 remaining and increasing…EVERY LAST MOLECULE OF NUCLEAR TEST CREATED C14 WOULD STILL BE IN THE ATMOSPHERE! Explain!

                70

              • #
                Greebo

                But even by being wrong a model has a use.

                Yep. It can prove itself to be wrong.

                10

              • #

                Build on rock, (objective)
                or on shifting sands, (subjective)
                search for what is true – or jest
                for what’s expedient to your purpose.

                20

      • #
        philthegeek

        Lol! PF seems to have triggered our pathologically abusive little energizer bunny AngryG55 into rapid post mode?? :)

        Link from eg worth a read as usual.

        612

        • #
          AndyG55

          little phlip is also incapable of producing any evidence.

          so sad, so pathetic.

          145

        • #
          philthegeek

          so sad, so pathetic.

          And i should care about what an easily triggered, obviously obsessive person probably sitting around in their smelly underpants in a dim room somewhere allegedly thinks??

          Angry mate…..relax, chill and try to get over yourself a little.

          Or….. if you actually want to make a real difference rather than just having your normal frothing whinge on the intertubes, why dont you volunteer to me a staffer for Malcolm Roberts and donate the extensive benefits of your intellect to getting him back in the Senate this year? Would at least get you out of that basement and into the sunlight?? :)

          67

  • #

    In a way none of this is surprising. Just consider the many other social issues that we’re experiencing today and you’l notice that we are living in a renewed Puritanical world, where anything that goes against the established thought is not just frowned upon, but often comes with severe repercussions.

    You can’t argue with the religion of climate, you can’t argue with the religion of gender, you can’t argue with the religion of open borders etc. And the reason is that all of this is intertwined as part of the grand plan for a one world government. And where does all of this originate? The UN.

    290

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…a renewed Puritanical world …’

      AGW millenarian madness has universal appeal, even among Buddhists and the followers of M.

      120

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Mocking them is a very effective tool….if they have a crack at you for mocking them, it looks mean on their behalf, and uses their own victim mentality against them.

      Occasionally they become incandescent, but that’s part of the deal. Never back down from bullies. I’ve had a couple of toe-to-toe with leftist weenies, if you back off , it only emboldens them. Stand your ground, and call them out.

      They are cowards under it all…..

      QED

      123

    • #
      MatrixTransform

      awesome!!
      Ive been talking about the new Puritanism for about 5yr.
      I love having my biases confirmed.
      Thankyou

      30

  • #
    Dennis

    I wonder how many others are employed and not willing to say what they really believe?

    180

    • #
      Another Ian

      Dennis

      We’ll probably find out slowly – one retirement at a time

      230

    • #
      MatrixTransform

      My missus is doing a Teaching Degree.

      Wrote a paper the other day for her Trimester 3 subject and though getting a HD, was slammed for not addressing the ‘Rubric’

      So she did the paper, answered the question and excelled but did not parrot the required doctrine.

      It aint just not saying it wrong, yr also punished (well chastised) for not explicitly exalting ‘scripture’

      Appears that Teaching in a Global Community must kowtow to the UNESCO 2030 doctrine … 2000 words Glory be to God … and teaching etc

      70

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Jo, why dont you invite him to write for your blog?

    110

  • #
    Neville

    China toughens up on clueless solar , wind and EVs. So why do we here in OZ follow this lunacy like lemmings leaping off a cliff? This idiocy is costing us endless billions $ for a guaranteed zero return and yet we seem to have a majority of our donkeys who are happy to vote Labor or Greens ASAP.
    Like Turkeys who can’t wait for Christmas.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/china-no-more-wind-or-solar-if-it-cant-beat-coal-on-price/

    https://www.thegwpf.com/chinas-electric-car-companies-slump-amid-reports-of-subsidy-cuts/

    170

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Neville:
      See also the moves by Poland. No more subsidies for renewables and all existing wind farms to be removed by 2035. If you want to build one it has to be 20 times the height from any habitation, but without a subsidy how many will want to build one.

      173

    • #
      Ian1946

      The real problem with ALP/Greens supporters is that when take on a cause like AGW they are unable to accept any argument against it or imagine any of the repercussions that will result from such a policy. Leftism truely is a mental disorder that makes rational thought impossible, and stirs up dictatorial tendencies just to shut the opposition up.

      Some examples:

      Plastic bag ban. They have been replaced with a much more environmentally product.
      Qid drinks container. Poorly thought out, no implementation plan.

      I rest my case.

      142

  • #
    Mark M

    “Good on him for speaking out. Shame he didn’t feel he could when he was employed.”

    You are too kind.

    Meh? Take no prisoners.

    Let the deceitful rat sink with its ship of fools.

    84

    • #
      yarpos

      “I could never have known so well how paltry men are, and how little they care for really high aims, if I had not tested them by my scientific researches. Thus I saw that most men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence”

      — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

      All sounds so easy to take the high moral ground and stand on principle when its not your mortgage, kids schooling, career, retirement at stake.

      As someone who toed the corporate line when I knew for a fact it would always end up in a train wreck , I can understand the problem, particularly in a field where there are no real short term negative consequences for following the alarmist pack. Everyone else is doing it right?

      Only once did I up and leave but had youth and a booming economy on my side at the time, and they had transgressed from the stupid to the shonky.

      80

  • #
    Robber

    How to hype up a hot headline courtesy of BOM: December was the warmest on record for Australia, with prolonged periods of extreme heat.
    “It was the warmest December on record for Australia in terms of mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures. The national mean temperature was 2.13 °C above average. Maximum temperatures were 2.41 °C above average and minimum temperatures were 1.85 °C above average.”
    Note the amazing precision, 2.13 °C above average mean, and 2.41 °C above average maximum.
    How terrible, but nowhere on the page do they tell you what those actual temperatures were. Anomalies are the departure from the long-term (1961–1990) average.
    Further down the page there is a table showing the context. Are you ready for the shocking news?
    The previous highest was +2.30 °C in 1972. So this highest for December was 0.11 °C above a December 46 years ago. We are doomed!

    223

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      That means “We were doomed in 1972 as well..But we just didn’t know it”…Sort of ?

      The BOM now wants a higher profile to get more filthy lucre.. So alarmism just the way the game is played.

      by the way, I actually remember 1972…It was an OK year weather wise in East Gippsland where I was then..just dry because of a drought..So of course mean maximum temps were high…But there were ots of frosts that Winter as well..

      123

  • #
    Delaxos

    “Shame he didn’t feel he could when he was employed”.
    That is incorrect. Do a little search before such claims.

    40

  • #

    I just saw, in passing, another TV presentation (I assume by a BOM representative) going on about a ‘summer heatwave’. Increasingly the BOM and the MSM carry on as if Australia has never before been hot in summer. Clearly this is the motive behind all this hyping of ‘heatwaves’, to bolster the climate change narrative, unfortunately too many poor sods seems to believe it.

    223

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well, they cant use logic, coz they have none ( and no science ) so they have to appeal to emotion and or/hype.

      Scientifically and factually bankrupt, they are…..

      Back to Soviet days – they pretend to tell us the “news” , and we pretend to believe it…..

      123

    • #
      Another Ian

      I guess the record number of heatwaves is directly proportional to the gradual lowering of the temperature that qualifies as a heatwave and will continue as long as that practice continues?

      103

      • #

        Just imagine if the cooling does start to hit with a vengeance in the next five years or so and summertime temperatures start to hover around the mid-20s or lower, with only the occasional one close to the 30s. I wonder how the BOM and MSM will be able to spin that one into the hottest EVAH?

        83

    • #

      Imagine if this was caused by summer heat:

      At least 21 weather-related deaths have been reported in Europe in the last 10 days
      Military helicopters and tanks are being used to help people who are trapped
      Many public areas remain closed due to the danger of trees cracking under the weight of snow

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-12/avalanches-accidents-add-to-snow-related-deaths-in-europe/10710788

      It’s just weather.

      80

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    I haven’t gone past the summary in the Wikipedia page on Anastasios Tsonis,
    wherein he is described as a skeptic of major human caused (CO2) climate change.

    Where is information to the contrary?
    I do not see that on the occasion of his retiring, there has been a change.

    60

    • #
      Mark D.

      More clarity would be helpful John. I don’t get your point.

      31

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        Read comment #1.
        It and others suggest Prof. Tsonis did not let his skeptical views become known until after he retired. That is not so. He has been critical all along.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasios_Tsonis#Research

        That year (2013), shortly after the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report was released, he also criticized the reliability of climate models, saying that they “don’t agree with each other – and they don’t agree with reality.

        90

  • #
    Ian

    Very refreshing to read an article here that focusses on science rather than politics

    104

    • #
      Ian

      Interesting that there are two dislikes to comment#15. Do these two commenters prefer political rather than scientific topics? If so why visit a blog that focusses primarily on science?

      83

    • #
      Dave in the States

      “Climate science” is forever linked to politics, because it is being used to further a political agenda.

      BTW, I gave you green thumbs.

      100

  • #
    pat

    Cli-Fi:

    10 Jan: WaPo: How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable
    By Amy Westervelt
    (Amy Westervelt is an audio and print reporter who covers climate and gender, and sometimes the intersection of the two etc)

    Documents uncovered by journalists and activists over the past decade lay out a clear strategy: First, target media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science, and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for media. Second, target conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.” In the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute, which hosts an annual International Conference on Climate Change known as the leading climate skeptics conference, for example, routinely calls out media outlets (including The Washington Post) for showing “bias” in covering climate change when they either decline to quote a skeptic or question a skeptic’s credibility.

    Data on how effective this strategy has been is hard to come by, but anecdotal evidence of its success abounds. In the early 1990s, polls showed that about 80 percent of Americans were aware of climate change and accepted that something must be done about it, an opinion that crossed party lines. By 2008, Gallup found a marked partisan divide on climate change. By 2010, the American public’s belief in climate change hit an all-time low of 48 percent, despite the fact that those 20 years saw increased research, improved climate models and several climate change predictions coming true…

    By about 2008, most mainstream print outlets had moved past the notion that “balance” means including climate contrarians in coverage of climate science. These outlets do still trip up occasionally, though. In 2017, ProPublica published a remarkably uncritical Q&A with Happer, for example, describing him as “brilliant and controversial,” and characterizing his view that global warming is good for the planet as merely “unusual.” That same year, the New York Times was roundly criticized for hiring climate contrarian Bret Stephens as a regular editorial columnist (and his first column didn’t help).

    While print outlets aren’t perfect, TV news has lagged further behind on climate, often presenting climate contrarians as an equal and opposite balance to climate scientists…

    Though some outlets have moved to extricate deniers from the conversation, too many television news programs continue to bring on “contrarian” experts, giving a platform to tired lies. I say “lies” because fossil fuel industry scientists debunked these theories themselves decades ago, so they are knowingly perpetuating falsehoods…

    It’s well past time the media stopped allowing itself to be a tool in the fossil fuel industry’s information war. Oreskes likens the push for “balance” on climate change to journalists arguing over the final score of a baseball game. “If the Yankees beat the Red Sox 6-2, journalists would report that. They would not feel compelled to find someone to say actually the Red Sox won, or the score was 6-4,” she says.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/

    some of the media that provides a platform for CAGW alarmist Westervelt:

    Sierra Club: Amy Westervelt: Her work appears regularly in The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian, and on KQED’s The California Report…

    HuffPo: Amy Westervelt is a science journalist who contributes regularly to The Wall Street Journal, Popular Science and National Public Radio.

    Muckrack: Amy Westervelt: As seen in: The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, HuffPost, The Atlantic, Medium, Scientific American, Slate, MarketWatch and more.

    40

  • #
    pat

    truly pathetic “extreme weather” page from 9News:

    12 Jan: 9News: Extreme weather hits Europe
    https://www.9news.com.au/2019/01/11/12/46/europe-snow-extreme-weather-gallery

    42 great snow pics:

    12 Jan: UK Evening Standard: Europe snow: 20 dead as heavy snow continues to fall across continent
    by Megan White
    Snowstorm in Europe: January 2019
    42 PICS
    Bad weather has closed down schools, left some remote villages cut off and disrupted traffic and power supplies in the Balkans…
    In Germany, the driver of a snow plow died after his vehicle toppled into an icy river…

    Austrian military helicopters had to rescue 66 German teenagers from a mountain guest house on Friday where they had been stuck for several days…
    In Salzburg, all parks, public gardens, play areas and cemeteries were closed Friday because of the danger of trees falling under the weight of snow…

    About 2,000 soldiers and other emergency workers in Albania were assigned to help people trapped by snow and to clear roads to restore access to rural areas.
    Serbian state TV reported that several municipalities in the southwest of the country have introduced emergency measures, warning of snow piling up on the roads and sealing off mountain villages…
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/europe-snow-20-dead-as-heavy-snow-continues-to-fall-across-continent-a4036911.html

    50

  • #
    pat

    10 PICS: 12 Jan: Bloomberg: The Beast From the East Buries Europe in Snow
    By Jonathan Tirone
    The once-in-a-century snowfall that’s buried Alpine villages in Austria and Germany this week is just a taste of more severe weather on the way as Europe braces for new storms and a Siberian cold blast that meteorologists call “the beast from the east.”
    Avalanches that were triggered by as much as 5 meters (16 feet) of snow have led to mounting casualties, evacuations, stranded trains and snarled traffic…
    Austria has had to call on the military to help control the chaos…

    Cleaning up the mess may not get any easier with a deep cold spell forecast to descend on the region. Average temperatures in Germany will be some 4 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than average for the rest of the month…

    Mountain economies that depend on snow to attract skiers are also buckling under the strain as vacationers cancel their reservations. It’s “Too Much of a Good Thing for Tourism’’ read the front business page of Salzburg’s biggest newspaper on Friday.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2019-01-11/the-beast-from-the-east-buries-europe-in-snow-more-forecast

    50

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      I’ll reply to you, Pat, as 97%™ of the comments here tonight remind me of a cat-fight I overheard on the backstreets of Kalgoorlie one night at 3 am, or was it Coolangatta?

      https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5443714,00.html

      Occupied Palestine’s “Mt. Hermon ski site said it has been years since they recorded uninterrupted snowfall that continued for three days straight, with some 90cm hitting the mountain’s lower parts so far.” The River Jordan’s in flood, the hills are buried under ‘record snowfall’ and it’s mighty cold in the Levant as frigid Arctic northerlies reach as far south as north Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. Let me guess, warming caused this freezing, right?

      http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_norhem_00.gif

      The northern hemisphere jet stream has always intrigued me: it roars in one, mighty, unstoppable river from north Africa eastwards over the Himalaya, China, Japan, the north Pacific, then when it gets to the American-Atlantic-Anglo-sphere it falls apart, breaks up, goes loopy: more knowledgeable minds than mine may know the reason for this, any suggestions?

      Anyways, I enjoyed today’s cloudless, windless, 27˚C blissful sunshine, which was marred only by recent immigrant drivers who a) can’t drive and b) don’t know the road rules. But hey, I live another day! Just…

      100

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    from El Gordo’s link
    The Empirical Evidence
    As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

    We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

    Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

    520

    • #
      AndyG55

      Again, you produce NOTHING in the way of empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric, just a load of regurgitated hogwashery.

      Keep proving me correct. Its funny.

      135

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases”

      Proof of thermalisation to the rest, 99.96% of the atmosphere, dealt with by normal gravity based convection.

      Still NO evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.

      Links, measurements.. NOT just mindless regurgitation of AGW propaganda pap.

      94

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      I”m not sure what you are asking.

      The physics are listed here https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

      the scientific opinion is summarised here https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ . (there are a number of tabs, all of which are interesting)

      what have you got?

      417

      • #
        AndyG55

        omg. more models and supposed theory

        No actual measurements except known frequency absorption.

        They basically ignore anything that actually happens in the atmosphere.

        NOTHING that empirically shows warming.

        You need to find a reliable source, not SKS. it is generally just junk science.

        The stuff from over a century ago was in glass bottles. Is that the atmosphere????

        Pretty sure that is where you live, in the bottom of a glass bottle.

        There is NOTHING on the NASA page with empirical data showing warming by atmospheric CO2.

        All the warming has come from SOLAR, as proven by the fact that it is only related to Ocean warming

        Atmospheric CO2 cannot cause ocean warming.. full-stop

        The ONLY warming in the last 40 years has come from two ocean events and the natural cycles of the ocean.

        Nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.

        Also, so many of the points on the NASA page are just plain wrong, and provably so by measurement.

        Continuing to FAIL magnificently pftuz,.

        183

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          and your sources are?

          217

          • #
            AndyG55

            Real data.

            You should try it some time, pftuz.

            Sadly lacking so far.

            133

          • #
            philthegeek

            and your sources are?

            The feeling in his waters dont cha no. :)

            38

          • #
            Bobl

            Peter, you constantly fail to learn, if you really do have an education you aught to be able to do two checks.

            The IPCC says that a doubling of CO2 (causing 3.7 watts per square metre of forcing) will bring about Ca 3.3Deg C of warming. The earth’s average temp is currently 287.7 K at the surface, using the SB equation calculate the emission per square metre. Now assume the IPCC is right and the 3.7 WATTS per square meter raises the temp to 291 K and calculate the surface emission subtract 1 From. 2 to get the change in surface emission. You will find that the difference is about 16 Watts per square meter.

            IE IPCC projections require that 3.7watts per square metre of forcing causes 16 watts per square meter of extra emission. This is impossible.

            Here is a simpler sum

            The climate Co2 equation can be described as deltaT= C ln(C/Co)

            Calculate the value for C using the following facts. 1850 CO2 270Ppm, 2018 CO2 412ppm, delta T (1850-2018) is about 0.9C and assume ALL warming over the period was caused by the CO2 change. Calculate delta T for a doubling using your value for C ( C ln(2) ).

            Now take into account that less than 50% of the warming 1850-2018 is CO2 related (that is delta T for that period due to CO2 is less than 0.45 Deg) repeat the calculation to determine the appropriate temperature rise for a doubling based on historical warming.

            Come back with the answers and we can discuss them.

            These are very simple mathematical tests that anyone can do to demonstrate that the IPCC narrative is implausible.

            It’s just like the false idea that wind, solar and EVs save CO2… That’s only true if you fail to take into account CO2 produced in manufacture, the loss of sinks, and the use of energy by the relevant industries.

            Actual renewable generation barely exceeds the energy consumption of all the workers and infrastructure devoted to climate. There is barely any net energy and deficit emission, yet you continue to lobby for a solution that continues to fail to produce the goods and actually hurts people in the process. There is a certain lack of morality in that.

            210

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              And that lack of morality is the issue.

              There’s been no indication that he’s about trying to understand the issue nor about sharing the very clear and objective understanding he suggests that he has.

              His only objective is to disable the blog and make it look stupid.

              Morality??

              KK

              20

      • #
        AndyG55

        NASA points

        1. Global temperature rise.

        No warming from 1980-1997 or from 2001-2015

        El Nino releases only. NOT CO2 related

        2. Ocean warming

        CO2 DWLWR cannot penetrate more than a micron or so, SOLAR energy causes ocean warming.
        Lets put OHC into perspective shall we.. see that little red squiggle at the end.

        3. Shrinking Ice Sheets

        Only the volcanically active West Antarctic Peninsular has lost much sea ice. East Antarctic is gaining. Greenland has gain the last 2-3 years.
        Arctic sea ice has been steady for the last 109 years at least.. NO CO2 effect\

        4. Glacier retreat.

        Started at the end of the LIA, many of those glaciers did not exist before then, as shown by tree stumps found under retreating glaciers, a sign of MUCH warmer temperatures before the LIA.

        5. Decreased snow cover
        Both Autumn and Winter snow cover have been increasing. Go to Rutgers and see for yourself.

        6 Sea level rise

        Has been steady at tide gauges for over 100 years with no acceleration. Only by committing the scientific malfeasance of “adjusting” tides using “adjusted” satellite data is there any change.

        7. Extreme events

        Not happening

        Total hurricane energy data is down, ZERO major tornados this year in the USA. !!

        8. Ocean Acidification

        No way they could measure the whole of ocean pH to 1dp pre-industrial. they can’t do it now.

        and the 30% meme again roflmao.. and a further 1800% to become even neutral

        Here are all the ocean surface pH readings since 1900 collated. notice the trend ?

        ——

        Why are you SO DUMB that you fall for even the most basic of PROPAGANDA LIES, pftuz???

        Just “believe” never check.. that’s a true scientist.. NOT.

