In a nutshell — this poor little rat lived on a outcrop in the ocean near Papua New Guinea that was 300m long. It’s now gone, and some people blame “climate change”. A thousand tide gauges show the oceans are rising at 1mm a year. We also know the world was much hotter 7,000 years ago, and sea levels rose 125m in the 7,000 years before that. Somehow the rat survived that massive natural shift. Now though, its precarious existence was destroyed by your air conditioners, cars and because you ate too much meat. Modern witchcraft.
Revealed: first mammal species wiped out by human-induced climate change
Human-caused climate change appears to have driven the Great Barrier Reef’s only endemic mammal species into the history books, with the Bramble Cay melomys, a small rodent that lives on a tiny island in the eastern Torres Strait, being completely wiped-out from its only known location.
It is also the first recorded extinction of a mammal anywhere in the world thought to be primarily due to human-caused climate change.
So despite the non-stop fear campaigns about polar bears, possums, wallabys, bats, hares, pikas, this is it — the sole actual example of an extinction of a mammal living in the most high risk situation there is that is “thought” to be due to man-made climate change? So zero other extinctions. More likely zero extinctions “due to man-made weather” full stop.
The rodent, also called the mosaic-tailed rat, was only known to live on Bramble Cay a small coral cay, just 340m long and 150m wide off the north coast of Queensland, Australia, which sits at most 3m above sea level.
And here’s the graph of sea levels recorded in the best tide gauges at Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Here is the mammal-killer sea-level rise. Spot the effect of increasing CO2?
When this graph begins in 1994, CO2 levels were at 356ppm. Now they are 50ppm higher. How much difference did 50 ppm make?
Graph from Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project, Monthly Data Report – April 2016
Keep reading →
Something is going on in the North Atlantic.
Paul Homewood notes the region is cooling rapidly and it is not just surface cooling, it applies to the 700m depth that Argo buoys measure. Graphs thanks to Ole Humlum.
To give it some perspective that cooling is back to temperatures of about 20 years ago (see below). This is localized, not global, but still interesting (rather especially to our European friends).
This is the area mentioned in a recent study on solar winds which found faster solar winds correlate with a cooler north Atlantic.
A year ago a different paper predicted colder times were coming to the North Atlantic due to natural cycles.
The man-made aerosols prediction that bit the dust…
A paper by Robsom et al in the last couple of weeks said that the cooling trend was clear, started in 2005 and really shouldn’t have happened if man-made aerosols were controlling the North Atlantic.
”Here we show that since 2005 a large volume of the upper North Atlantic nOcean has cooled significantly by approximately 0.45 C.”
“The observed upper ocean cooling since 2005 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols directly drive Atlantic temperatures12.”
So the climate models are wrong about the “aerosols” excuse which is used to explain any inconvenient non-warming phase. There are less aerosols over the North Atlantic now. This cooling really shouldn’t be happening. Looks like it’s cooling due to “internal variability” which is code for natural cycles that our models don’t understand. From Robson:
Keep reading →
The Guardian are in hot pursuit of the nickel and dime Coal-Yeti.
Analysis of Peabody Energy court documents show company backed trade groups, lobbyists and thinktanks dubbed ‘heart and soul of climate denial’
The thing is, if Peabody was keeping the heart and soul of climate denial alive, it is now flat broke — it’s over for climate denial. No heart. No soul. Denial is dead! But can anyone spot the difference… ?
Poor Guardian schmucks. Peabody were funding people who write what they believe, so Peabody came and went and the same people are still writing what they believe. If climate skeptics were in it for the money, they’d be alarmists.
Yes, Do. Lets talk about the Funding
If climate skeptics were in it for the money, they’d be alarmists.
Suzanne Goldenberg and Helena Bengtsson repeat all the usual sacred incantations completely blind to the real money. At one point they are so stuck for “big money” they whip out a $10,000 figure, and in an article about Peabody, that’s not even from Peabody, but from Arch Coal. General Electric make $20 billion a year in profits from “renewables” — when is The Guardian going to expose their political donations or funding of “dozens” of extreme left wing front groups (to use their own lingo right back at them). Not to mention the other itsy bitsy enterprizes feeding off the scare called Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, and Panasonic, I could go on. Governments burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and global renewable energy investment reached $250 Billion last year, give or take a hundred billion (who cares)? It’s all part of a $1.5T climate change industry.
Whatever the influence of PeaBody is, it was nothing in comparison to the cashed up golden gravy train. Goldenberg and Bengtsson are the useful gullibles taking photos of mice while they ignore the Eleph….
Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change
Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations, analysis by the Guardian reveals.
Two dozen — that many? They’re only taking on most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF.
Environmental campaigners said they had not known for certain that the company was funding an array of climate denial groups – and that the breadth of that funding took them by surprise.
After twenty years of non-stop propaganda denouncing Big-Coal and the massive industry of climate denial – environmental campaigners thought there would only be one dozen right, not two? Imagine their surprise.
“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”
The biggest mistake the coal companies made was not getting more serious and funding more skeptics.
Greedy Green Hubris gone wrong? It took months of bad choices to achieve this Gold-Star Moment in Bad Management:
Tasmania’s state-owned Hydro-electric power generator could face legal action for damages after admitting it cloud-seeded in or near water catchments the day before disastrous flooding, although heavy rain was forecast.
Tasmania shut their only fossil fuel power plant in August last year, and relied on renewable energy and one sole Basslink electricity cable to mainland Australia. The cable was supposed to be a back up supply but was bringing in 40% of Tasmania’s electricity, and it broke in December. But a green and greedy approach in Tasmania meant that the state had already run its dams down to 26% levels by selling too much electricity to the mainland at high “renewable” subsidized prices. That was a low level at the start of summer, normally a drier season in Tasmania. After the Basslink cable broke, the dam levels fell to a precipitous 13%, so fast that the green state had to bring in diesel generators just to keep the lights on. They also switched back on the Tamar Gas plant in late January. So much for being the “100% renewable” state.
When rain was forecast in June the hydro managers must have been delighted, but even faced with the forecasts they seeded clouds on June 5th as well. (Rivers were rising on June 4 and flood warnings were valid for many areas of Tasmania.) This was the same storm system that hit Sydney on its way to Tasmania, causing deaths and threatened houses. Flood damage and losses from that same system in Tasmania now amount to around $100 million. One man is still missing, feared drowned.
The Basslink cable is projected to be fixed before the end of June, and in Tasmania they already had the wettest May since 1958. Dam levels had been restored to 20%. They only had to wait a few more weeks.
Hydro Tasmania’s cloud-seeding plane was sent up on Sunday morning and seeded clouds with silver iodide to increase rainfall for an hour and 34 minutes, from 10.57am, despite the weather forecast.
The operation targeted the Upper Derwent catchment, an area that less than 24 hours later saw damaging floods which left one man missing, feared drowned at Ouse and caused major damage to property and stock.
The cloud-seeding also was within about 10km of the Mersey-Forth catchment area, which also hours later experienced rapid and disastrous flooding that killed a woman and inundated dozens of homes at Latrobe.
One earlier report showed that cloud-seeding increased rainfall by 8% over a month in target areas. (Which is a difficult statistic to use to compare with the current situation).
The government owned Tasmanian Hydro defends itself:
“There