        193

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          1 – you are posting the anomaly it is not as you insist temperature
          2 is the same, and you are ignoring heat transfer
          3 total bulldust http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
          4 Worldwide glaciers are retreating at faster rate (but this is in line with warming)
          5 Where? in america you have this:
          Between 1972 and 2015, the average extent of North American snow cover decreased at a rate of about 3,300 square miles per year. The average area covered by snow during the most recent decade (2006–2015) was 3.21 million square miles, which is about 4 percent smaller than the average extent during the first 10 years of measurement (1972–1981)—a difference of 122,000 square miles, or approximately an area the size of New Mexico (see Figure 1).
          6 Disagree, those adjustments make sense to me
          7 the fire in California? the flooding all around the world? That freak storm in NQ -as to tornados – we have 12 days in the year so far, and tornado season is in the northern summer/autumn
          8 https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification – see the graph

          Why are you SO DUMB that you fall for even the most basic of PROPAGANDA LIES

          425

          • #
            AndyG55

            So you are WRONG on every point. you should be used yo it by now.

            1. Only warming from El Ninos and ocean effects.. No warming 1980-1997 or from 2001-2015.

            2. WRONG… Heat CANNOT transfer from atmosphere to ocean.

            3 You are WRONG again, reading the propaganda rather than looking at the data.
            DMI Volume MASIE extent

            4. No they are not, the fastest period was around 1920-1940
            trees under retreating glaciers.. oops.. how did they get there.
            Study on Mt Baker glaciers.. oh look its a cycle

            5 Snow Winter and autumn increasing in NH, Europe, USA

            6. then you are mathematical idiot.

            7. one fire in California, the ferocity cause by idiotic non-clearing laws. your point is?

            8 Yes, see the graph.

            Oh dearie me, your propaganda FAILS you again.

            183

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              I’m only going to correct you on the heat transfer
              https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html

              I’m only quoting science – and I live in a fact based universe

              420

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao.. you should read what you link to first

                solar radiation heats the ocean;

                net long wave back radiation cools the ocean;

                heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface

                Hilarious. ! :-)

                Perhaps you should boil your next cup of water with a heat gun from above ;-)

                Go back and do basic physics again, twerp !!

                163

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Andy @ 19.3.2.1.1

                Come on, be fair. He was talking about daytime, and it’s a well known fact that the top 1.83 mm of ocean is heated by UV then.

                Night-time by contrast is a bit of a mystery to climate change scientists.

                There’s some sort of inconvenient truth there so AlGor has advised them to ignore it and just average the daylight figures over the full 24 hours.

                KK

                131

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Night-time by contrast is a bit of a mystery to climate change scientists.”

                Is that why they are always totally in the dark ??

                133

              • #
                AndyG55

                KK, its worth looking at the penetration into seawater of UV of different frequencies, and the way those frequencies vary during solar maxima.

                Interesting conclusions to be gained.

                Lots of little sea critters and plants that use CO2 in the top metre or so too, data seems to show they are luving the enhanced atmospheric CO2.

                123

            • #
              tom0mason

              AndyG55,

              This video of a lecture by Nir Shaviv implicates the solar forcing in the temperature rise of the 20th century. See from about 16 minute point onward.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9gjU1T4XL4

              As Nir say the sun hasa a large effect on climate. This is through modulating the cloud cover.

              40

          • #
            AndyG55

            It will be hilarious watching you link non-existent CO2 warming to those NATURALLY occurring weather disasters.

            Perhaps you can use a climate model…. roflmao !!

            Even the IPCC denies any link between natural warming and extreme weather.. Because there IS NONE.

            No major tornados USA 2018

            Show us all the CO2 signal in hurricane energy.

            113

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Peter, I must agree with Andy on his point 6. A study of two of Australia’s long-term tidal gauges, at Fremantle and Sydney, will show you two things:
            1. The SLR rate is around 1.3 mm/year for Fremantle, and that doesn’t take into account the possible impact of land sinkage.
            2. Perhaps more importantly, the SLOPE of SLR has NOT changed. This to me is quite vital.
            Then we have the old tidal mark at Point Puer in Tasmania to consider, which is still visible today. This mark would have been well and truly submerged had SLR been substantial.

            142

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Very good points Graeme, I would like to see the sea temps superimposed with the expansion due to heat for these sites. After all the statement is about hotter water expanding, so if the temps are higher, and there is no measurable difference, then boho to that hypothesis

              211

              • #
                AndyG55

                Temperature rise to a series of strong solar cycles. so what. did you want the planet to remain in the coldest period in 10,000 years?

                ZERO evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.

                That is what you are missing

                We KNOW it has warmed just a little bit but did you see just how irrelevant the OHC rise has been in the long term.. see that little red squiggle at the end… might need to use a microscope.

                Denial and ignorance of actual science is not helping your cause, pfutz.

                113

              • #
                AndyG55

                “the statement is about hotter water expanding”

                So you finally ADMIT it is solar force warming

                You have already linked to articles showing that atmospheric CO2 does NOT cause oceans to warm.

                Well done. Maybe you ARE capable of learning.

                Try not to spoil it with your next post.

                93

              • #
                Graeme#4

                Have just realised, because I’ve been so focused in pointing out to folks that SLR is not increasing its rate, I haven’t given much thought to exactly what is causing the SLR in the first place. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

                00

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Again, Andy’s is correct on point 7. The USA maintains very good records of tornadoes, hurricanes and storms over the years, and all these records show these events are decreasing rather than increasing. NOAA NCEI , AOML and NWS for example has good graphs on this. Also see their National Hurricane Center climatology page. Also floods in USA have decreased – USGS has good data on this. Please note that I’m quoting government organisation data here, not somebody’s cherry-picked version.

            110

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Point 7 shows how you base your beliefs on ideology not science .
            The fire in California wasn’t caused by climate change and if you can point to one fire anywhere caused by climate change and not humans or lightning I for one will be in awe of your brilliance.

            “Floods all over the world “?, how many hundreds of billions of trillions of times have I told you not to exaggerate ?

            Face it Fitz your not here for science your here because someone is paying you to be a troll .

            71

          • #
            el gordo

            Peter here is Northern Hemisphere snow cover from a reliable source, there is no trend.

            https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NHemisphereSnowCoverSince19721.gif

            40

          • #
            el gordo

            To be fair and balanced, NH spring and summer snowfall is decreasing, while winter snow is increasing.

            https://imgur.com/a/pniZX1t

            40

          • #
            el gordo

            North America shows a clear increase in snow cover.

            https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/namgnld_season1.png

            40

            • #
              Graeme#4

              That was going to be my next question EG, has the USA experienced an overall increase in snowfall? I’m presuming that the answer is yes.

              30

              • #
                el gordo

                Cannot say for sure, haven’t had a close look, but its certain the klimatariat will say an increase in water moisture because of climate change will create more snow in a warmer world.

                20

        • #
          AndyG55

          oops, typos

          3. Shrinking Ice Sheets

          Only the volcanically active West Antarctic Peninsular has lost much sea ice. East Antarctic is gaining. Greenland has gain the last 2-3 years.
          Arctic sea ice has been steady for the last 109 years at least.. NO CO2 effect

          63

      • #
        glen Michel

        You’re flogging a dead horse Peter – long dead at that. Most here have gone way beyond what you have to offer. Otherwise, I find you quite polite.

        110

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          you keep posting Anomalies – they are not temperature.

          214

          • #
            AndyG55

            Poor pfutz, you are a mathematical inebriate.

            65

          • #
            AndyG55

            “you keep posting Anomalies – they are not temperature.”

            So GISS can be ignored completely.. Oh, too late….. It already is. !!

            93

          • #
            AndyG55

            You do know that trends are maintained when you use anomalies, don’t you, pfutz???

            Surely in “climate change™” it is the trend that matters ;-)

            83

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Well thanks Glen, for the compliment. If you have a way to update me, say a handy blog or some such, I would like to see it.

          48

          • #
            AndyG55

            zero evidence.. the pftuz way. !!

            shot down at every turn

            84

          • #
            AndyG55

            “If you have a way to update me”

            Now how do you “update” someone who has a backlog of 30-40 years of missing science and relies on cartoon nonsense sites like SkS for blog quotes….

            Good luck with that !!

            114

      • #
        Slithers

        PF you are a fool. The very first graph, in your link, of CO2 levels going back 400k years has been proven to lag temperature by hundreds of years so cannot be used a proof that CO2 caused temperature rises!

        IPCC Stooge!!!

        30

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      More sneaky unscientific comment.

      RUBBISH IV.

      KK

      62

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Peter Fitzroy:
      “Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths”. Uni-directional measurement.

      Since CO2 does absorb IR radiation (and rapidly emits it in all directions) all that proves is that the concentration of CO2 is rising.

      Your problem is assuming that heat isn’t escaping to space by other wavelengths, or other methods. I wonder what the scientists on a planet 50-100 light years away from Earth are making of the abrupt increase in radio frequencies? Would any of them come up with an “I Love Lucy” explanation?

      82

  • #
    philthegeek

    It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.

    1/3 to human activity? That’s a lot.

    Oh and for a laff from the tangerine one. :) Although i pity the people with bills to pay that aren’t getting paid because POTUS has small man issues.

    312

  • #
    scaper...

    From The Australian today. I bet Peter has a smile on his face.

    James Cook University has finalised an external panel to investigate the research of a former star PhD student found guilty of misconduct and fabricating results after leaving the institution.

    The panel formed to investigate the work of Oona Lonnstedt has been under review for almost a year after an investigation at Uppsala University in Sweden found the authors of a retracted science paper guilty of misconduct.

    The JCU investigation has received fresh impetus with ongoing concerns about another paper by Dr Lonnstedt into the hunting habits of lionfish.

    READ NEXT

    Seeing red over #MeToo
    THE ECONOMIST
    A prestigious journal, Biology Letters, published an expression of concern about the paper amid claims Dr Lonnstedt had probably not collected the number of lionfish to study as had been claimed.

    A follow-up correction by Dr Lonnstedt’s co-authors caused further controversy over whether a collage of 50 lionfish submitted to the journal by Dr Lonnstedt was meant to represent actual fish used in the experiments.

    A digital analysis of the collage has revealed many of the images appear to be the same fish, which had been reversed, rotated or otherwise manipulated.

    Oona Lonnstedt.
    Oona Lonnstedt.
    Sacked JCU academic Peter Ridd blew the whistle about the apparent photo manipulations with Dr Lonnstedt’s co-authors.

    They said the poster was not supposed to suggest these were the individual fish, despite a correction in Biology Letters saying it was a “collage of 50 lionfish photographs providing evidence of the number of lionfish caught during the study”.

    The co-authors said the wording of the correction had been an error.

    They said Dr Lonnstedt no longer was involved in science and did not want to answer further questions about the lionfish paper.

    Queensland marine scientist Walter Starck said he had doubts about the quality of the research and the poster.

    “Saying the poster was to show they had lionfish in the lab is nonsense,” Dr Starck said.

    “Obviously the intent was to imply those fish were the ones they used.

    “Those species of lionfish are not very common and it is unlikely that a group of non-professional collectors could go out and get 50 of them around the island.

    “If you look at the photos not only are they all pretty obviously the same fish but they are the same size,” he said. “Size is a very important aspect of predator-prey relationship.”

    JCU said the university was committed to the highest standards of ethical research.

    A JCU spokesman said an external panel had been finalised to investigate research conducted by Dr Lonnstedt to determine whether there had been any research misconduct.

    “Panel members have accepted the role, but have not yet been formally appointed,” he said.

    In a short time at JCU, Dr Lonnstedt published many high-profile papers on fish behaviour. One claimed that when damselfish live in degraded corals, that may be caused by climate change, they lose some of their sense of smell and become “fearless” and more subject to being eaten by predators.

    In another paper she looked at the effect of high concentrations of carbon dioxide on damselfish’s ability to respond to predators. She found they were more likely to be eaten by predators.

    According to Dr Lonnstedt’s work, reef degradation from climate change, changes in ocean pH from carbon dioxide and the impact of microplastics all caused little fish to be eaten by predators.

    Uppsala University found the microplastics experiments had not been not conducted during the period and to the extent stated in the research article.

    “This means that Lonnstedt has fabricated the results,” it said.

    GRAHAM LLOYDENVIRONMENT EDITOR
    Graham Lloyd is a fearless reporter of all sides of the environment debate. A former night editor, chief editorial writer and deputy business editor with The Australian, Graham has held senior positions nationa… Read more

    Share this article

    140

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    This morning the link I posted earlier today (to the research from Greenland’s ice sheets showing cooling for the past 7000 years while CO2 has been rising ) ….Well it stopped working..Now a forbidden acess note pops up.

    But What’s Up With That still has this article on their website I got to it via : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/08/greenland-is-way-cool/

    And again Peter Fitzroy how do you explain this science that shows CO2 going up for the past 7000 years while temperatures have been going down ?

    80

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    you do understand that we are talking about temps of 128K going to 126K – well below freezing.

    check this
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5024603/

    413

  • #
    pat

    11 Jan: MountainWatch: World Snow Wrap – Jan 11 2018
    It has been snowing British Columbia, the western states of the US, Japan and Austria. More to come and much-needed snowfalls on the way for France.
    by Reggae Elliss
    USA
    Last weekend saw some big snowfalls in the Californian Sierras with the Tahoe resorts and Mammoth receiving huge totals, Squaw Valley receiving a massive 122cms on the upper mountain in two days last Saturday and Sunday…
    Mammoth also got the goods with a solid 167cms at the Summit in a week, taking the Summits season total to 4.8 metres…

    JAPAN
    Well, Japan has been a great place to be for the past two weeks with all resorts receiving ridiculously good snowfalls…
    While everyone loves fresh powder a lot of people were happy to see the sun yesterday, particularly in Niseko where it hadn’t been spotted for three weeks…

    CANADA
    It has been a good month in Whistler and it is still happening with another 125cms in the past week, taking the season total to 681cms and the average base sits at 280cms…

    EUROPE
    As we reported in our Austrian snow story on Wed, the snow has been pretty relentless in Austria over the past three weeks, particularly in the north where the snowfalls have been huge with extreme winter conditions at times…

    GREAT PIC: Zell am See Kaprum in the Salzburg region of Austria where the avalanche danger is now at extreme. Photo: Max Brundl

    PIC: Lech Zurs looking amazing during a break in the storms in Austria on Jan 4. Photo: Lech Zurs
    http://www.mountainwatch.com/Snow-news/world-snow-wrap-january-11-snowfalls-continue-in-europe-canada-the-us-and-of-course-japan/

    60

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      The big ‘climate change’ caused drought in California is finished..The snow cover in the mountains has been renewed in a month.

      51

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        I suspect that by the time Europeans & Brits have escaped from the deep freeze afflicting them this January, the global warming myth will be just a fairy tale to tell the kids about…Ho, Ho, Ho !!!

        And here in SA we keep getting warned about the Global Warming generated heat waves that are about to afflict us.. But the promised heat waves keep slip sliding away after a day…To be replaced by warmish weather with Southerly cool breezes….

        81

        • #
          Bobl

          They’ll be right….. eventually. After all Adelaide is perilously close to one of the biggest deserts on the planet

          51

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    Peter Fitzroy, are you being obtuse or simply wanting to confuse us ? You state in reply to my earlier comment : ” a temperature anomaly is not a temperature record -it is the variation from a baseline. If the paper had used a rolling baseline (of say around 30 years) instead of just one, pciked seemingly at random I might give the paper more thought.

    Two questions for you :
    1 Why not use as a ‘baseline’ the data from the year when this data set started 11,700 years ago ? What’s wrong with that ?

    It does show up starkly change over time after all..

    2: Why do you demand that such research a baseline which is a “rolling baseline” ? In other words a baseline which is not based on the temperature at the start -11700 years ago…

    Hypothetically we could go back & use. a baseline from 50,000 years or 50,000,000 years… If someone wished to fund that research maybe…But so far no one has.

    And so my third question :
    3: How do you explain lower temperatures in Greenland’s Ice cap while CO has been rising for 7000 years ?

    Or it is just to embaressing to be answered ?

    80

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Very Simple Bill – the temperature change that they were referencing was well below freezing, from 128 kelvin to 126 kelvin. P

      you can use a baseline from anywhere depending on what you are trying to show. A rolling baseline gives a reference to the year of measurement (ie it would include the little ice age etc)

      412

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Fitz you write ” the temperature change that they were referencing was well below freezing, from 128 kelvin to 126 kelvin.”

        Sooooooo ?

        The measurements were from ice cores in the Greenland ice cap.Of course it’s gonna be cold…That’s normal in that part of the world..

        Are you suggesting that because it was cold that the measurements taken are wrong ?

        Now that seems pretty dopey to me…Grasping at straws in fact…

        Ohhhh I’m glad you now admit that using a baseline measurement from the chronological start is OK.

        62

        • #
          AndyG55

          pfutz is saying that 2 degrees warming or cooling is NOT climate change??

          poor pfutz, faceplants yet again. ! :-)

          The nature of the AGW gulliblist.

          85

        • #
          Bill In Oz

          What no reply Fitz ?
          Just a red thumb cause you got shown up ? Come on we are trying to think & act scientifically here !

          64

          • #
            AndyG55

            His only ploy seems to be just basic brain-washed AGW regurgitation

            65

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Explain to me why a temperature change to 126k from 128k is not within the bounds of experimental error. At these temps. there is no surface water.

            312

            • #
              AndyG55

              “At these temps. there is no surface water.”

              You mean like in the Antarctic ?

              84

            • #
              Bill In Oz

              Ummmmmm ? Fitz you are not understanding the process of taking these ice cores.
              1: Snow falls out of the sky onto the Greenland icecap.
              2 Over time that snow is covered by more snow and gradually it packs down and becomes ice
              3 The ice layers build up over time…Thousands of years of ice layers
              4:The ice layers carry in them the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere when it fell from the sky. So an analysis of the ice via taking an ice core can tell us how much CO2 was present in the atmosphere over those thousands of years.
              5 : The oxygen in the ice water molecules in the layers of the core samples also allows scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.

              Interesting science Fitz !

              And not controversial – standard practice sort of.

              So which bit of this logic don’t you follow ? I ask because I can follow all of it.

              And that means that this research showing that Greenland has cooled over the past 7000 years, while CO 2 levels have increased, means CO2 levels are not very relevant to the way the Climate Changes.

              131

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          I’m not arguing about the C02, not even the rate of increase. What I’m saying is that an inferred difference of 2 degrees from 126k to 128k is meaningless in a global warming context.

          011

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I’m not arguing about the C02″

            No, you lost that argument AGES ago.

            Difference between 126k and 128k is the same as that between 14ºC and 16ºC

            As you say, 2ºC is meaningless in the global warming context.

            72

          • #
            Bill In Oz

            What Global warming ?

            You are believe it’s happening & therefore dismiss evidence to the contrary..

            WHAT KIND OF SCIENCE I THAT FITZ ?

            50

      • #
        AndyG55

        No counter evidence…

        You just “don’t like it”

        TOUGH. science rules over your whims and dislikes every day, pftuz

        65

        • #
          Another Ian

          Andy

          Decarte got into the books for saying

          “I think: therefore I am”

          NOT

          “I think: therefore it is”

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            pfutz doesn’t think. therefore he isn’t.

            ——————————

            Actually, at a party, Descarte’s wife asked if to serve some delicacies, and he said,

            “I think they’re for 1am”

            Poor fella, always misquoted. ;-)

            74

  • #

    ===
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶① . . . The Comb of Death . . .
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ====

    What, you may be wondering, is the “Comb of Death”?

    In simple terms, it is a graph that looks like a comb.

    But, what has it got to do with Death?

    Well, “The Comb of Life” didn’t sound very exciting. But “Death” is a certain winner.

    And it is showing “global warming”. That causes a lot of deaths.

    Or it will in the future, if the “Comb of Death” is correct.

    The “Comb of Death” displays temperature ranges, for more than 24,000 locations on the Earth.

    And I am talking about REAL, ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE temperatures. Not those weak, pale, temperature anomaly things. But real, actual, absolute temperatures. The sort that REAL men use (and REAL women too).

    ====================

    The Oil companies offered me a lot of money to “forget” about the “Comb of Death” with +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming. But I am an artist, and they didn’t offer me enough money.

    Because people are not making enough effort to reduce their carbon footprints, the IPCC has asked me to show you a “Comb of Death” based on +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.

    They expect that this “Comb of Death” will make Alarmists scream in fear, and will make Skeptics repent their evil ways. A word of warning, this last “Comb of Death” is not for the faint-hearted.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-comb-of-death

    60

  • #
    pat

    a zillion pics – plenty of new ones:

    12 Jan: Daily Mail: Europe’s whiteout death toll reaches at least TWENTY ONE as snow plow driver dies after his vehicle topples into an icy river and Austrian military helicopters are sent in to fly 66 German teenagers out of a mountain guest house
    •Avalanche crashed through restaurant of the Hotel Säntis in Switzerland while guests were eating inside
    •A 1,000ft wall of snow reportedly hit the hotel, in Schwägalp, in the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden
    •Three were injured and rescue teams are evacuating skiers and searching for anyone who might be missing
    By Chris Pleasance And Julian Robinson
    Meanwhile a power company employee suffered a heart attack while repairing supply lines damaged by the snow in Albania on Friday…
    A state of emergency has been declared across much of southern Germany with troops brought in to help people who have become trapped, while the army has also been deployed in Albania, Montenegro and Serbia.

    ***In neighboring Montenegro, meteorologist Dragan Buric said the first 10 days of January have been among the coldest the country has seen in decades.
    ‘We have snow in January in the capital city (Podgorica) for the first time in nine years,’ Buric told Montenegrin state TV.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6580947/Troops-rescue-people-trapped-homes-Germany-amid-warnings-snow-continue.html

    11 Jan: UK Express: Europe snow CHAOS: Shock pictures from across Europe as temperatures plummet to -23C
    A DEADLY cold snap – which has seen temperatures in some parts of Europe plummet to -23C…
    Germany has deployed soldiers to help rescue people who have been snowed in, while and hundreds of flights have also been cancelled. The extreme weather – which generally hits Europe every 30-100 years – is likely to continue until the middle of next week at the earliest. In Switzerland, a restaurant was rocked by a massive avalanche which buried 25 cars and left three guests eating inside injured…

    ***Almost 1,000 feet of snow has fallen in Switzerland in just 72 hours, causing enormous disruption…

    (TIME WILL TELL – pat)
    UK weather service the Met Office has already warned of possible snow in the north, and advised about the possibility of a “transition to colder weather” this month, although weekend temperatures will actually be above average.
    However, spokesman Graham Madge yesterday downplayed suggestions of a repeat of last year’s Beast from the East, which caused havoc last February.
    He said: “There is nothing in the next week or so that could indicate any change like the Beast from the East.”
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1070839/europe-snow-chaos-pictures-europe-weather-germany-switzerland-avalanche

    60

  • #
    pat

    again, time will tell:

    11 Jan: UK Express: UK weather forecast: Britain set for 6-week DEEP FREEZE as widespread HEAVY SNOW IMMINENT
    BRITAIN is just days away from the start of what could turn into a six-week Arctic freeze as warnings are issued to brace for imminent ‘widespread snow’.
    By Nathan Rao
    Winter is about to bite ‘with a vengeance’ with parts of the country facing the heaviest snowfall for years, forecasters say. A barrage of Atlantic storms will smash into sub-zero Arctic air about to sink over the UK unleashing torrents of snow across the country over the coming weeks. Polar conditions threaten to grip the nation through February with some experts predicting extreme cold to last into spring…
    Weather charts show almost the entire country engulfed by snow by late January driven by a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) of the North Pole…

    Exacta Weather forecaster James Madden warned a long and harsh spell of severe cold weather is about to hit Britain.
    He said: “From the middle part of next week and through to month end will bring a significant change to much more wintry conditions across the country.
    “This will be accompanied by a noticeable and prolonged dip in temperatures for several weeks and repeated snow events which are likely to have a widespread impact.
    “Current indications show even southern Britain in the firing line and this part of the country could see the heaviest snowfall for years with lasting accumulations.
    “Winter is about to strike with a vengeance, and despite being somewhat later than expected, people should not be lulled into a false sense of security, we are facing a notable and prolonged spell of cold and snowy conditions.
    “Generally cold weather could largely hold out through February and even into the start of the meteorological spring.”…

    Britain will also fall to the mercy of a ‘negative Arctic Oscillation (AO)’ triggered by the Polar warming effect.
    A negative AO, sparked by pressure changes between the North Pole and regions to the south, weaken prevailing westerly winds allowing Arctic air to push southwards over the US and Europe.
    Forecasts issued by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warn the Arctic Oscillation will swing into a negative phase towards the end of next week.
    Judah Cohen, a climatologist for the US Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) wrote on Twitter: “GFS [weather models] predicting #colder temperatures and an increase in #snowfall potential across Western #Europe after January 20th as the Arctic Oscillation turns decidedly negative.”…

    (Met Office) Deputy chief meteorologist, Martin Young said: “The latest forecast suggests the highest risk of any severe wintry weather is from late January and into February.
    “Whether cold spells will be brought about by Arctic air arriving from the north or easterly flows arriving from the continent remains uncertain.
    “However, before this happens we expect a rather changeable and relatively mild spell over the weekend and early next week, with some rain for most of us.
    “From the middle of next week, and especially during the last week of January and into early February, there is an increased likelihood of cold weather becoming established across all of the UK.
    “This would bring an enhanced risk of snow and widespread frost almost anywhere across the UK, but particularly across northern parts.”…
    Weather charts show the mercury plunging below freezing across the country durning the second half of January.
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1070811/UK-weather-forecast-snow-January-2019-Met-Office-latest

    11 Jan: UK Express: Europe weather: Snow BURIES Europe as death toll rises but is BIG FREEZE heading to UK?
    EUROPE has been buried by heavy snowfall as severe weather continues to hit Austria, Germany and Sweden, but could the brutal winter weather be heading to the UK?
    By Amani Hughes
    The Met Office forecasts snow for the east in the next couple of weeks and frost which could become “widespread and severe.”
    The agency added: “During the last week of January and into early February, there is an increased likelihood of cold weather being established across all of the UK…

    Bookmaker Coral has this winter as 4-6 to enter the record books as the coldest ever, with fears growing over the brutal cold spell arriving by the end of January.
    Harry Aitkenhead of Coral said: “We’re yet to really experience freezing temperatures but there’s a feeling that we can’t escape them for much longer and when they do arrive they’ll be here to stay.
    ***“It has forced us to make this winter odds on to the coldest we’ve ever had and there’s every chance it’ll be entering the record books.”
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1070852/Europe-weather-big-freeze-germany-austria-sweden-death-toll-severe-weather-snow-storms

    40

    • #
      Annie

      ‘Coldest ever’? Since when will they be reckoning that, I wonder?

      71

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I wonder if it gets really cold, whether people will be struggling to survive like in the battle for Stalingrad in WW2…..bad stuff….

        40

  • #
    TdeF

    “All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming”

    Yes, that’s obvious. Consider the reverse, that the rapid ‘warming’ in the 1980s was not predicted. Wouldn’t it be appalling if the sudden warming was caused by the technological shift to a more accurate digital system?

    What is suspicious is the size of the warming, 0.5C. Isn’t that very close to the reading accuracy of most of the world’s liquid thermometers? He admits the warming has stopped, but what if it never happened? What if instrumental change was the entire cause. It sure isn’t CO2 and the CO2 increase is demonstrably not man made.

    A true sceptic would question the warming itself when it coincides with significant world wide instrumentation change over exactly the same period and it doesn’t continue.

    150

    • #
      TdeF

      After all, who would bother adjusting all the old temperatures by 0.5C? Surely no one would think a single change of +0.5C would mean the end of the world? No human being could even notice the change let alone prophesy doom for the planet?

      Then there’s Al Gore and his friend James Hansen who on June 23rd 1988, the summer solstice opened the high windows of Congress to defeat the airconditioners during James’ testimony.

      “Theon wrote. “Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon added. “I probably would have been removed if I had tried to cut off Jim Hansen’s funding, after all, he had Al Gore…on his team.”

      121

      • #
        TdeF

        The you get the BOM/NASA/IPCC fall back position. Sure, it is not hotter than 20 years ago, but some of the hottest years have been since the thermometers were changed. It’s a little embarrassing to say that the rapid armageddon tipping point runaway ‘warming’ had stopped completely.

        141

    • #
      Another Ian

      TdeF

      “Wouldn’t it be appalling if the sudden warming was caused by the technological shift to a more accurate digital system? ”

      Check out the diagrams on accuracy and precision in Rud Istvan’s “Sea Level Rise (SLR) Satellite Altimetry—Fit for Purpose?”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/11/sea-level-rise-slr-satellite-altimetry-fit-for-purpose/

      Maybe more accurate but seems also less precise at the same time, so the net gain might be questionable

      60

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Wouldn’t it be appalling if the sudden warming “

        Would someone please point out where this “sudden warming” is (no. not in the GISS fabrication.. not valid.)

        Only sudden warming I can find was at the 1998 and 2015/16 El Ninos.

        Basically dead flat apart from them.

        85

        • #
          sophocles

          the sudden warming was caused by the technological shift to a more accurate digital system?

          That is a very good point.

          Then there is this weather forecast made towards the end of the 1960′s by Dr Willie Dansgaard after his 1960s analysis of the Camp Century ice core.

          Not content with confirming the past changes of climate, Dansgaard offers a forecast for the future. He bases it on repeating cycles of change that he thinks fit closely with the ice-records of the past—in fact the combined effects of two dominant cycles, one giving peaks of warmth every 80 years (Gleissberg Cycle) and the other peaks every 180 years (de Vries Cycle). Each of these cycles, Dansgaard believes, represents a regular variation in the Sun which affects its output of energy. Therefore he ventures to let the cycles run on a little way into the decades ahead.

          Here is Dansgaard’s 1970 ultra-long-range weather forecast:
          ===
          … the climate will continue to grow colder during the 1970s and early 1980s; then it will become gradually warmer again so that by 2015
          we shall be back to where we were in 1960—no better; and after that it will start becoming colder again. In short, the outlook for the
          next fifty years is decidedly chilly.
          ===

          It’s still a good fit … and there was nothing CO2 or GHGs contributed to that.

          60

    • #
      AndyG55

      “that the rapid ‘warming’ in the 1980s was not predicted”

      Say what ?????

      There was essentially no warming from 1980 to 1997.

      75

  • #
    pat

    11 Jan: Montel News: Germany may see “extreme” cold at end of January
    Temperatures in Germany could fall as low as 5C below normal at the end of January with “extreme levels” in some parts of the country, according to weather service MetDesk.
    Glen Spencer of the UK’s MetDesk said temperatures in EU’s biggest energy market could be 2-5C below the norm in the week starting 28 January.
    There would be “more anomalously colder [weather] than week 4 by up to a degree or two, and pushing extreme levels in some parts”, he said…

    Nevertheless, the meteorologists stopped short of comparing temperatures with those of last winter when a blast of freezing weather from Siberia pushed levels down to well below zero across northern Europe…

    Low wind
    The cold weather later this month could be met with little wind and relatively dry conditions, the forecasters said.
    Wind power output may be 0.4 GW and 3.3 GW below average during weeks 4 and 5, respectively, according to EQ…
    https://www.montelnews.com/en/story/germany-may-see-extreme-cold-at-end-of-january/969999

    50

  • #
    RAH

    “Look, another climate expert the BBC won’t be interviewing” Nor will climate expert Chuck Todd at NBC, nor the LA Times, nor a great number of media outlets in the US and UK.

    And now we have Snowmageddon in parts of the US and much of Europe all due to “climate change” of course. https://www.accuweather.com/

    And if Joe Bastardi is correct, which I’m pretty sure he is, repeated snow storms and frigid temps will be the norm for most of the US and Europe right through February and into March.

    In the late 80s when I was at Bad Tolz in Bavaria we would love the kind of snow they’re getting in the German Alps right now and be heading to the Brauneck to enjoy the waist deep powder off-piste. The best winter I did not go without skiing for more than one day during a period starting in October in Austria on a glacier for the SF ski instructor evaluation and ending in early April in Sud Tirol in the area of Vipiteno, Italy attending the Italian SF ski training and subsequent exercise.

    Now such winter weather is considered abnormal and something to be feared by the alarmist mongers.

    90

    • #
      AndyG55

      “repeated snow storms and frigid temps will be the norm for most of the US and Europe right through February and into March. “

      While its pretty warm down here (nothing unusual for an Australian summer), it will be interesting to see how all this snow and freezing weather in the NH affects the January UAH temperature.

      74

      • #
        RAH

        Over at WUWT there is this post about NH snow extent by Anthony Watts: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/11/there-is-no-snow-cover-gain-or-loss-trend-due-to-global-warming-since-1972-in-the-northern-hemisphere/

        Of course the alarmists want to forget that their party line used to be that “climate change” would result in a general decrease in snow cover/extent. That prompted all kinds of predictions and hand wringing about the demise of the ski industries in the US and Europe. So what they claimed would happen has not and thus they now claim the fact that spring extent is a little down is proof of “climate change”. Never mind the fact that overall for all seasons extent is stable showing no real trend and thus the other seasons must be making up for the slight decrease in spring extent.

        When I posted a bunch of links dating back to 2014 showing the alarmism about the ski industries failing due to lack of snow I was asked to quote specific lines from the articles to prove something or other. So typical of alarmists. When backed into a corner they demand that you spoon feed them even after you provide the links that expose their lie. I refuse generally. I have better things to do than spoon feed them and wipe their chins for them when I know that it isn’t going to make a lick of difference.

        70

      • #
        RAH

        BTW Joe Bastardi and the guys at https://www.weatherbell.com/ were light years ahead of the models in forecasting what we have now in the NH and what is coming down the pike, which in the Europe’s near future is a beast from the east of Arctic cold. That’s the difference between a private company who’s revenue and very existence is determined by performance and government entities who’s continued funding is not based on performance or that lack of it.

        60

    • #
      Slithers

      Wide spread snow falls are like self fulfilling prophecies. They increase the Libido so it does not warm up as quickly. I remember that from the 1947 winter in the UK. Snow still hanging around at Easter that had been precipitated the previous Boxing day!

      30

      • #
      • #
        Annie

        I think it was 2013 that there was still loads of snow at the Tan Hill Inn in the Yorkshire Dales, in mid April. It was in 1963 that I saw the last heap of snow on the 1st March in Richmond Park near London, where it would have disappeared earlier than further north and in rural areas.

        10

  • #
    RAH

    Why can’t people just enjoy the beauty of it all without going into some kind of a fit. https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/lifestyle/yosemite-national-park-looks-like-narnia-covered-in-winter-snow/vi-BBS6bI2?ocid=spartanntp

    I’m a truck driver and thus have to deal with the reality of this kind of weather on the road but I will always Love it because it’s hard to find more pure beauty and peace than one will find in a winter wonderland.

    90

    • #
      AndyG55

      GORGEOUS !!! :-)

      63

    • #
      Annie

      That’s beautiful RAH. There are some stunning pics and videos of snow from lots of places in the Northern Hemisphere. I love the look of it and the peacefulness when the snow seems to mute traffic noise.

      71

    • #
      AndyG55

      Summer down here, so the best I can give you is a pic of a baby magpie enjoying the H2O bath I just put in for them :-)

      84

      • #
        RAH

        Got in from the road yesterday early in the morning and restocked by seed blocks and filled my 8 lb. feeder. When the snow covers the ground the birds really hit them hard. We’re forecast to get 4 to 8″ here in the center of Hoosier land, but looking out my window, it hasn’t started yet.

        50

        • #
          AndyG55

          Magpies like meat, and sesame wheat biscuits. Go figure.

          Gees they get narky if I am late getting up in the morning ! :-)

          74

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            They also like cheese. In fact the male of the family (nesting in the huge gum tree behind the block) will take a bit of whatever (stale bread, seeds etc) then come and stand 5 feet from me and put his head on one side (he knows what the cheese packet looks like).
            They will also go and check out the seed tray for sunflower seeds, but that is definitely a secondary interest.

            60

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              My magpies, before the drought sent them packing, loved bacon rind. Would eat out of my open palm.

              The butcher birds like free food but are very cautious and don’t go for hand feeding.

              KK

              50

            • #
              Annie

              King Parrots used to feed from my hand at the rental property we were in while building our house. I don’t encourage them to do that here as they wreck my damsons at all stages; flower buds, mini- fruit and nowhere-near-ripe fruit. As do the lorikeets, rosellas, cockatoos (the sulphur-crested thug variety), etc. etc.

              20

          • #

            When we were in Rockhampton, we had a Magpie two homes across the back fence, and he would often graze on our back lawn, and you’d just watch him listening for the grubs underground. Each year, he and his ‘mate’ would nest in the same tree, and produce one chick, and after nesting and finally ‘getting his wings’ the chick would follow Mum and Dad into our back yard, always a good source of tucker. Always just the one young following the two adults around.

            Now here in Beenleigh, we have a nesting pair, again two homes across and we watch from our balcony as the adults feed in the vacant lot between us and their nest in the tall Pine tree, in a group of about five of those large pines.

            However, this pair had two young this season, and after they got their wings they would follow Mum and dad into that vacant lot to root up worms and grubs, the two following Mum or dad, and squawking away as the young ones do.

            And now, just in the last week/ten days, there have been two further young, and you can tell because their feathers are still fluffy, they squawk, rather than the typical Magpie warble, and they waddle around after Mum and Dad, begging to be fed. Four young and two adults, and that’s the first time I have seen that. It’s just so odd, watching the six of them together.

            Tony.

            120

            • #
              Dennis

              My German Shepherd Dog and the local Magpies got on very well together and he would allow them to walk in between his paws listening for a pecking grubs.

              70

              • #
                RAH

                Here in my little corner of heaven in Indiana we have barn swallows. They made mud nests on the walls of the unused concrete block chimney of my neighbors garage during the summer. Very quick and maneuverable insect eaters. When I’m mowing they swoop down around me to catch any insects the mower kicks up. Beautiful birds to watch fly. In the evening when they get ready to go down the chimney and roost for the night they fly around in formation and making multiple passes above the chimney. One then peels off and goes down. Around they come again and another goes down until all are in their roost for the night.

                81

            • #
              robert rosicka

              Supplement feeding three baby magpies and their parents Devon worms and now it seems the fairy wrens are getting partial to the taste and pinching the odd few from the magpies .
              Had three juvenile King Parrots up at the pool in the shade cooling off yesterday and they seem to like the mist fan I set up for them .

              50

              • #
                Annie

                Our magpies love the small wibble wobble sprinkler when it’s on near the citrus trees. At present it’s watering the very ordinary ‘grass’ around the house, using dam water. Part of our safety regime…needed as the massive gum trees along the road keep dropping fire happy rubbish, leaves, twigs and branches.
                We have a pair of magpies with two young. The young make a strange noise when they are begging for food. They carry on even when they are much the same size as the parents, who begin to look a bit frazzled by Christmas!
                BTW, the southern hemisphere magpie is not the same as the northern hemisphere one. They look very similar and behave in a remarkably similar way. I can’t remember their formal labels, will have to look that up again.

                10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Or a pic of where I spent most of my spare time.

      Stuck at home at the moment with an ankle sprain, but still having great fun.
      (Thanks Peter for the frivolity and your slap-stick comedy.) :-)

      Funny. That beach looks exactly as it did 40-50 years ago, same rocks at the far end.

      Nothing changes.

      95

  • #

    “…but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.”

    He may posture now as one of the good guys…but the above comment contains all the hubris, manipulation and illogicality we’ve come to expect of the climatariat. Could a comment be any weirder? You don’t know the score so you’ll dish out equal scores to the top three players? Anastasios, the whole point is to find out the score or clam up.

    Sorry, but they all have to go off in disgrace. None of their reputations are worth sparing, none of their recantations are worth hearing. Lukewarmers like Tsonis and Curry only serve to keep the climatariat in business for longer. Let’s repeat it: there never was any evidence that the present interglacial is warmer than the previous one, there never was any evidence that any present warming within this interglacial is exceptional compared to numerous other warm episodes over the last ten thousand years. In fact, all the evidence points to warmer conditions and higher sea levels earlier in our interglacial, especially in the period eight to six thousand years back. How has it been possible to ignore all of this? Because you get a doctorate in atmospheric science you don’t have to worry about natural history, geology and the rest?

    Tsonis just needs to go.

    101

    • #
      AndyG55

      “I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.””

      As you say.. certainly a bizarre NON-science comment from a so-called scientist.

      103

      • #
        AndyG55

        He could be saying “I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.”” to see what happens in a model or calculation… a sort of “what if” scenario.

        … but surely he wouldn’t attach any significance to the results.

        That would make him a “climate scientist™”.

        83

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Thanks for doing what we couldn’t.

      I couldn’t figure out where to start but that’s exactly what many of us probably felt.

      I wonder if he has severe bruising from straddling the fence.

      KK

      81

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Ahhhhh MosoMoso, Tsonis has seen the light…of how real science works….

      And announced it to the world ( or rather the Washington Post world )

      BUT you don’t welcome his decision ?

      And you are grumpy about Judith Curry as well ?

      Dear me who needs enemies with friends like that ?

      10

      • #

        Bill, 1/3 is how real nonsense works. He has been juggling for so long he has forgotten what a straight statement sounds like. How could a real scholar come up with such a masterpiece of evasion and absurdity after a life of study?

        It would indeed be something if his “light” was announced to the Washington Post world. In fact, his article appears in the Washington Times, the Moonies-founded conservative daily which at least brings a bit of balance to the mainstream. This sort of article is not unusual for the Times.

        As for Judith Curry, I remember when, not that many years ago. she was blaming all the climatariat’s failings on “communication” problems only. This “communicator” was herself so evasive and matronising that it was impossible to grasp any point except that the IPCC were still the good guys, they just needed our understanding. Since then she has attracted skeptics by embracing many of their themes and giving a platform to some real skepticism, but the overall effect is to keep us close to the corral. Reminiscent of Tsonis’ outrageous 1/3 approach, Curry often retreats into navel-gazey reflections on uncertainty/certainty that are designed to mean nothing but which keep us engaged in the climate twistiness.

        Like the Vicar of Brae, I don’t doubt that these people will be full-time skeptics when it suits, just as they were climate careerists and lukewarmers when it suited. But we need to kick this nasty climate racket to the kerb right away. For no country is this more urgent than for Australia.

        60

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Well put Mosomoso.

          We need to kick it, and fast.

          50

          • #

            From the conclusion of Tsonis’ article: “Second, while we should try our best to take care of our planet, global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency…”

            Not the only urgent planetary emergency. Get that bit of subliminal advertising?

            60

            • #
              AndyG55

              “global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency…””

              This guy has drunk deeply of the Klimate Kool Aide.

              NOT a skeptic.

              72

          • #
            AndyG55

            Doing everything I can to makes sure people see that the very basis of so-called AGW is totally without any scientifically supportable data.

            I find it quite bizarre/hilarious watching AGW apologists like pfutz squirm around trying to avoid this most basic issue or trying to make totally unsupportable connections in a vain attempt to try and support the unsupportable..

            63

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Bill,
        one of the most obvious points is that this recently retired professor has not “seen the light” and has clearly demonstrated that he has no scientific understanding of the topic.

        What he has done is make a political decision to be the man for all seasons.

        Closer to home,

        The incoherent projectile verbiage coming from the current visitor from SkS and the previous human rights advocate of a few months back who has, completely by chance, reappeared today, is a good indicator of where our society is headed.

        USA has Trump, Britain has Brexit and however disruptive they may be they have hope.

        Australia has elections coming and we don’t seem to be at all concerned that the only choice we have is between the Big Grabbers Parti and the Bigger Grabbers Parti.

        USA and Britain are facing their future: we are still getting over the heat and excitement of Christmas, New Year.

        Straya, go for it.

        KK,

        51

  • #
    pat

    Yosemite is looking amazing.

    a fun clip:

    VIDEO: 38secs: 11 Jan: Reuters: Helicopter propellers help remove snow on trees in Germany
    https://www.reuters.com/video/2019/01/11/helicopter-propellers-help-remove-snow-o?videoId=502198578&videoChannel=118261&channelName=News+Agency

    60

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Not a new claim but ABC thinks it is .

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-12/rising-demand-for-air-conditioning-alarms-climate-change-experts/10710956

    How dare anyone have air conditioning, we were in Alice Springs in January 4 years ago and it was mostly in the 40′s with one day a supposed record while at Uluru.
    Spent a year up the road at Tennant Creek and it gets hot , bloody hot and all normal .

    80

    • #

      How dare anyone have the wheel, the plough, printing press, telescope, coal, the steam engine … serfs putting yourselves above the beasts of the field. Know you be responsible for all that we inner city green elites, (recognized by our wearing of sandals and scarves-at week ends) find wrong with the world. Be off, back to ditches, hedge rows, hovels, sloughs, like the beasts of the fields that you are, do not think to raise yourselves above them. We the City Central Elites, representatives of the Church of Globull have spoken.

      81

  • #
    pat

    11 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Seven EU nations miss climate and energy plan deadline
    By Sam Morgan for Euractiv
    All 28 EU members had until 31 December 2018 to hand in their plans to the EU executive to have their efforts audited and checked against the bloc’s new clean energy laws, including energy efficiency and renewable energy uptake.
    But sources have revealed that Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Spain are yet to turn in their homework…

    Germany is among those to have turned in patchy plans, according to German media, who have seen a copy of Berlin’s 140-page-long effort which is reportedly only “provisional”.
    Austria’s draft plan has also been criticised by the government’s own inter-ministerial expert group, which concluded that the measures proposed are not enough to meet set targets…
    More broadly, the plans that have been submitted already have been largely appraised by environment groups as more reporting exercises than coherent strategies…

    But there are further fears that member states will refuse to update their plans to reflect any changes to the EU’s overall climate commitments, leading to a patchwork of NECPs and a clear split between progressive climate action countries and less willing nations…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/01/11/seven-eu-nations-miss-climate-energy-plan-deadline/

    60

  • #
    RAH

    Several of my fellow company drivers are stuck out on I-70 in Missouri. I feel sorry for the folks in cars stranded, but for the truckers with sleepers it’s not a big deal as long as the driver has properly prepared. Keep the fuel level at half or above. Keep five days provisions in the truck and your good to go as long as you don’t suffer a mechanical problem. The only loss is thus the pay for miles and even that is in part made up for by most companies since the pay “lay over” pay in such situations if a driver is stuck more than 24 hours.

    100

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      RAH, late December 1989 I had a ‘driveaway car’ (V6 Mercury or something) to deliver from NY to Denver; got on the I-70 in Penn and headed west into an overnight blizzard. Cars and trucks were off the road in all sorts of pile ups as my trusty steed purred towards the Rockies. Kansas was a picture postcard when the sun came out: big blue sky, white as far as the eye could see, old abandoned homesteads with obligatory wind vanes all rusted and silent. Through Denver, past Red Rocks, up into the mountains, through Eisenhower Tunnel and KAPOW! Summit County and Ten Mile Range and Breckenridge – thought I was in Shangri-La, ooh la la. Drove back to Denver the next day, dropped off the car, got my $300 deposit returned and caught a bus back to Breck where I lived for 2 years. The engineering skills used to put through that ‘road’ were astounding. The old Loveland Pass was a favourite for us mad back-country powder fiends and lovers of tree-laden snow chutes and deep DEEP glades… bliss. Drive safely.

      40

      • #
        RAH

        When I was doing long haul and ran back and forth quite often between the east and west coasts and any points in between I or we(would be team driving quite often) would avoid taking I-70 if at all possible during the winter. Going to S. California would take I-40. Going to N. California take I-80 and go through the Donner pass. The reason for that is that Colorado is the only state that requires truckers to put chains on all drive tires of the tractor and all tires on the trailer in snowy conditions in the mountains. All the other states allow you to alternate. Really there is something good to be said for the views along any of the major east west Interstates when one gets out west. Lots of interesting stuff along I-40 in Arizona. Painted desert, petrified forest, Flagstaff, etc. Never had to chain up along I-40.

        30

  • #
    RAH

    Now you’ll have to excuse me while I shovel about 4″ of global warming off my deck and walk. Still coming down and is forecast to snow on and off through Sunday morning so it’s best to get ahead of it. Not to the level yet where I have to break out the snow blower to clear the drive. Times like these I’m especially glad I have a Toyota FJ Cruiser to break trail.

    140

  • #
    RAH

    Well, I’ll be heading in the direction the snow is at 01:00 Monday morning. Delivery of Nestles product to Breinigsville, PA in the Eastern part of the state. Hopefully they’ll have the mess cleaned up by the time I go that way. This snow is moving from west to east-north-east and will bring heavy accumulations in the mountains of PA.

    90

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    At this point a review might be in order.

    The main reason that people respond to the likes of Peter F is that we are here to learn and try to understand the social phenomenon of Man Made Global Warming _ save the planet or else, as detailed by the broad church of CAGW.

    This is not a scientific issue: it is pure politics, but only when we have exposed the false science can we begin to look at the politics and the Money Flow.

    Andy has responded to the bulk of material posted and others have lent time and effort.
    The main purpose in responding has been to attach a label to that stream of comment that identifies it as lacking scientific coherence and therefore also lacking in Truth.

    Our concern is that readers of the blog known as Skeptical Science may come to this blog, see comments by PF and assume that they are accepted as truth.

    An understanding of real science is hard to come by as witness the ease with which the politicians have been able to bring large areas of the formerly civilised world down into the new world order. Europe and Britain are in chaos. Australia and New Zealand are on the brink of collapse from the eco assault.

    Having a blog to work through the issues not clearly covered by the media is important, so protecting it from disruption by SkScience drones who have no intention of contributing or learning, is something to consider.

    KK

    74

    • #
      Annie

      I mostly flick past comments by PF and replies to them. They rather hijacked this thread yesterday.

      84

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…so protecting it from disruption by SkScience drones ….’

      Why? I enjoy a good biff and this has been an Exhibition Match with 556 comments so far.

      This blog needs more robust debate, not less. Think of Peter as a sounding board and debate the scientific issues, not to persuade him but to convince the undecided who may have wandered this way.

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Think of Peter as a sounding board “

        More like an EMPTY VASSAL. ! :-)

        41

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        It certainly needs debate.

        What has been offered is not respectful debate or inquisitiveness but deliberate damage to the normal running of the blog.

        Comment of this nature needs to be marked by appropriate comment, and in that respect Andy has carried most of the weight.

        KK

        30

        • #
          AndyG55

          Its called TROLLING.

          He’s trying to make a name for himself, probably big-noting himself in front of a mirror.

          Its petty and its pointless, and it takes a particular low-esteem cretin to continue at it for this long.

          21

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            He has two watchers who couldn’t resist making their point. It’s not funny, it’s not skillful and is deliberately argumentative to cause dislocation.

            KK

            20

            • #
              el gordo

              Peter is ignorant on the subject of climate change, but he has a majority of scientists, politicians and general population on his side. We cannot win a war of attrition against those odds.

              He is not a troll, just a retired scientist who has found the time to dispute the contrarians in an old men’s shed.

              00

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘….deliberately argumentative to cause dislocation.’

              Peter is not a troll because he is talking about CO2 and temperature, its up to us to prove him wrong through the force of our arguments. Explained simply, for the scientific illiterate, in the hope that the new broom at Sky News accepts the idea that CO2 is a harmless trace gas.

              00

  • #
    pat

    the RE zealots will always go on the offensive:

    13 Jan: SMH: Nicole Hasham: Waste crisis looms as thousands of solar panels reach end of life
    Thousands of ageing rooftop solar panels represent a toxic time-bomb and major economic waste unless Australia acts swiftly to keep them out of landfill, conservationists and recyclers say.

    Australia’s enthusiastic embrace of rooftop solar has brought clear environmental and economic benefits, but critics say governments have dragged their feet in addressing the looming waste crisis…

    Photovoltaic panels last about 30 years, and those installed at the turn of the millennium are nearing the end of their lives. Many have already been retired due to faults or damage during transport and installation…
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/waste-crisis-looms-as-thousands-of-solar-panels-reach-end-of-life-20190112-p50qzd.html

    no concern about any of the above in this:

    21 Dec 2018: SMH: Nicole Hasham: Power bills drop $28 a year thanks to renewable policy, since dumped by the government
    An estimated 9732 megawatts of new generation and battery storage is expected in the four years to 2020-21.
    The vast majority of this – almost 9000 megawatts – will come from intermittent generation such as wind and solar…
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/power-bills-drop-28-a-year-thanks-to-renewable-policy-since-dumped-by-the-government-20181220-p50nfx.html

    40

  • #
    Michael262

    You only get 100% proofs in mathematics.
    The fact that you’ve got a very short list of sceptical climate scientists does not upset the consensus, they have yet to provide evidence.
    That’s science for you

    64

    • #
      AndyG55

      Consensus is MEANINGLESS in science.

      The fact you mention it shows how little you know about science.

      There is no empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

      That is science for you.

      75

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        however, this paper would be right up their alley:
        Glaciers, gender, and science:
        A feminist glaciology framework
        for global environmental change
        research

        Mark Carey, M Jackson, Alessandro Antonello and Jaclyn Rushing
        University of Oregon, USA
        Abstract
        Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among
        gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of
        glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework
        with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of
        scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science
        studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender,
        power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable
        science and human-ice interactions

        26

        • #
          AndyG55

          A JOKE paper , written by a far left virtue-seeker, just like you, pfutz.

          Written by one of your mob, on a par with the science (lol) of Hansen, Cook, Lewendopey etc.

          Contains even less actual science than you have produced. Is that even possible !!!

          You are still totally empty of any rational empirical science to support the very basis of the religious idiocy of AGW.

          Zero empirical evidence of warming by ENHANCED atmospheric CO2.

          You have reached the “petty distraction” stage that most AGW apologists reach when they see their own ineptitude staring at them as they faceplant yet again into their own BS.

          75

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research”

          Glaciers dont have a gender…..that will mess up everything….

          As its PC, there has to be a victim there too….can ice be a victim? I can feel the faux outrage building……

          But can glaciers be racist? They are white, right?

          /sarc

          10

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Very good points Michael262. However according to AndyG55 and Kinky Kieth, you can not reference any IPCC reports, any NASA, or any other government agency, an of course anything from a university. That does limit any science or scientific debate somewhat.

      410

      • #
        AndyG55

        How you are just being plain stupid.

        You have been shown that the IPCC is just a political organisations, and that NASA data and comments are baseless propaganda.

        You have NOT presented one piece of empirical science to back up warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.

        Your links have been destroyed at every post

        You have NOTHING.

        75

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          you think?
          This is a good summary of all of the empirical evidence including the impact of Anthropomorphic C02
          https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
          I know it is on the banned knowledge list, but you did ask

          49

          • #
            AndyG55

            You really are CLUELESS when it comes to what constitutes empirical evidence , aren’t you pfutz. !!

            MODELS are NOT evidence, especially when they are built on unsubstantiated anti-science in the first place

            There is NOT ONE PIECE of empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2 in that whole compilation of AGW propaganda pap.

            You think there is.. then point out exactly where it is.

            55

            • #
              AndyG55

              Using GISS.. roflmao.. no reality there.

              The “natural greenhouse effect” is a hoot, having never been measured or observed anywhere on the planet except related to the phase changes of H2O.

              There is non “enhanced greenhouse effect”, it is a myth, a fantasy

              CO2 rise follows temperature, not the other way around

              In Vostox cores, peak CO2 was coincident with global COOLING

              And they even use the Micky Mann FARCE of a hockey stick.

              You KNOW it is nothing but blatant propaganda. Not even the IPCC use that piece of junk science anymore.

              And then they highlight their ignorance of solar cycles and the grand solar maximum of the latter part of last century, showing further ignorance in using just TSI as the solar variable.

              This whole page is designed just for GULLIBLE little children.. like you, pfutz.

              56

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                did you look at the references from which those graphs were taken. Its all there AndyG55 if you want to read it.

                Oh, According to the Scientific American the Hockey Stick graph was right on the money

                https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/earth-day-and-the-hockey-stick-a-singular-message/

                or do I add it to the banned knowledge list?

                69

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Hockey Stick graph was right on the money”

                ROFMLAO.. now you are really being both incredibly stupid and incredibly GULLIBLE.

                It has been debunked an shown to be a complete mess of mathematic maleficence so manty time its not funny

                Upside down data, heavily weight. Process creates the same shape using random data.
                Its a monumental FARCE.. and zero-science/maths fools like you fall for it

                HILARIOUS. :-)

                55

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Scientific American”

                Anyone keeping up with science knows that “Scientific American” lost credibility ages ago.

                But you are NOT up with real science are you.

                Your responses show you never were.

                “banned knowledge”

                No, just propaganda based on junk science.

                The sort of science you worship.

                The really funny thing is, that you can’t tell the difference :-)

                54

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Oh I see, only WUWT or some opinion writer for the Australian is up to scratch in AndyG55 world, is that correct?

                46

              • #
                AndyG55

                Now.. about that EMPIRICAL evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.

                Still waiting !!

                If you really “believe” your little NASA propaganda link had that empirical evidence….

                Then point out exactly where it is.

                Or you could try another mindless attempt at distraction. ;-)

                44

              • #
                AndyG55

                Still the petty attempts at distraction.. so funny !!

                If you really “believe” your little NASA propaganda link had that empirical evidence….

                Then point out exactly where it is.

                Waiting , while watching you run around like a headless chook. :-)

                33

              • #
                AndyG55

                “If you really “believe” your little NASA propaganda link had that empirical evidence….

                Then point out exactly where it is.”
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .

                Oh look pfutz seems to have disappeared.. ;-)

                44

          • #
            el gordo

            Peter that whole paper is propaganda, its based on a false premise.

            52

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Andy,
          Nobody could be as gullible as he portrays himself to be.

          This, on top of the fact that he contradicts even himself in responding to other comments here, means that he is not to be trusted.

          All in all a person intent on causing damage to promote the Political cause at hand: The maintenance of the Myth of Man Made Global Warming.

          KK

          64

          • #
            AndyG55

            Petty distraction and disruption is his meme.

            65

          • #
            AndyG55

            He “says” he has a BSc in Biology, yet he seems totally ignorant on what scientific evidence constitutes.

            Quite bizarre. !!

            75

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Nobody could be as gullible as he portrays himself to be.”

            Well yes, most of these AGW apologists REALLY ARE that gullible.

            Just unquestioning “belief” in what the AGW priest feed them as propaganda pap.

            45

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            contradicts himself, never

            410

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            I forgot to add:

            and the great big three billion dollar electricity ripoff: taxation by stealth; enabled by Politics.

            KK

            40

      • #
        Michael262

        Peter @ 42.2
        I presume your sarcasm ?.
        You and others have shoved evidence under the noses of these guys ( for years ?) only to be dismissed with conspiracy theories and demands for yet more evidence.
        This science free site is purely about ideology, that’s why arguing with facts is pointless, just ask their brains trust, Andy.
        No amount will convince them, yet they fail to get any of their own ‘evidence’ to stick in the real World, sad really.

        44

        • #
          AndyG55

          So, you can yap mindlessly, like most AGW apologists.

          Can you produce any empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2

          So far a COMPLETE BLANK from pfutz.

          Maybe you will have more luck?

          We are awaiting your evidence.

          Models are NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

          Vague correlations are NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

          Ocean warming forced by the Sun is NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

          Steady state sea level rise is NOT evidence of CO2 warming. (Nor is splicing on adjusted satellite data)

          And mindless brain-hosed blather from pfutz and you, is certainly NOT evidence of CO2 warming

          44

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          So now we have the dead sea trio all on the same thread.

          What an amazing coincidence.

          They must be worried that this blog is working too well?

          KK

          62

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          You are totally correct, Michael, it does seem to go over their heads a bit, pity about that.

          38

          • #
            AndyG55

            Still the headless chook routine

            HILARIOUS ! :-)

            Can you produce any empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2 ?

            44

        • #

          What evidence would that be? Michael’s trick, model projections, homogenized data – specify, data and workings? … Still waiting for Greenhouse.

          52

          • #
            AndyG55

            Temperature data, fudged or not, only proves warming.

            It does not prove the cause of that warming, which is almost certainly Solar.

            Thank goodness for the slight by highly beneficial solar warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years.

            Europe is now getting a good taste of what the LIA might have been like.

            I’m sure they are enjoying it immensely.

            54

            • #
              RAH

              Grab the skies and head for the slopes! I Love the Alps because of the snow and because usually the temperatures are not nearly as bitter cold as one will experience in the Rockies in the western US or the Green Mountains of Vermont or White Mountains of New Hampshire. I have spent a lot of time during winter months outside in all of those places and I’m telling you that the mountains in New England, though not that high, have a cold that hurts more. I can’t define it but 0 deg. F in the white mountains feels considerably colder than 0 deg. F in the Alps. The only place in Europe where I felt cold with the sharp and bitter character as is found in the NE US was up at Dumbas, Norway.

              40

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Well, your mate Fitzroy is asked for evidence, and so far has huffed and puffed but offered nothing…..

          Science is evidence based, not politics based. So far all weve seen from Fitzroy is random urls and fillibsuter, which is the type of repsonse youd get from someone who lacks knowledge or has a great future in politics.

          Often we’d label people like that time wasters or trolls…take your pick.

          QED

          10

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      That’s

      Money

      For you, and them.

      30

  • #
    pat

    now it’s the turn of the USA. highlighting the I-44 tweet as I have a Weather Channel followup:

    12 Jan: Accuweather: Live updates: 7 killed amid largest snowstorm in St. Louis since 2014, major travel disruptions across central US
    By Brian Lada
    TWEET: There is now one lane of traffic moving slowly on east and westbound ***I-44 at the Antire Rd area. Please avoid this area while we continue to get the remaining traffic moving through and MODOT can get more lanes cleared.
    https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snow-reports-traffic-grinds-to-a-halt-as-snow-clogs-roads-in-missouri/70007132

    TWEET: Steve Petyrak, Weather Channel: Drone video shot by @CharlesPeekWX of our live location and the miles of gridlock on ***I-44 from #WinterStormGia – live w/ @JimCantore on @weatherchannel
    12 Jan 2018
    https://twitter.com/StevePetyerak/status/1084098790620049411

    20

  • #
    pat

    drone video from -23C Florina in Greece:

    8 Jan: GreekReporter: Record Low Temperatures Recorded in Florina, Northern Greece (video)
    By Tasos Kokkinidis
    Highway traffic, rail and bus services were disrupted across northern Greece, where an all-time record low of -23 degrees Celsius (-9 Fahrenheit) was recorded in the city of Florina.
    The thermometer in Nevrokopi, in the Drama region, showed -21 C and in Neos Kafkasos, in the Florina region, temperatures of -20.4 C were recorded.

    Extremely low temperatures were also recorded in the city of Grevena, where residents experienced -19.9 C, and in the village of Vovousa, in the Ioannina region, where they reached -19.5C.
    The town of Mavrolithari in the Fokida region logged a temperature of -19.3C, in Ptolemaida -18.5 C was recorded, and in the village of Pertouli, in the Trikala region, temperatures dropped to -17.5 C.
    Extremely low temperatures were also experienced in Kozani, where -13 C was recorded, and it got down to -12 C in Kastoria.

    VIDEO: 4min+: A drone video from Saturday shot by Giannis Vasileiou captured Florina under a thick layer of snow…
    https://greece.greekreporter.com/2019/01/08/all-time-low-temperatures-recorded-in-florina-northern-greece-video/

    30

  • #
    Robber

    Meaningless average temperatures.
    The average temperature of the world is reportedly about 16°C, about 1°C above pre-industrial times, and according to the IPCC a further 0.5-1.0°C rise will be devastating/catastrophic – that much warming could expose tens of millions more people worldwide to life-threatening heat waves, water shortages and coastal flooding. Half a degree may mean the difference between a world with coral reefs and Arctic summer sea ice and a world without them.
    So I wonder how we are surviving in Australia? According to BOM, the 1961-1990 average temperature in Australia was 21.8°C, and since then the average has climbed by a further 1°C. The average maximum temperature has climbed from 28.6°C to 29.6°C, compared to just 28.1°C back in 1910. And over the century the average minimum temperature has climbed from 14.6°C to 15.7°C.
    But average rainfall has gone from 450mm to 500mm.
    How have we survived?

    62

  • #
    PeterS

    Too bad there are plenty more where he came from to continue the greatest scam of all time. Now if thousands of scientists resigned in protest against the scam perhaps we would make some progress in exposing the scam to all and turn things around. I’m dreaming again.

    50

  • #
    pat

    Videos plus pics (some new):

    13 Jan: Daily Mail: Tanks roll in to frozen hell: Germany and Austria call state of emergency as troops save residents from NECK-DEEP snow after 21 deaths in worst winter for more than 30 years
    By Rod Ardehali For Mailonline and Nick Craven for The Mail on Sunday
    Tanks and troops were drafted in to rescue homeowners from neck-deep snow in Germany and Austria as the whiteout looked to continue past the weekend…
    ‘Such quantities of snow above 800m altitude only happen once every 30 to 100 years,’ said Austrian meteorologist Alexander Radlherr…

    VIDEO: 2min41sec: South Germany experiencing state of emergency for heavy snowfall

    VIDEO: 1min41sec: Austrian ski resort of Flachau buries under snow after severe weather
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6584305/Europe-blanketed-snow-following-deaths-21-people-winter-whiteout.html

    60

    • #
      tom0mason

      Pat,

      And there are many forecasts that say there will be PLENTY more of that snow stuff coming to central Europe.

      All major national and international weather models (GFS, ECMWF, UKMO, GEM, ICON, ARPEGE, JMA, NAVGEM), after about January 20th are showing a large freeze expected to most parts of Europe. Some longer range model (CFS, JMA, UKMO, Beijing Climate Center, etc.) are all showing that it may last until the end of February.

      Here a link to the GFS model http://www.wetterzentrale.de/en/topkarten.php?map=1&model=gfs&var=5&time=0&run=12&lid=OP&h=0&mv=0&tr=3 There are many more on that site.

      Voices from the past said –

      “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
      Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, 8 Feb 2006
      ~~~~~~~~~

      “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.“
      Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 2 March 2007

      ~~~~~~~~~
      “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
      Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010
      ~~~~~~~~~
      “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
      Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000
      .
      .
      .
      And so many more utterly inaccurate predictions (from 2013) are listed here http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/04/climate-science-humiliated-earlier-model-prognoses-of-warmer-winters-now-todays-laughingstocks/

      50

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        What a difference ten years makes.

        30

      • #
        AndyG55

        “All major national and international weather models (GFS, ECMWF, UKMO, GEM, ICON, ARPEGE, JMA, NAVGEM), after about January 20th are showing a large freeze expected to most parts of Europe. Some longer range model (CFS, JMA, UKMO, Beijing Climate Center, etc.) are all showing that it may last until the end of February.”

        Get ready for another GISS “Warmest month EVAH” !! ;-)

        51

  • #
    pat

    great pics:

    8 Jan: Siberian Times: Coldest race in the world is run at -52C in Yakutia
    Sixteen runners braved extreme temperatures at the Pole of Cold.
    The daring athletes – the youngest was 21, and oldest 71, all extremely well-trained – travelled 928 kilometres north-east of Yakutsk to the world’s coldest inhabited village of Oymyakon.
    Bone-chilling marathons for five, ten, 20, 30 and 42 kilometres were organised on 5 January.
    At the beginning of the run the air temperature was minus 52 Celsius; by the time the last – and only! – sportsman made it past the mark of 39km it ‘warmed’ to minus 48C.

    ‘We wanted to make running in -45C and colder more popular, and to show that athletes can adapt to extremely low temperatures’, said Russian champion runner Yegor Abramov.
    ‘We could see utter amazement in the eyes of tourists that travelled here from Australia, Taiwan, Japan and India to watch the world’s coldest race’, said runner Sargylana Neustroyeva.
    ‘This was our first try at organising the extremely cold marathon.
    ‘Next year we are definitely doing another race, all athletes from around the world are welcome!’

    Mother of eight Anastasia Stepanova completed 25km in four hours.
    Seventy-one year old veteran Yegor Permyakov took two and a half hours to run 15 km.
    The longest distance of 39 km was conquered by head of Emissa village Ilya Pesterev.
    His time was three hours 53 minutes.
    https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/coldest-race-in-the-world-is-run-at-52c-in-yakutia/

    PICS: 9 Jan: Siberian Times: Nature and man combine to create stunning ‘ice mushrooms’ in Amur region
    Stunning sculptures appear hanging on trees that were submerged by a giant new reservoir.
    https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/nature-and-man-combine-to-create-stunning-ice-mushrooms-in-amur-region/

    20

  • #
    Another Ian

    With all the damage that this supposed CAGW is supposed to cause – -

    I’ve just had about a 4 km walk home today in around 38 C due to a flat tyre in the grader. And on the way I was reminded of an acquaintance that was an early enlistee in the 6th Divivion of WW2.

    One of his mentions of the push west against the Italians in North Africa was that they were marching 40 miles a day and the water ration was a quart – which had to cover shaving as well.

    60

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Hi Ian.

      I agree with the sentiments expressed.

      There is however an issue with the idea that someone could march 40 miles in a day, especially if carrying water a gun and a ruck sack. Then to repeat that over several days?

      I can understand it may have felt like 40 miles but to actually do that would mean 13 hours walking.

      A small point but.

      KK

      30

  • #
  • #
    robert rosicka

    Are the anti Trumpers getting desperate ? , now they claim Donald Trump was planted by the Russians !

    82

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      One thing I’ve noticed with the Left is they often accuse their opponents of the exact crimes they themselves have committed….it throws people off the scent and gives them an appearance ( only ) of respectability.

      The Left remind me of a dog in the house…its only a matter of time before it poops on the floor….

      20

  • #
    pat

    12 Jan: Psychology Today: Climate Change Denial
    Facing a reality too big to believe
    by Sara Gorman & Jack M. Gorman
    A recent report from the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us we can still hope to avert some of the catastrophic consequences of climate change, but only if we “abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the next decade or two.” Scientists may disagree about how fast the atmosphere is warming or what the best solutions are, but except for a small number of outliers, none doubt that we are rapidly approaching climate catastrophe.

    That a few misguided politicians believe climate change predictions are exaggerated or even fabricated is lamentable. But perhaps more puzzling is the lack of alarm among the general public..
    Polls tell us that many people are worried about climate change, but that does not seem to motivate much willingness to take action to mitigate it. Others deny that climate change is either occurring at all or that it represents any significant threat to civilization…

    One reason for the refusal to accept the reality of climate change is what is called “motivated interference,” which occurs when we hold a specific bias to ignore evidence. As science writer Nicole Mortillaro noted (LINK), this can include a general unease with large government projects that are expensive and interfere with individuals’ lives…

    Right now, as we write this article, it is freezing cold in the Northeast and snow covers much of the country. No hurricanes are forecast at the moment and the fires in California are said for now to be under control. How easy it is to shut the bad news away and look to deal with more tractable problems. Even poverty, war, and famine seem more easily solved than climate change…
    Climate change denial is in some ways a new mental process for psychologists to understand…

    Ultimately, only large-scale political activity has any chance of saving civilization from the oncoming ravages of continued greenhouse gas emissions. Entire nations must come together as they did in forging the Paris Climate Agreement and agree to enforce what will have to be very extensive and often highly inconvenient changes in our sources of energy and food. It is true that replacing oil and gas with sustainable energy and switching to plant-based diets will be difficult and even painful for some, but the alternative—continuing to ignore that climate change is already affecting us and will ultimately be catastrophic—is of course much worse…
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/denying-the-grave/201901/climate-change-denial

    About the authors:
    Sara E. Gorman, PhD, MPH, is a public health specialist working on mental health, suicide prevention, and increasing the quality of evidence in the public health field. She is currently Director of High School Programming at The Jed Foundation (JED), a non-profit focused on mental health and suicide prevention among teens and young adults. She has written extensively about mental health, psychology, global health, and women’s health, among other topics, for a variety of health and medical journals. Her work has appeared or been reviewed in The Atlantic, The New Yorker, The Guardian, BBC, NPR, Science, and Scientific American, among others. She is co-author of Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us (Oxford University Press), along with her father Jack M. Gorman, MD.

    Jack M. Gorman, MD, was Professor and Chair of Psychiatry and Professor of Neuroscience at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and on the faculty of Columbia University’s Department of Psychiatry for 25 years. He is CEO and Chief Scientific Officer of Franklin Behavioral Health Consultants. He is co-author of Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us (Oxford University Press), along with his daughter Sara E. Gorman, PhD, MPH. His new book, Neuroscience at the Intersection of Mind and Brain (Oxford, 2018), describes in accessible prose recent developments in neuroscience, with special emphasis on how these findings relate to mental health, emotions, and psychotherapy.

    32

    • #
      AndyG55

      “which occurs when we hold a specific bias to ignore evidence.”

      OMG.. How can you ignore something that DOESN’T EXIST.

      Some analyst of psychosis needs to write a paper about gullibility, group-non-think, baseless belief, and their relationship to the climate change religion. !!

      95

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Andy, this bloke is a joke.

        He’s commenting on the content of a particular belief held by someone and that isn’t real psychology.

        Real psychology is the study of the effects of external stimuli on the human being. It deals with the nature of the stimulus, the processing of it and the storage in memory and linking with previous experience.

        The content of the material being processed is only relevant in terms of whether it is threatening, pleasant, exciting or intellectually engaging.

        For a so called scientist to comment like this on the basis of his own flawed assessment of the thing is beyond belief.

        But then he wears a suit, has several employees, is “successful” and knows that, with all that flash, just like Goebels, he can say anything and not be questioned.

        In the end, it all ends with the science of gases failing to confirm the possibility of Man Made Global Warming.

        A gigantic con that’s fascinating to study.

        In that respect, our appreciation goes to the Dead Sea Trio.

        KK

        73

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Seems like a good paper, it should light up the comments section here though.

      410

      • #
        AndyG55

        Its a NON-science paper. Right down your alley.

        It is based on baseless opinion. right down your alley

        It will be laughed of the joke it is.

        76

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Baseless opinion, tosh. Read the paper. There is more science in it than everything you have posted over the last few days.

          49

          • #
            AndyG55

            roflmao..

            You have a very odd idea of science.

            Where are the measurements, the data proving their little in this piece of opinionated propaganda non-science?

            There is NONE, just the same mindless blind belief that you are stuck so hard on finding evidence for.

            Look at the idiotic anti-science rhetoric

            “we can still hope to avert some of the catastrophic consequences of climate change”

            “we are rapidly approaching climate catastrophe”

            and several others

            Its all just baseless NONSENSE. and BS. and I suspect you actually know that

            Back to the question

            Do you have any empirical evidence for warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2?

            65

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              I’ve given you heaps of evidence, where is your proving your much pasted statement?

              410

              • #
                AndyG55

                ROFLMAO. You are totally DELUDED, and scientifically INEPT.

                You have NOT given one piece of empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2

                NOWHERE

                Your NASA link….

                Where is the empirical evidence.. Waiting for you to point it out.

                You are EMPTY !!

                55

              • #
                AndyG55

                “where is your proving your much pasted statement?”

                You keep proving me correct, by you magnificent incapability to produce any.

                So funny that you can’t see yourself digging deeper and deeper into your own BS and your brain-washed stupor.

                Do you have any empirical evidence for warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2?

                or NOT

                75

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                “One reason for the refusal to accept the reality of climate change is what is called “motivated interference,” which occurs when we hold a specific bias to ignore evidence. ”

                You mean like the whole “gender” nonsense? How many PC-defined gender types are there now? Is there one allocated for if someone identifies as a fire hydrant?

                Only the Left can dream up la la stupidity like this…

                This is what happens when you put children in charge of running things.

                10

            • #
              tom0mason

              AndyG55,

              He has no empirical evidence only Imperial evidence from the elites of the UN-IPCC and their deity idols called the climate models.

              40

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Right on target, it tells the story.

                Imperial Evidence.

                Even there we do have an evolutionary process at work where the Imperial Evidence is passed down from one high at the IPCCCCC to individual nations and to workshops and trained media science commentators.
                It eventually ends up at street level as: Group Think.

                KK

                30

      • #
        philthegeek

        Lol. Trigger for the usual suspects. :)

        34

    • #
      Another Ian

      “Facing a reality too big to believe”

      Sounds like that is more applicable to the authors!

      70

    • #
      AndyG55

      “saving civilization from the oncoming ravages of continued greenhouse gas emissions.”

      ROFLMAO !!!!!

      What a load of unsupportable ANTI-SCIENCE TOSH !!!

      There are no “oncoming ravages” except for enhanced plant growth.. be very scared. ;-)

      94

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        you would definitely fit into this one, it could have been written with you in mind
        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-relating-existing/201210/climate-change-narcissism-denial-apocalypse

        312

        • #
          AndyG55

          Poor pfutz… Still running around like a demented headless chook

          Where is your empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2 ???

          55

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            it’s all in the banned list, you know the stuff you refuse to read. Any IPCC reports, any NASA, or any other government agency, an of course anything from a university, now of course we’ll add Scientific American and New Scientist to that list. Oh and the Real Climate website would be on the banned list as well.

            411

            • #
              AndyG55

              Yawn!

              Can you produce any empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2 ?

              So far EMPTY.

              Nothing you have posted to is anything but propaganda pap.

              Its all you have access to.

              It seems you are totally clueless what empirical evidence means.

              65

            • #
              AndyG55

              Point out the empirical evidence in your NASA propaganda link, pfutz.. !

              Waiting

              64

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                you go first this time

                410

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor pfutz.. mindless evasion

                Seems that you have realised that there just ISN’T ANY..

                oh dear !! so sad. !!

                We are awaiting your evidence.

                Models are NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

                Vague correlations are NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

                Ocean warming forced by the Sun is NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

                Steady state sea level rise is NOT evidence of CO2 warming. (Nor is splicing on adjusted satellite data)

                And mindless brain-hosed blather from you, is certainly NOT evidence of CO2 warming

                65

            • #
              AndyG55

              We are awaiting your evidence.

              Models are NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

              Vague correlations are NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

              Ocean warming forced by the Sun is NOT evidence of CO2 warming.

              Steady state sea level rise is NOT evidence of CO2 warming. (Nor is splicing on adjusted satellite data)

              And mindless brain-hosed blather from pfutz and you, is certainly NOT evidence of CO2 warming

              WAITING !!!

              75

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Entire nations must come together

      And yet another plea for mindless socialist and world governance.

      The Socialist Totalitarian agenda writ loud and clear, yet again

      54

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        That would be the G bit in AGW. or are you expecting superman?

        310

        • #
          AndyG55

          Can you produce any empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2?

          So far EMPTY, in mind and in science.

          Stop the childish attempts at distraction.

          74

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Group think from unthinking lefties is always the IPCC , but the IPCC said this or the IPCC said that and to a true no brain alfoil hat wearing lefty that’s evidence and that’s all that matters .
          You can be up to your neck in snow and ice but it’s definitely warm , floods in Pakistan are a sign , so to a fire somewhere regardless of the real cause .
          Keep sprouting the party line , keep up with the ideological drivel there is no need for evidence just believe .
          Arguing with Fitz or Phil is pointless because their minuscule brain has been taken over by the greater good .
          If they really had anything of substance to offer they would have done it by now but no ,all they can do is offer links to unscientific rabble .
          If they really want to put us in our place they would have come up with some hard evidence but no we get the IPCC and California wildfires and a few floods that’s it , pathetic and symbolic of your cause trolls .

          74

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Robert,

            The Phils and the Fitzes, we aren’t arguing with them, as you say that’s a waste.

            On the other hand to let dumb, uneducated, argumentative, for arguments sake, comments go unacknowledged is allowing Jo’s blog to be essentially attacked just to satisfy the ideal of free speech.

            KK

            54

          • #
            Bill In Oz

            This capacity to spruik the party line no matter what the evidence is why I call these people “Greenists”.

            The truth is utterly irrelevant to them.

            What matters is the current party line.

            62

      • #
        Michael262

        Dearest Andy,
        It’s Alfoil time !.
        Get used to being labelled a conspiracy theorist.
        Sad…. , empirically speaking.

        77

        • #
          AndyG55

          Can you produce any empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2?

          So far EMPTY, in mind and in science.

          Stop the childish attempts at distraction.

          54

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Andy,

            The Dead Sea Trio are uneducated in the basics of global warming.

            They only produce?

            Rubbish VII.

            KK

            42

        • #
          AndyG55

          EVIDENCE.. and MORE

          Not a theory.. a proven FACT.

          Now, where is your evidence for warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2??

          94

    • #
      AndyG55

      But they must know its all a JOKE.

      China, India and many other countries are building 1000+ new coal fired power stations world wide. increase of some 40% in CO2 plant-food emissions.

      And there is NOTHING the anti-human rhetoric of the AGW scammers can do about it. :

      105

      • #
        tom0mason

        AndyG55

        Even if we some all CO2 emissions nature will carry on. Termites will vent CO2 and methane. As I have posted before there are rather a lot of these critters in Africa and in Brazil there is a 4,000 year old termite mounds.
        I wonder how the venting of gases from all this natural life varies with the climate.

        Researchers reporting in Current Biology on November 19 have found that a vast array of regularly spaced, still-inhabited termite mounds in northeastern Brazil–covering an area the size of Great Britain–are up to about 4,000 years old.

        The mounds, which are easily visible on Google Earth, are not nests. Rather, they are the result of the insects’ slow and steady excavation of a network of interconnected underground tunnels. The termites’ activities over thousands of years has resulted in huge quantities of soil deposited in approximately 200 million cone-shaped mounds, each about 2.5 meters tall and 9 meters across.

        [my emphasis]
        https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-11/cp-4tm111318.php

        72

        • #
          AndyG55

          And the natural solar warming just expands the termite and other of nature’s CO2 emitters to whole new areas.

          Nature is still playing catch-up as the biosphere expands, ever increasing the carbon cycle.

          If human release of sequestered carbon was the trigger for this rapid expansion, we need high praise indeed, as we have probably saved a lot of the biosphere from starvation.

          74

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Wow!

          50

  • #

    As a hardline skep, I really have trouble with this idea of a world temp.

    What on earth is the point of comparing past and present temps unless you know everything about siting and everything about cloud in a massive number of places over a very long period? Cloud above all, as it plays havoc with max and min.

    To me it matters not a jot if they earth is cooling somewhat or warming somewhat. May as well worry about whether a clock needle is on the right or left of the dial. It can only go two places, temps can only trend up or down.

    But imagine a cooling world: it would be a drier world in most places, no snow in Alaska possibly, not enough rain in Oz, which the world be depending on for food production with the shortening of seasons in bread-baskets of the northern hemisphere.

    Think such a cooling world wouldn’t be without blazing high maxima? Think again. Think what actual global warming has meant through the existence of our planet, consider what it meant for the Sahara during the pluvial of the Optimum less than six thousand years back.

    Think you won’t get higher maxima in a cooling world with less cloud?

    All statistics are lame, statistics without commonsense interpretation are sheer bunk.

    112

    • #

      Yeah, moso, world tempertures – so groupie, so data homogenist to fit yr collectivist Plato, Agenda 21, Grand Plan… ‘n they can’t even do clouds.

      81

    • #
      TdeF

      It’s very hard to accept a world wide temperature for a lot of reasons. The first is whether it is at all meaningful, even if you had all the data for all the world for all time. Then the weightings. How do you balance -50C in Antarctica with +47C in Dubai? Is the average of 0C a measure of anything?

      This all gets very silly when the water around the Great Barrier Reef gets hotter than usual but the water off the coast of Western Australia gets colder than usual. One is man made Global Warming and the other is simply not mentioned. Why aren’t they using their world temperature? How does that relate to the water temperature, the greatest cause of extreme weather including all hurricanes, tropical and catastrophic storms and the only reason England is not frozen solid in winter like Russia.

      Then the oceans, the greatest heat sink on the surface of the planet, averaging 3.4Km deep at 1 atmosphere in weight per 10 metres, so 340x the weight of the air. All our weather comes from water, the real green house gas. It is also not invisible, so clearly it blocks a lot more light and heat than largely invisible CO2, but we measure air temperature. At what altitude?

      It’s all nonsense. A world temperature. We even have an Australian temperature, which we are told is higher than normal so we have a terrible, terrible Australian heat wave. It reached 29C in Melbourne today after a start around 14C. According to the BOM, as I read every day, we are frying. I remember one January where all but 3 days were over 30C but so far we have two or three over 30C. According to the BOM, it is one of the hottest years on record. Rubbish.

      I know the BOM loves the publicity, but it would be better to talk about where people actually live, not average in the Simpson desert. How do you average Hobart and Broome? What does it mean if you do?

      So I agree. A world temperature is even sillier than an Australian temperature.

      133

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Agreed.

        82

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        It’s just a value, calculated using a published methodology. Very useful when looking at things from a planetary scale. You know, like comparing Mars, Venus and Earth.

        312

        • #
          Bill In Oz

          Only useful for climate alarmists !

          52

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            how so Bill? It’s a derived value. As stated useful in a planetary context. it could not be used to push an agenda.

            311

            • #
              el gordo

              The world is getting cooler and I’m not pushing a barrow.

              80

            • #
              TdeF

              Yes, a made up number across the whole planet, day and night, summer and winter and within a very short distance of the surface. Publishing a ‘methodology’ and having a scientific basis for creating a meaningful single number are quite different things.

              So which is more important, summer at sea level during the day time in the Sahara or simultaneous winter at midnight at the South Pole at 4km in the air? An a variation in this manufactured number of 1C means what exactly and where and when?

              Or do we just then average all this over a long time, searching for significance? A single number to describe an incredibly complex series of systems on a planetary scale, a planetary temperature like Mars or Venus?

              Now try to tie variations in that number to a 50% change in a single gas which is only 0.04% of the atmosphere?

              Consider that at 1/400th of the mass of the water which covers 75% of the planet, it would be more meaningful to measure water temperature to see what is happening to nett radiant heat than to measure a fantasy average of thin turbulent layer of gas at the surface.

              112

              • #
                TdeF

                As for ‘methodology’ I would love to know. I thought the planetary temperature was simply a sum of a lot of numbers divided by a lot more numbers. You have to weight it with area represented but apart from that I was not aware there was anything else done to constitute a methodology. It is an ‘average’ across a planet at all latitudes and all seasons, day and night. Having lived in a place which was -40C in winter and +40C in summer with cold years and hot ones, I wonder what the average means and what it measures just in the one place.

                There is also the fallacy that if you add up a lot of numbers, you get incredible accuracy. In this way people actually attach significance to a ‘world temperature’ to amounts like 0.001C and even 0.1C and 1C. There is no justification in this. The number is artificial, not real and not connected to any specific process but thousands of events so movements in this number has no specific meaning.

                122

        • #
          el gordo

          Peter have you heard of black body radiation?

          50

          • #
            TdeF

            And then unlike a uniform isolated black sphere, our planet travels in an elliptical orbit with a nutating axis and the sun itself travels through a galaxy with dust and both rotates and varies in total radiation. No constant source of heat and a colourful body which actually reacts to changing conditions. Water changes the colour to green in some areas and highly reflective as ice and clouds form, reflecting and blocking radiation while there are massive currents in the air and the water on a planetary scale while the sphere spins and has a large satellite. From all this we want to assign responsiblity for change to an insignificant largely invisible gas?

            If there was a scientific consensus, it is that the major green house gas by far is water and that CO2 on its own is not enough to have more than a tiny effect on a small band of infra red light. The other effects greatly outweigh all this. Clouds can turn day into night.

            So a world temperature? It’s hard enough to give a single temperature for Australia, balancing Hobart and Broome, tropical oceans and baking desert. What would such a temperature mean? What would a variation of 0.1C in that average mean? Very little. You need a proven model for the whole country which involves that special number. No one has one.

            102

            • #
              TdeF

              When I say insignificant, I mean as to temperature. CO2 is in fact the basis of every living thing on this planet. Without CO2 there would be no life. All plants come from CO2 and H2O and sunlight. I suppose even today people would not believe a 50 tonne tree comes from the air. If it came from the ground, there would be a hole around the tree.

              120

            • #
              rk

              TdeF
              You are correct – there is no such thing as an average temperature anywhere – it is an abstract thing and because temperature is directly proportional to pressure, without reference to pressure and altitude it is meaningless to compare different locations. Look at the different weather stations in the Sydney area and you will not find the exact same, temperature, QNH pressure, wind speed and direction, Dry bulb, dew point, rain fall, humidity etc and all the different measuring locations. Many of the BOM sites record faulty data on a continuing basis. In the middle of August I was in Winton checking the weather before departing to the north west of the state and at 6.30 AM the temperature at Mt.Isa was 1 C whilst at Cloncurry 50 miles to the east it was 13 C which it could not possibly be. Calm conditions with a big high, the same pressure over a wide area and not a great difference in altitude above sea level meant Cloncurry’s temperature was wrong by at least 10 C as the Mt. Isa temperature was definitely correct.

              Temperatures everywhere are within normal limits – see this link of the US States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes. It is the pressure systems that control our weather ( other than the sun ), not gases in the atmosphere.

              102

        • #
          el gordo

          Peter every 11.07 years the Sun, Venus, Earth and Jupiter are aligned, what does that tell us?

          40

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T somewhat

    “Pielke and Lomborg accused of “fact mongering” ”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/12/pielke-and-lomborg-accused-of-fact-mongering/

    Will Jo be next?

    81

    • #
      AndyG55

      WOW.. these two guys are TELLING THE TRUTH and presenting facts..

      No wonder the AGW priests are scared !!

      It is something totally beyond their moral ability.

      105

  • #
    Another Ian

    And another one bites the dust

    Peer review:

    Widely cited study of fake news retracted by researchers

    https://nypost.com/2019/01/11/widely-cited-study-of-fake-news-retracted-by-researchers/

    You can’t make this $hit up, they can.”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/01/13/january-11-2019-reader-tips/#comment-1173983

    50

    • #
      robert rosicka

      This was always fake news , it’s the ones who learnt to count and did earth science in primary school that know CAGW is horse hockey and they are usually older as the school system has been broke for years .

      51

  • #
    doc

    Was it Friday’s The West Australian that had a front page article that the
    oceans are warming faster the first thought? The article cited the oceans
    were releasing CO2……….. .

    Now, the scientist was possibly seen as a true believer – to have been funded – but
    I haven’t seen a public news outlet previously daring to say that warming oceans release
    CO2, even when known in old science. The ‘person in the street’ wouldn’t be aware of this old fact.
    I would have thought such a statement from a scientist, even if he or she was
    very naive in making it, would have been worth any journalist who wasn’t aware
    of the scientific fact, grabbing it, run with the statement and ask the next obvious question:
    ‘How does that relate to the rising CO2 of the globe and the ‘warming’? Isn’t that
    an indication that the CO2 rise may actually be due to warming oceans and not vice versa?’
    The GBR would be next: Warming and CO2 given off should give the question about buffering
    and alkalinising rather than acidifying. Soft shells from acidification? What acidification?

    132

    • #
      Speedy

      Quite true Doc! BECAUSE – if it were true, then we’d be toast already.

      1. There is 50 tonnes of CO2 in the oceans for each tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere.
      2. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature
      3. The atmospheric CO2 content will be in equilibrium with the ocean’s CO2 content (Henry’s Law).

      So.…

      As soon as the oceans warm up (for whatever reason), then GUESS WHAT !! – the oceans release CO2 (even the IPCC know this).
      Which, by the IPCC logic, means there’s a S/load of CO2 to release into the atmosphere
      Which, they fervently believe, will cause more warming.

      And guess what? We’re all stuffed – and life could NEVER happen on earth.

      Hate to tell you this, but you don’t exist…

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      101

  • #

    Tomorrow will be the anniversary of the day Bourke reached the peak of its 1896 heatwave. You might think 48.6 is no biggie compared to the 1960 reading at Oodnadatta, or the record 1903 reading at Bourke. But it’s the twenty other days, all consecutive, which mark out 1896 as a great climate disaster for much of NSW and beyond:

    5th 44.7
    6th 44.7
    7th 47.8
    8th 47.2
    9th 44.7
    10th 42.2
    11th 42.5
    12th 43.3
    13th 45.3
    14th 46.1
    15th 48.6
    16th 47.8
    17th 47.8
    18th 46.4
    19th 48.6
    20th 48.3
    21st 45.6
    22nd 48.1
    23rd 47.8
    24th 48.3
    25th 46.4

    The minima topped 30 on five of these days, including 33.3 on the 24th. There was almost no rain, at least for Bourke, except for a relieving 27mm on the last day. The 1896 heatwave was a true climate tragedy involving evacuations and an official natural disaster death toll only (just) exceeded by the big heat of 1939. Above are only the numbers, but we also have the reportage and witness accounts (what some professional patronisers would call anecdotes) to leave us in no doubt as to the savagery of the event.

    Here’s my point: if this were happening right now in NSW what do people think the reportage and commentary would be like? Would such an event be plundered for its propaganda potential or would it be accepted by media and academia as a natural misfortune? Well? Exactly! (Warmies please try to keep a straight face at this point.)

    And there is the real danger of the climate racket. The powerful energy which would be our main defense against such climate extremes is blamed for those extremes.

    161

    • #
      robert rosicka

      It would definitely be unprecedented, Libs , labs and greens would be all on the same page and order all Co2 banned .
      This of course would lead to a yellow vest style purge of the political class .

      Apparently we had a 20 odd year drought in the Middle Ages , if that was to happen again and it probably will , the greentards will shout unprecedented.

      92

  • #
    William Astley

    It takes courage to stand-up up to the cult of CAGW and to institutional pressure.

    We have lost thoughtful debate in our universities. It is sad.

    Salby is another hero.

    This is a link to his November, 2018 Hamberg lecture which I would highly recommend.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=610&v=rohF6K2avtY

    102

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      I watched that youtube of Salby back in December.

      I takes my hat off to him in admiration.. A true scientist.

      But that youtube also shows us how much someone like Salby was punished by the Greenist mafia for being honest and outspoken about how fake the whole “Global Warming’ thing is.

      For him as a person it has been very damaging.

      And perhaps that can help us understand why Tsonis was not that outspoken before his retirement. For some being a target of all the crap dealt out by Greenists is too much to bear

      31

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        You have to be careful with hyenas, not to take your eye off them….or offer them a soft target….

        20

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    Meanwhile, for those who do not know, What’s Up With That did an article on South Australia and the limits to solar & Wind in our electricity grid.

    Lot’s of good comments (121 at this point ) with the odd troll mixed in…

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/12/limits-to-solar-and-wind-power-in-australia/

    51

  • #
    sophocles

    This is a link to a NASA video which should be compulsory viewing for all the scientifically challenged trolls:

    25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists [Jan 2018]

    Enjoy.

    50

    • #
      sophocles

      … watch it before youtube disappears it … :-)

      50

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Some people at NASAarent scared of getting the boot! Suspect theres more than them..

      60

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Lolz – a mechanical engineer lecturing me about climate

      310

      • #
        AndyG55

        A 5 year old could lecture you about climate, pfutz

        Heck, you can’t even present any empirical evidence for warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2

        64

        • #
          AndyG55

          A mechanical engineer would have magnitudes more knowledge of gases and thermal energy transfer than a lowly failed biologist.

          What does a unemployable biologist do, other than hunt for barista jobs?

          64

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Me – I prefer to listen to experts in the fields I’m interested in. What do you do?

            49

            • #
              glen Michel

              Experts,I find generally take a lot more time and money to come to conclusions that are pretty obvious to a keen observer. The bleedin’ obvious. Modern scientists sit behind a computer looking at models. I have associated with academics for many years and find them a tedious lot on the whole.

              43

            • #
              AndyG55

              Experts who are provably WRONG and have made ZERO correct predictions…

              … and who can’t even provide empirical evidence for warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2

              These are your experts ?? roflmao !!!

              63

            • #
              AndyG55

              “What do you do?”

              Me??? .. I look at the scientific EVIDENCE

              So far you have been unable to come up with any empirical evidence for the most basic fallacy of the AGW agenda, ie warming by ENHANCED atmospheric CO2

              I don’t just mindlessly and gullibly believe some paid operative of the AGW scam.

              63

              • #

                I mindlessly disbelieving any better?

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                All your posts are empty-minded, gee-gee..

                seems that you don’t have a mind to engage before typing..

                Maybe if you did you might be able to come up with some evidence that pfutz and his buddy have been so inept at finding.

                You obviously are incapable of following the discourse if you think there is not a huge amount of evidence that the CO2 warming meme is nothing but a myth.

                Just yap again when you want some more attention, poor dried-up old leaf.

                73

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘Me – I prefer to listen to experts in the fields …’

              Peer Review has collapsed, so be sceptical about what the experts say.

              72

            • #
              tom0mason

              Pomposity Fitzroy,

              Professor Anastasios Tsonis says –

              All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics.

              You appear to have neither — skepticism or proper grasp of what a real scientist should be.
              ¯
              He also said –

              All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled.

              "Science is never settled." regardless of what Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings or Queens, or the UN-IPCC say!

              51

            • #
              AndyG55

              “you go all schoolyard bully on me personally”

              Poor pfutz, do you need a safe space, or a nappy change??

              “I prefer to listen to experts in the fields “

              If they don’t have a very good grasp of thermodynamics and gases (as a mechanical engineer does), they are NOT an expert in any sort of climate science.

              Computer programmers and climate game modellers… need not apply.

              32

      • #
        tom0mason

        Oh sorry Lord Hubris of Fitzroy,
        We forgot we should all grovel at the feet of one of such high esteem and learning.
        Please forgive us for ever doubting you and and the IPCC, for us believing that you were just another idjiot that has just crawled from under the bridge.

        Oh great one tell us your great knowledge, you stinking pile of pompous $ħ|t!

        84

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          I’m assuming that the zero in your name is a reference to your IQ

          512

          • #
            AndyG55

            dial triple zero for pfutz IQ

            .. and for the amount of empirical evidence he has provided towards warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2

            ZEROs, all the way down. !

            83

          • #
            tom0mason

            Hubristic Fitzroy

            How could you possibly judge my IQ as it is very evident from your comments that you are live in some virtual world where you feel you are so darn important and a font of so much knowledge. You know and repeat (parrot fashion) only the IPCC script

            You may have certificates but by no measure does that make you a scientist (on climate matters) because being a scientist requires you to be skeptical of published result that can not be replicated (like those from Climate models).
            Your evident lack of curiosity as to why the measurements made in so many aspects of the climate continue to diverge from IPCC projection speaks out that you are an advocate on this issue and not a scientist on it.
            You apparently do not understand that science uses measurements (not just models) to justify a supposition (like human mediated global warming from CO2) i.e. science verifies it’s models against real world measurement. This has never happened with the models.

            All in all you are just another empty vassal pretending to know about the climate.

            61

            • #
              tom0mason

              Hubristic Fitzroy,

              And I sure you can not follow these papers but I’ll put them here anyway.
              They all relate to the solar effect on our planets climate.

              Orbital forcing of tree-ring data
              https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1589
              ~~~~~~
              Impact of the solar cycle and the QBO on the atmosphere and the ocean (JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, doi:10.1029/2011JD017390)
              http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html
              ~~~~~~~
              Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics — Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation
              NicolaScafetta
              https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001034
              ~~~~~~~
              Solar influences on atmospheric circulation
              https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001393
              ~~~~~~~
              Evidence of Suess solar-cycle bursts in subtropical Holocene speleothem δ18O records
              https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683611427331?rss=1&amp;
              ~~~~~~~
              Assessment of the relationship between the combined solar cycle/ENSO forcings and the tropopause temperature
              https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000818?via%3Dihub
              ~~~~~~~
              Variability of rainfall and temperature (1912–2008) parameters measured from Santa Maria (29°41′S, 53°48′W) and their connections with ENSO and solar activity
              https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611003452?via%3Dihub
              ~~~~~~~
              Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle — NicolaScafetta
              https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648?via%3Dihub
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
              http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf (pdf document)
              ~~~~~~~~
              9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings
              https://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967
              ~~~~~~~~
              And a video of a lecture by Nir Shaviv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9gjU1T4XL4

              And while we’re about it I challenge you to find out how the climate models approximate cloud cover over the earth and why it’s so unrealistic. However as I know already you have no curiosity you will find an piffling excuse not to find out!

              41

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Seriously my comment is about an expert in one field, expecting to be taken seriously in other. In reply to that, you go all schoolyard bully on me personally. So in that spirit Troll0mason, you are completely wrong about models, as they are tracking very closely to the observations. However, that will mean nothing to you as, like AndyG55, you have a banned list of sites like the IPCC, Scientific American, NASA etc. Good luck getting your info from the backs of cereal packets.

              39

              • #
                tom0mason

                Pomposity Fitzroy,

                Experts are the engineers that build things, they have to understand in a very real sense, how things work. Some very scientist can also do this and are useful, talented, and imaginative people who further the scientific endeavor. So many other so called scientists and experts appear to be a waste of public money — excess baggage not fit to be a burger-flippers.

                62

              • #
                tom0mason

                Pomposity Fitzroy,

                Your only point of reference so far appears to be IPCC and their Climate models, Scientific American, and NASA. Obviously you have never strayed outside those portals and so only have a very limited knowledge of the subject you pontificate about.

                Here’s two papers to cut your teeth on –
                Solar influences on atmospheric circulation
                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001393
                ~~~~~~~
                Evidence of Suess solar-cycle bursts in subtropical Holocene speleothem δ18O records
                https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683611427331?rss=1&amp;

                And while we’re about it I challenge you to find out how the climate models approximate cloud cover over the earth and why it’s so unrealistic. However as I know already you have no curiosity you will find an piffling excuse not to find out!

                61

              • #
                AndyG55

                Again, from your NASA link.

                Show me where the empirical evidence for warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2..

                WAITING, oh slithery one.

                Models are SO wide in range that they could track anything.. and yet they STILL MISS by the proverbial mile.

                they are a JOKE.

                The so called “model mean” (a meaningless term in itself), is so far out , that the peak of the El Nino barely touched it. Now real temperatures are WELL BELOW all but one model

                The only one even close to reality is the Russian one, which basically has zero CO2 warming written into it.

                You are making EMPTY yapping sounds , yet again, pftuz.

                Where is your empirical evidence of the very basis of your brain-hosed belief, warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.?????

                Still NOTHING that remotely resembles empirical evidence.

                53

      • #
        sophocles

        Climate is far from rocket science, PF, but the `mechanical engineer’ you so scoff at is a real rocket scientist.
        You? A 0. Your comment, PF, clearly demonstrates—and explains—your abysmal ignorance and lack of intellect.

        104

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          No – being a leader in one field does not make you a leader in another field. Let me give you and example – would you let your dentist advise you on brain function?

          411

          • #
            AndyG55

            Poor pfutz, you will only EVER be a follower, part of the borg.

            You have no other capability.

            74

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Peter, you need to get off the wifi now…you have a paper round to do or something….run along……you’re boring us now.

            If you had any science to offer, you’d have done it now. All weve seen is childish nonsense.

            *yawn*

            Up the workers!!

            83

          • #
            tom0mason

            No pomposity Fitzroy your analogy is far from close, it’s more like who give a better rendition of reality Climate modelers or the programmers of the game Farming Simulator 19.

            Obviously it’s Farming Simulator 19 as it shows the pigs in the trough. :-)

            52

          • #
            sophocles

            A leader?
            You?
            Excuse me ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
            …Ok.

            You missed your calling: you should be on stage: as a Standup Comedian.

            20

  • #
    pat

    TOP TWEET: Interview announcement: we will be interviewing American psychologist and author ***Adam Grant @AdamMGrant live for our book club. Submit your questions for him at @wefbookclub or in the comments below, and we’ll select the best ones…
    11 Jan 2018

    TWEET: 8H AGO: Backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. Read more: https://wef.ch/2D2SPBP #energy #environment
    VIDEO: Zero Mass Water; Source: ***Breakthrough Energy Ventures; CAGW – solar, Water Wars, etc.

    TWEET: 13h ago: Pollution, climate change and habitat loss are all to blame. Read more LINK
    VIDEO: 1min07sec SIXTH MASS EXTINCTION

    TWEET: 12 Jan: Things are heating up for humanity. Read more: https://wef.ch/2D5spQ9 #oceans #globalwarming
    VIDEO: 48sec
    https://wef.ch/2zfRXXt #climatechange #environment
    https://twitter.com/davos

    ***Twitter: Adam M. Grant (CHECK HIS MAIN TWITTER PAGE)
    TWEET: 1 Jun 2017: If climate change deniers were 2300 years older, they’d insist the earth is flat.
    Let’s leave science to scientists
    https://twitter.com/adammgrant/status/870406818094305281

    Facebook: Adam Grant 13 March 2016
    Funny Barack Obama roast of Republican stance on climate change:
    If 99 of 100 doctors tell you you’ve got diabetes, you wouldn’t say, “That’s a conspiracy: doctors got together with Obama to try to prevent me from having bacon & donuts.”
    https://www.facebook.com/AdamMGrant/posts/funny-barack-obama-roast-of-republican-stance-on-climate-changeif-99-of-100-doct/1090354247681999/

    ***Breakthrough Energy Ventures: Board/Investors
    includes: Jeff Bezos, HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, etc…
    http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/board-investors/

    Trump cancels trip to Davos amid standoff over shutdown
    CNBC-10 Jan 2019

    50

    • #
      pat

      accidentally missed posting the opening of this comment.

      last nite I watched CNBC debate on World Economic Forum, Davos, which was mostly about how hydrocarbons would be essential for decades to come.
      compare with the Davos Twitter page:

      Twitter: World Economic Forum, Davos:
      TOP TWEET…etc (see rest of the comment posted)

      70

      • #
        pat

        11 Jan: Swissinfo: Another no-show: Macron pulls out of Davos to deal with street protests
        Macron’s no-show is another blow for the WEF after US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday he would not be attending…

        Davos Snow Report
        Weather forecast for today: -9° heavy snow…
        Depth of snow 199 cm; 98cm in resort
        https://snow.myswitzerland.com/snow_reports/Graubuenden/Davos-69

        9 Jan: S&P Global: Saudi Arabia revises up oil reserves estimate to 268.5 billion barrels
        Gas reserves, meanwhile, stood at 325.1 Tcf, an increase of 17.2 Tcf over the previous estimate, the audit revealed.
        Saudi energy minister Khalid al-Falih said the audit confirms Aramco “is the most valuable company in the world,” given that the country’s reserves are among the least expensive globally to develop.
        “This simply illustrates that the kingdom’s potential in meeting the world’s growing needs for oil and gas is quite staggering,” Falih said at a press briefing in Riyadh, according to media reports. “We are going to be quite ready to deliver on that.”…

        Only Venezuela, another OPEC member, has comparable reserves at some 303.2 billion barrels, according to BP, much of it extra heavy oil that is energy- and capital-intensive to extract, in contrast to Saudi Arabia’s low-cost crude. Falih said Aramco’s cost of production averages about $4/b.

        Russia and the US, who vie with Saudi Arabia to be the largest oil producer, hold only 156.2 billion barrels combined, according to BP…

        Falih said figures include only so-called P1 proven reserves, which can be readily developed…
        https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/010919-saudi-arabia-revises-up-oil-reserves-estimate-to-2685-billion-barrels-state-media

        12 Jan: UK Telegraph: Saudi Arabia has more oil than we may ever need
        By Andy Critchlow
        Saudi Arabia has finally silenced its peak-oil critics and simultaneously revived interest in its stalled $2 trillion (£1.6 trillion) plan for a stock market float of state-owned producer Aramco.
        The kingdom revealed this week it has enough crude to pump at current rates for at least another 70 years. At the end of 2017, Saudi oil reserves stood at an eye-watering 268bn barrels, up from previous estimates of 266bn.
        By comparison, the UK’s remaining cache of retrievable oil under the seabed of the North Sea will be almost completely drained, probably after another couple of decades…

        80

  • #
    pat

    11 Jan: CarlinEconomics: The Urgent Need for a Formal Reevaluation of Climate Alarmist Scam Science
    by Alan Carlin
    (Alan Carlin…carried out or supervised economic and scientific research on public policy issues for over 45 years, first at The RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California from 1963 to 1971, and from 1971 to 2010 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC. At no time has my salary been paid directly or indirectly by either natural resource development interests or non-governmental environmental organizations)

    During my careers at RAND and EPA I carried out or supervised over two hundred policy-related studies on climate change, pollutant assessment, energy economics and development, environmental economics, transportation economics, benefit-cost analysis, and economic development. Those authored or co-authored by me are listed on the publications page

    No Other Scientific scam Even Comes Close in Terms of Uselessness, Cost, or Audaciousness…
    http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/4775

    50

  • #
    pat

    hilarious:

    13 Jan: WUWT: Ben Santer: We Need Understanding, Not Physical Walls, to Address Climate Change
    by Eric Worrall
    h/t Dr. Willie Soon – University of East Anglia alumni Ben “Beat the cr*p out of him” Santer offering President Trump lessons on fostering international cooperation, shared humanity, mutual understanding and the need to focus on climate action rather than building physical walls…READ ALL
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/13/ben-santer-we-need-understanding-not-physical-walls-to-address-climate-change/

    50

  • #
    glen Michel

    Nothing much good to say about the man. Has been into this nonsense from the beginning. Malthusian, CoR, and probably extraterrestrial.

    30

  • #
    pat

    13 Jan: NoTricksZone: P Gosselin: Sun As Main Driver: Japanese Scientist Cites 7 Major Examples How Real Climatic Data Contradict AGW Claims
    By Kyoji Kimoto…
    http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/13/sun-as-main-driver-japanese-scientist-cites-7-major-examples-how-real-climatic-data-contradict-agw-claims-sun/

    30

  • #
    pat

    Questions over ‘foreign donations’ to activist group GetUp
    The Australian-13 hours ago
    The GetUp activist group received a large foreign donation “to promote climate change education” that was declared just days before a January 1 cut-off date…
    GetUp said the $95,000 from the European Climate Foundation, received in December, was earmarked for “research” and denies it would be…

    Labor and Greens riding on back of rogues in GetUp!
    Daiy Telegraph – 12 Jan 2018
    The destructive foreign-funded Green-Left activist organisation GetUp! has demonstrated its irrelevance to mainstream Australia, through the publication of its electoral goals, including stopping the Adani mine, Piers Akerman writes…

    reminder from alarmist Murdoch media!

    20 Dec 2018: news.com.au: Charis Chang: Big donation to GetUp spells trouble
    (ALARMIST DAVID ATTENBOROUGH VIDEO)
    A lobby group has made a $495,000 donation to GetUp and it has one issue in its sights ahead of the upcoming federal election.
    EXCLUSIVE
    Climate change is already shaping up to be a major election issue and a $495,000 donation to GetUp spells trouble for the beleaguered Adani coal mine.
    Environmental group The Sunrise Project is providing the money to support its efforts to make climate change the number one issue at the next federal election.
    Former Greenpeace activist John Hepburn, who is the founder and executive director of The Sunrise Project, said people had lost faith in Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s capacity to effectively tackle climate change.

    “The community is crying out for political leaders who will stand up to multinational corporations like Adani which wants to force through its climate-wrecking projects, putting at risk Queensland’s precious water resources and adding fuel to the fire, cooking an already distressed Great Barrier Reef,” Mr Hepburn said.
    “Political leadership is what’s needed to put a stop to Adani’s controversial coal mine. The world just can’t afford to mine and burn the coal from the Galilee Basin which is one of the largest untapped coal reserves in the world. If we do we will see even more dangerous climate change and extreme weather events in Australia such as fires, storms and droughts.”…

    The organisation (Sunrise) gets part of its funding from the US-based charitable trust, the Sandler Foundation, which has led to it being criticised for being part of a co-ordinated push against coal…

    The collaboration is an ominous sign for climate change deniers as GetUp has shown itself to be an effective campaigner…
    GetUp believes the public don’t want Adani to go ahead…
    https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/mining/big-donation-to-getup-spells-trouble/news-story/132b4f5dfec12c86581146bef37126b0

    30

    • #
      pat

      Wikipedia: The European Climate Foundation is funded by the Nationale Postcode Loterij, The Arcadia Fund, The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, The ClimateWorks Foundation, The McCall MacBain Foundation, Oak Foundation, The Stordalen Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation…
      The European Climate Foundation established CarbonBrief in the end of 2010…

      European Climate Foundation: Supervisory Board
      includes:
      Stephen Brenninkmeijer (Chair)
      He has been active in strategic investing since 2002, and founded Willows Investments UK in 2008 with the aim of supporting promising ventures with a social mission.
      Since December 2018, Stephen serves as Chair of the European Climate Foundation’s Supervisory Board.
      In addition, Stephen holds the following functions:
      ◾Member of the Board of Directors, World Resources Institute (USA) etc…

      Kate Hampton (Vice Chair)
      She became CEO of the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) in March 2016, after having served since 2009 as Executive Director of the CIFF Climate Change team. Ms Hampton was the first CIFF Executive Director for Climate Change…
      Ms Hampton serves on a number of boards, including the European Climate Foundation Supervisory Board, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and the Fundaciόn Climática de México…
      Before joining CIFF she was Head of Policy at Climate Change Capital (CCC) – a boutique investment firm with $1.5 billion under management – and advised asset managers and multinational companies on clean energy opportunities…
      Hampton was also Head of the Climate Change Campaign for Friends of the Earth (FoE) International; and managed the Green Alliance (GA) Green Globe Network, a civil society advisory group to the UK Foreign Office.
      Earlier in her career Ms Hampton worked at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Environmental Resources Management (ERM). In 2008, she was named a World Economic Forum (WEF) Young Global Leader. She holds a BSc from the London School of Economics and a Master in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School, where she was a Fulbright …

      Connie Hedegaard
      Connie Hedegaard served as European Commissioner for Climate Action from 2010 to 2014. During her term, she led negotiations towards adoption of the EU 2030 Climate and Energy Framework; was responsible for the 2050 Roadmap for a low-carbon economy; and represented the EU in international climate negotiations…
      Ms Hedegaard currently holds several key positions in support of a low-carbon and green economy: She is the first Chair of the Board of the KR Foundation; the current Chair of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Round Table for Sustainable Development; Chair of the Board for the Danish green think tank CONCITO and Chair of the Board of Aarhus University…

      Leonardo Lacerda
      Leonardo Lacerda is the Environment Programme Director at Oak Foundation, a leading international grant-making organisation head-quartered in Switzerland…
      Prior to Oak Foundation, Leonardo worked for 14 years with the WWF international network in various capacities, including the Latin America and Caribbean Programme Coordinator (Switzerland), Mediterranean Programme Director (Italy), Conservation Director of WWF Brazil, and Manager of the Global Forest Conservation Programme (Switzerland)…
      He is a former board member of WWF Spain and WWF Greece…

      Pascal Lamy
      From September 2005 to August 2013, Pascal Lamy served for two consecutive terms as General Director- of the World Trade Organization (WTO). A committed European and member of the French Socialist party, he was Chief of Staff for the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors from 1985 to 1994…
      Pascal Lamy is author of various books and reports on global governance, Europe and international trade…

      John Pershing
      Program Director of Environment, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

      Mary Robinson, President, Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice

      Antha Williams – Bloomberg Philanthropies

      Management Board
      Laurence Tubiana, Chief Executive Officer
      She is also the Chair of the Board of Governors at the French Development Agency (AFD) and a Professor at Sciences Po, Paris. Before joining the ECF, Laurence was France’s Climate Change Ambassador and Special Representative for COP21, and as such a key architect of the landmark Paris Agreement. Following COP21, she was appointed High Level Champion for climate action…
      Laurence has held several academic positions, including as a Professor and Scientific Director for the International Development and Environmental Studies Master degrees at Sciences Po, Paris, and Professor of International Affairs at Columbia University, New York. She has been member of numerous boards and scientific committees, including the Chinese Committee on the Environment and International Development.
      https://europeanclimate.org/people/board/

      20

      • #
        pat

        Powering GetUp
        GetUp is an independent campaigning community…
        We’re fiercely independent – we’re not linked to any political parties, we don’t have or want charity status, and we don’t accept any funding from Government…

        Donations above $10,000 … READ ON
        https://www.getup.org.au/about/powering-getup?target=donations-disclosure#accordion-module-content-31719

        30

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        The Establishment is working hand in glove with the feral lefties and greenies…..

        I suspect the smart ones are the guiding influence, and you have the armies of useful idiots ( like Peter Fitz-whatsit ) who are told to pee into the wind for the cause….

        That said, the brains are likely the ruthless ones, who are happy to throw the leftie canon fodder at a problem while flying around in private jets bemoaning how “awful” it is.

        All were seeing is how the world really works – the same people would beat the drum of nationalism and demand ( or conscript ) your son or daughter go fight in a war while, they were busy selling weapons to both sides of the war, in this war *they* started….

        Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        41

    • #
      Serp

      Leave it in the ground, the coal, is what they want; let’s see if Shorten and Co bite.

      On another matter it’s interesting to see that Kelvin Thomson has abandoned Labor because of its intransigence on reducing immigration numbers a fight he’s carried to his party for years.

      30

  • #
    WXcycles

    “Science is all about proving, not believing.”

    You’ve got zero chance of getting 97% of the general population to realize or accept that.

    40

  • #
    Tides of Mudgee

    What on earth has happened to the numbering around No. 5.1.1.1.1.? Many of them. Have the greens attacked?

    30

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Quick , everyone in Victoriastan turn on as many electrical appliances as you can and turn up the aircon full bore .
    At 2.30 they are forecasting a reserve shortfall so do your thing and help them out !

    43

  • #
    pat

    John Church (ex-CSIRO):

    14 Jan: Australian Academy of Science: Fellows receive international awards and NHMRC grant
    Academy Fellow and UNSW Professor John Church is the first Australian awarded the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Climate Change for his work in detecting, understanding and projecting sea-level rise due to climate change.

    He shares the prize and €400,000 prize money with French space geodesist Anny Cazenave, a specialist in satellite altimetry (the measurement of the form and dimensions of Earth) and British climate scientist Professor Johnathan Gregory, an expert in ocean heat uptake and climate sensitivity.

    The prize (LINK) is rated as one of the world’s 99 major science awards by IREG List of International Academic Awards, with a reputation score of 0.59 (a Nobel Prize has a score of 1.0). Read more about the prize on the UNSW Newsroom website (LINK)…
    https://www.science.org.au/news-and-events/news-and-media-releases/fellows-receive-international-awards-and-nhmrc-grant

    11 Jan: MetOfficeUK blog: Prestigious Award for Met Office scientist
    A Met Office Hadley Centre scientist has won a prestigious award for his pioneering research into sea level rise and its response to anthropogenic climate change.
    Professor Jonathan Gregory has been given a prestigious BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award (Climate Change category), together with Anny Cazenave (Director for Earth Sciences at the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland) and Professor John Church (University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia)…

    Met Office Chief Scientist, Stephen Belcher, said; “I am delighted that Jonathan has been honoured in this way. It’s another demonstration of the fundamental role the Met Office Hadley centre and our scientists play in developing climate science.”…READ ON
    https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2019/01/11/prestigious-award-for-met-office-scientist/

    40

  • #
    pat

    check the previous BBVA “Climate Change” Laureates – Nicholas Stern, Susan Solomon, Richrd Alley, James Hansen, etc…

    BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBVA_Foundation_Frontiers_of_Knowledge_Award

    reminder – following in HSBC’s “carbon” footsteps:

    Feb 2018: BBVA: BBVA to mobilize €100 billion by 2025 to fight climate change and drive sustainable development

    March 2018: JoNova: Giant Spanish Bank spends €100bn on Earth’s weather, cos they are nice people
    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/giant-spanish-bank-spends-e100-b-on-earths-weather-cos-they-are-nice-people/

    40

    • #
      pat

      11 Jan: RenewablesNow: Siemens Gamesa secures EUR 900m green guarantee line in Spain
      Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy SA announced today it has secured a EUR-900-million (USD 1bn) green guarantee line with Spain’s Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, or BBVA.
      This the inaugural deal under BBVA’s s new sustainable transactional product linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

      Siemens will use the money to support its global onshore and offshore wind turbine manufacturing and selling business, impacting the SDG as it is related to”Affordable and clean energy” and “Climate action”, the company said…
      https://renewablesnow.com/news/siemens-gamesa-secures-eur-900m-green-guarantee-line-in-spain-639219/

      40

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        I just look forward to the class action against Siemens and the various governments which allowed these monstrous machines to hurt, injure and damage fellow human beings for the sake of Profit.

        The issue of damage to humans may not be well known But, and there is a But: It’s a scientific, indisputable certainty that VLF Pulsing is extremely bad for humans.

        An enterprising group of lawyers will one day question why this medical fact is kept quiet in the western world, find the truth And Go For It.

        An international Class Action.

        People with psychology distress but particularly heart lung damage following the introduction of Wind Turbines close by may get some redress, unfortunately they won’t get their health back.

        KK

        81

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    for the first
    This is a possible explanation of the changing correlation between the North Atlantic Oscillation and solar activity.

    for the second
    The temporal relationship between the Suess solar cycle and particularly significant 210 yr oscillations in the speleothem δ18O records therefore supports the notion that solar variability played a significant role in driving centennial-scale changes in the hydrological cycle in the subtropics during the Holocene.

    This is all in line with the NASA summary;
    The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

    however;
    The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. (that is the empirical bit)

    which gives;
    The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

    rest my case

    57

    • #
      AndyG55

      “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

      In glass bottles.. NOT in the atmosphere.

      It was the bottle that trapped the heat, not allowing the energy to be re-emitted properly or convected away..

      Sorry that you cannot distinguish the difference.

      —–

      ” (that is the empirical bit)”

      What, the word “must” ??????? ROFLMAO !!!!

      No measurements, just a random “must”, ignoring all other atmospheric processes. WOW..

      So NASA saying “MUST” is now “empirical evidence” ROFLMAO !!! :-)

      You really are getting DESPERATE, pfutz. :-)

      The further their models get from REALITY, the more confident they get.. quite bizarrely ANTI-scientific.

      You have NOTHING except propaganda nonsense from a bunch of AGW stall-warts.

      84

      • #
        • #
          theRealUniverse

          A surface that is COLDER than another surface CANNOT warm that surface. Period.
          This is what the GHG effect is supposed to do.

          72

        • #
          AndyG55

          Oh the Marty Feldman paper. I was hoping you would find that one.. Who helped you???

          After 5 years of statistical punishment they say they found a TINY change(0.2w/decade) measured once over 10 years href=”https://i.postimg.cc/Z5YcpqcL/Feldman_oops.png”>during a large El Nino spike.

          No partial period checks, and no actual link to warmings, just this TINY, so called, “forcing”

          Then MODELLED graphs of supposed forcing which have little resemblance to his measurements.

          Paper gets ripped apart, here

          That one study by Feldman 2015 (1) under carefully controlled “CLEAR sky” conditions. But then, there is Dong, Xi, Minnis 2006, under “ALL sky” conditions, that found the reverse.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7284311bd39f1b54da5654cf20551919fa9f4c3e7880870c2c03fc6d223dac9.jpg

          83

        • #
          AndyG55

          “”Similar to the clear-sky study, we also provide the all-sky upwelling SW and LW fluxes to study the surface radiation budget under all-sky conditions. The rates of net SW and LW fluxes are −0.07 W/m^2 [per year] and −0.37 W/m^2 [per year], respectively, resulting in a decrease of 0.44 W/m^2 per year in NET flux at the surface (Figure 3b). The decline of NET flux, however, does not correlate with the increased surface air temperature as illustrated in Figure 3a. The surface air temperature is determined by the sum of NET radiation fluxes (downwelling and upwelling SW and LW fluxes) and nonradiative fluxes (sensible and latent heat fluxes, ground heat flux and energy flux used for melt), as well as the large-scale advection [Wild et al., 2004]. Wild et al. [2004] investigated this counterintuitive result and concluded that it may be due to a decrease of surface evaporation and associated reduced evaporative surface cooling.””

          62

        • #
        • #
          AndyG55

          From chief NASA physicist (until forced to resign because he was correct

          Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi: C02 is not increasing energy to the system to change anything.

          ” According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere. ”

          ” Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC. ”

          “I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”

          See, actual data, real calculations, real physicist

          …not a pathetic “must” from a computer game modeller and propaganda monkey.

          64

        • #
          tom0mason

          Pomposity Fitzroy,

          So what did they prove?
          They say –
          “The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2.” This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation

          But what about the other 90%? They don’t know, so don’t ask, eh?

          Also note the authors started in the 2000 La Nina, and ended at the 2010 El Nino – when troposphere temperatures were half a degree warmer. Then they noticed that there was slightly more downwelling long wave radiation [DWLR], which they blamed on increased absorption from the increase in CO2.

          Oh so yet again this warming of the atmosphere can not be due to internal variability, ocean oscillations, cloud cover changes, solar amplification mechanisms, etc because, because er….CO2! Well their very intensive computer modeling proved it — or that’s what they say.

          No I’m very skeptical of their set-up, the cherry picked time period, and the use of UN-IPCC modeled output as the alleged verifier for their result. Climate models do not supply data, they only give results of mathematical process. (Even if they had used the correct IPCC figures from the correct formula (which they didn’t), the IPCC formula exaggerates CO2 surface radiative forcing by 45% over the observations.)

          P.S.
          And just to add a bit of spice to your argument the peak emission spectra of CO2 is at 15 microns, which by Wien’s displacement law is equivalent to a blackbody radiating at -80°C.
          Per the second law of thermodynamics, a low temperature/frequency/energy body at -80°C cannot warm a higher temperature/frequency/energy body at the Earth’s 15C.

          30

        • #
          AndyG55

          What the Marty Feldman paper clearly shows, is that a warmer, moister atmosphere (due to the El Nino) emits more radiation.

          Well I’ll be darned.. who woulda thunk !!

          44

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        ALso
        Abstract:
        ‘The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
        traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
        is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
        which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
        radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.
        According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.’

        30

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          Heres another one, The surface of VENUS (97% CO2) can be calculated directly from the gas laws and solar radiation. Nothing to do with any runnaway GHG effect which is nonsense.

          62

          • #
            tom0mason

            And Mars is quite cold despite it (merger) CO2 atmosphere.

            50

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            theRealUniverse:

            You can extend that to all planets with an atmosphere (Mercury and Mars excepted) and even the moon Triton.

            Mind you the calculation for Venus is only 99.5% accurate, but given the “accuracy” of predictions using the Climate Models** so what.

            ** Except the fairly accurate Russian model, but that ignores any effect from CO2.

            30

    • #
      AndyG55

      This is getting bizarrely HILARIOUS. :-)

      I have never seen someone so brain-hosed and dig so deep into their own ignorance.

      Unquestioning “belief”. Not a rational thought of his own.

      Truly the Borg have his little mind in a cognitive stupid stupor.

      Please keep going, pfutz.

      Laughter is the best medicine.. (but do get the psychiatrist to re-adjust yours)

      74

    • #
      tom0mason

      Pomposity Fitzroy,

      “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.”
      It has never been demonstrated to work as advertised within this planet’s atmosphere. It has only been suggested and just like the sensitivity of CO2 has never been settled.

      82

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Now that is pure bulldust.

        48

        • #
          AndyG55

          Yes, you are yapping just bulldust.. you are FULL of it, pfutz.

          74

        • #
          AndyG55

          “It has never been demonstrated to work as advertised within this planet’s atmosphere.”

          Come on pfutz…dhow us where and when..

          (no, not the Feldman El Nino/H2O increase of a tiny 0.2w/decade)

          74

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            That value is enough to answer your assertion about Anthropomorphic C02. That is all it has to do.

            As to Ferenc Miskolczi
            ‘The proof is now, presumably, held to be empirical. But what does empirical mean here? In the paper, Dr M makes frequent reference to plots of 228 points, which seem to have reasonable regression fits. But what are the points? He sometimes talks of (”selected” ;) radiosonde readings, but there isn’t much detail offerred. And sometimes of simulations, using his code “HartCode”. In this site he assembles the results to prove the main principles, but the claim to their observational nature is somewhat undermined by the fact that he has similar graphs for Mars. It seems clear the results are simulations – how real-world observations fit in is quite unclear.

            The key finding, often quoted, is that the greenhouse effect is limited. This result follows from his claim that the optical depth has a theoretical value (about 1.84), so if more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, somehow water is squeezed out. But that theoretical depth is based on a claim that the atmosphere must somehow optimise cooling, which he never justifies. Towards the end of this “proof” site, he lists comments from some of the referees of journals that rejected his paper. I don’t know why; the referees seem to make very strong points. On this particular point, one said: ”The overall concluding statement that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ makes absolutely no sense at all. An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth….” Quite right – the radiative balance can’t remove or add gases to the atmosphere’

            27

            • #
              AndyG55

              “That value is enough to answer your assertion”

              Yep, it has a totally immeasurable effect, as per Miskolczi.

              No evidence of actual warming ANYWHERE, just this mythical TINY insignificant pseudo-statistical forcing that disregards all other aspects of atmospheric physics

              You know, all those aspect that you are incredibly CLUELESS about.

              And then to post a rant by someone who obviously as totally clueless about Miskolczi’s work as you are, is quite hilarious.

              Please keep digging. Everybody’s LAUGHING at you. :-)

              74

            • #
              AndyG55

              What Miskolczi’s work, based on MEASUREMENTS that match THEORY (unheard of in normal climate science) says is,

              … that the ratio of the surface temperature to the sum of the incoming energies is fixed at a critical value; the ratio cannot be altered by adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2.

              The climate temperature is fully sensitive to real changes in the external drivers that increase the energy input.

              But it is not at all sensitive to addition of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to the atmosphere.

              63

          • #
            AndyG55

            “That is all it has to do.”

            Don’t you comprehend that a warmer air temperature due to the El Nino spike would CAUSE that extra radiation, if it did actually exist in all the huge errors in the statistical torture of the data.

            Are you REALLY that dumb and scientifically ignorant ?????

            You have already answered a resounding YES to that question.. several times.

            64

      • #
        tom0mason

        Just to clarify…
        My ‘it’ in “It has never been demonstrated to work …” refers to the CO2 component (and all the little termite that generate it) :-)

        Climate models have never worked out how to handle water in the atmosphere based on purely observed, measured, and known attributes that water present in the atmosphere.
        That is to say they have no theoretical functional physical or mathematical model that works across all altitudes, temperatures, wind speed and direction for observed clouds types, humidity levels, or precipitation events.
        What is done is the models are ‘tuned’ — aka ‘fudge’, and mix in aggressively high nucleation particulates to give it some sort of realistic value. Problem is these ‘tuned’ values are often not dynamic enough or occasionally too dynamic, to fit with real world outcomes.

        But some people actually believe that UN-IPCC quoted but unverified Climate Models can really simulate the chaotic (and noisy) global climate. Sad really.

        Here is just one example of where climate models and modelers say reality must be wrong …
        https://phys.org/news/2017-01-climate-underestimate-future-tropical-mountains.html

        and here is a pdf outlining some of the assumption and tuning that the model have http://icecap.us/images/uploads/assumptionsfeedbacks2.pdf.
        and
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/atmospheric-model for an abbreviated theoretical idea of what the model should do.

        Note Our planet’s atmosphere is not made of an ideal gas, it is a regionally variable non-ideal gas that varies over so many parameters.

        41

    • #
      AndyG55

      If you read the actual article, they measured a wide variation in warming from .01 to .2 using a model which adjusted for H20 and other factors roflmao!

      And then used a model to smooth the data and even then their final numbers, each site is different, have an error range of about 30 to 40 percent. roflmao !!!

      And out of that with 5 years statistical torture, the best they could CONJOUR was a measly 0.2W per decade of H2O, El Nino based warming with HUGE error margins.

      That’s “climate science™” for you. Right down your alley, pfutz.

      Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html#jCp

      93

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Tallbloke the denier, The Hockey Schtick, a denier website. and a random screen shot. do better or go home

    410

    • #
      AndyG55

      No counter of any FACTS, as usual.

      Just your normal mindless bluster and fake, empty evidence.

      Paper got ripped apart.. get over it. !!

      74

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        not by science, it stands on that battleground.

        23

        • #
          AndyG55

          Yes, by science.

          That thing you are OBLIVIOUS to.

          You have made it quite clear that you DO NOT have the scientific knowledge to comprehend the many failings of that paper, even when they are pointed out to you in black and white.

          52

    • #
      tom0mason

      Pomposity Fitzroy,

      What are you about “Tallbloke the denıer”?
      If you mean this fine chap does not adhere to your belief system of human caused climate change, or human induced catastrophic global warming then you are correct. However he knows and understands more real physics than you can possibly comprehend.

      74

      • #
        AndyG55

        Two quick question for the pfutz.

        1. What do we DENY about climate that you can scientifically prove as fact ?????

        2. In what way has the “global” climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically proven to be the influence of human’s CO2 emissions.

        (and no, the slight warming has been solar forced via El Ninos and from ocean cycles)

        62

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          1. you appear to deny the accepted model, and in particular the bit about C02, but you have rejected any article in support of that model, so I have nothing you will accept as proof.
          2. I would suggest that the rate of change, which is so much faster than previous warming events would be the symptom, and the cause would have to be something that is different about this time. Number 1 suspect, with fingerprints all over the causes is the western industrial society.

          25

          • #
            AndyG55

            “the accepted model”

            ROFLMAO..

            1. Models are NOT scientific evidence, EVER.

            NOT FACT.. just computer games. !

            Seriously, go back to junior high and learn the difference. !

            Climate models particularly have been proven monumentally WRONG in basically every aspects. They are built on scientifically unsupportable assumptions.

            EVERY climate change model is WRONG, so NONE are useful

            You can’t “DENY” a model, Its just plain idiocy to say so.

            2. Rate of change is no faster than 1920-1940. and its only come from an El Nino event and a second transient, there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that humans cause El Nino events.

            You are grasping at barb wire straws as you sink into the mire of your own gullibility, lack of scientific comprehension, and brain-washed stupidity.

            63

          • #
            AndyG55

            “but you have rejected any article”

            Articles ARE NOT ever evidence, they are just someone’s opinion.

            Data, empirical evidence. You have produced NONE. !

            62

          • #
            AndyG55

            ” deny the accepted model”

            Which one? there are 100+ of the stupid things.. all different.

            That would have to be one of the dopiest, most scientifically illiterate answers you could possibly have given.

            I ask what we denied that you could prove scientifically.. and you say “the accepted model”

            WOW… Totally bizarre !

            You really have gone deep into loonie-toon time.!!!

            22

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Another engineer, and he admits that he is a denier. If I had an engineering question, he might be the man. I don’t see why I should listen to him on climate

        17

        • #
          AndyG55

          So you would rather listen to a computer monkey with zero knowledge of any sort of gas, thermal or other physics, than someone strongly versed in scientific process, thermal and gas physics, and a whole heap of other facets of climate related physics to do with air flow, pressure flow, mathematics etc etc etc..

          That explains a LOT of things.

          Explains why you are basically totally ignorant of anything to do with anything. !!!

          73

        • #
          AndyG55

          “and he admits that he is a denier”

          You moron, he is making fun of the idiotic term.

          And you are too dumb to realise it.. So funny !!!

          73

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            What I look at are facts AndyG55, and you have name calling and bluster, just like that execrable Tom0mason.

            28

            • #
              AndyG55

              You don’t have any FACTS.

              How can you look at them ?????

              You even DENY that the only warming has been from El Ninos

              You DENY that there was a Grand Solar Maximum in the latter half of last century

              You DENY that there is no evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2

              You DENY that atmospheric CO2 cannot heat oceans.

              You DENY that CO2 is highly beneficial for all plant life , hence all life on Earth

              You DENY that climate models are a total mess and totally worthless.

              You DENY that the NH, the 1940s was about the same temperature as now.

              You DENY that the Sun has a major effect on the planet’s climate.

              You DENY that for most of the last 10,000 years, the Earth has been much warmer than now.

              You DENY that climate has changed naturally for the last millions of years.

              You DENY that there is absolutely NOTHING out of the ordinary happening with the world’s climate.

              These are all proven FACTS.

              There is a “DENIER” here, and not any of us.

              You basically DENY all rational science, preferring baseless un-supportable junk-science propaganda.

              63

            • #
              tom0mason

              You do NOT look at facts, you believe in assumptions from computer models and their inherent biases.
              You appear not to understand that observations made by other excellent scientists that do not confirm your beliefs can be correct. It appears your version of the science world is very small, run by cliques, divorced from reality, and has neither skepticism of received knowledge nor curiosity to investigate scientific anomalies.

              You have not provided one piece of verified observational data, i.e. real science. In the main all you have provided is positive opinions confirming your bias mixed with overbearing hubris and insults to anyone you consider not a scientist.

              31

  • #
    el gordo

    The elephant in the room.

    ‘I previously hypothesized that changes in upper-level circulation, especially the subtropical easterlies and the mid-latitude westerlies are due to changes in pressure on the magnetic field and all underlying atmospheric layers by the solar wind. We know the solar wind compresses the magnetic field on the up-Sun side, so it is logical that variation in the solar wind causes variation in the amount of compression creating a bellows-like effect.’

    Tim Ball (wuwt)

    41

  • #
    Tekguy

    I started looking into this subject with the release of AR4. As an Engineer, I was looking for the empirically discovered link causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature. So far, I have found no such evidence. If any of you have a link to an empirical scientific paper which explains the link, please send it my way. I guess I am a “luke-warmer” because I accept that CO2 does provide a little boost to temperature. However, the best proof is whether the atmospheric temperature is actually increasing (which it has) and by how much (slight). Is it “catastrophic”? I think not.

    11

    • #
      AndyG55

      ” I accept that CO2 does provide a little boost to temperature.”

      Why do you accept that, when you know there is no evidence?

      Plenty of evidence that the slight rise is solar forced in nature.

      And look else where than the politically based IPCC reports, they will tell you only half truth or mis-truths.

      21

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Hi Tekguy,

      Interesting comment and it seems that, intuitively, you have come to the conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is not a worry in regards to atmospheric global warming; this when you say;

      “So far, I have found no such evidence.”

      Then later you say; “I accept that CO2 does provide a little boost to temperature.”

      If I read it correctly you’re saying that there’s a tiny bit of global warming?

      I can understand the situation because there are now decades of ill informed comment on this topic.

      In summary I’m sure that all that the puny efforts of CO2 achieve is to aid Convection in the atmosphere, and this is essentially the removal of low grade, ground origin Infra Red energy, closer to it’s ultimate location: Deep Space.

      If water, natural origin CO2 and human origin CO2 were not available to provide this cooling, then impact of atmospheric gas molecules with the surface would do it.

      The most likely engineering outcome for higher CO2 in the atmosphere is that it would be a coolant.

      And, of course, the effect of the Human Origin component of all this would be quantitatively irrelevant.

      What a mess politicians make of science!

      But then money and control have too often been the driving force in civilisation.

      :-)

      KK

      00

  • #
    Tekguy

    Peter Fitzroy, perhaps you can enlighten me? I am open to all creditable science.

    30

  • #
    Tekguy

    AndyG55, I am not a scientist, so I muddle through. My statement about CO2 comes from the laboratory experiments where it demonstrates the absorption of a certain amount of heat, before it gives it off again. Thereby increasing the amount of time it takes for the heat to move away from earth. To me that makes it a “little bit” of global warming. However, there are many natural phenomena which could impede this, maybe even reverse it for all we know. It seems the AGW crowd has spent all their time on the “A” part, and no time on natural processes.

    20

    • #
      AndyG55

      Dan gives a pretty good rundown of the basic physic here.

      Take your time, he writes in a way for an intelligent non-scientist to comprehend. :-)

      01

  • #
    AndyG55

    ” My statement about CO2 comes from the laboratory experiments where it demonstrates the absorption of a certain amount of heat…… Thereby increasing the amount of time it takes for the heat to move away from earth..”

    A tiny thin sliver of absorption, which is immediately passed to the remainder of the atmosphere, and dealt with by convection

    The whole set-up is controlled by the gravity based temperature pressure gradient.

    If there was a slowing of cooling, it would change that gradient, and as Miskolvski showed, there has been absolutely zero change in the IR opacity due to enhanced CO2.

    Convection/conduction/advection/bulk transfer RULE in the lower atmosphere.

    Radiative heat transfer is insignificant in that it does not change the thermal gradient

    At the surface, the mean free distance of absorption in the CO2 frequency range is around 10m, an increase in CO2 might lower that by a small amount, but that just mean thermalisation happens a tiny fraction of a second earlier. CO2 does not re-emit below 11km, where the atmosphere is thin enough for conduction/convection to no longer rule.

    If anything, atmospheric CO2 is just another conduit for atmospheric, and in fact, tests have been done in the double glazing industry that show that CO2 has less resistance to heat transfer than normal air.

    Sorry , but you have been fooled by the very first error of the AGW fallacy.

    The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands.

    Such a radiant greenhouse effect does not exist in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.

    21

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Good comprehensive summary Andy with a few added details in the science the were beyond my pay grade.

      KK

      01

  • #

    In spite of CO2 being a ghg, multiple compelling evidence listed in Section 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com rules it out as a significant contributor to climate change. Explanation of why is in Section 5.

    All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no change in average global temperature since about 2002-2005.
    CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002 so if CO2 has any effect on temperature it can’t be very much.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dv8kE26U0AEKfdY.jpg

    The use of water vapor as the ghg is not ruled out. Properly combining the log of increased WV with an approximation for ocean cycles and, as a proxy for what the sun does, the time-integral of SSN anomalies, results in a match to measured average global temperature of 98.3% 1895-2017.

    10

  • #
    Paolo Pagliaro

    Good to know an independent professor. I guess he’s very good at his field, instead in history he misses something: Galileo didn’t live in the Middle Age and his life was not at risk.

    00

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Oops, an embarrassing mistake.
    And a very savage rebuke.
    Congratulations Jo for taking the higher ground. You’ve courteously acknowledged the mistake and printed the correction verbatim despite the tone.
    I find that a pleasant change after the constant intellectual dishonesty of so many environmental websites.
    I’d like to welcome Professor Tsonis here and hope that this is not the only comment he makes on the site. Well-informed commentators are a boon to open discussion and knowledge.

    20

  • #
    Arthur Currie

    Thank you, Jo, for your quick and thorough response to Prof. Tsonis’ comments. Your willingness to correct your own comments displays the kind of integrity that I appreciate so much. I have been following your posts for years and have come to realise that such integrity is characteristic of all the work you do. I trust that it will bear good fruit for you, and through you, for others. Thanks, again.

    [I will not approve this but leave it for Jo to see and read.] AZ

    30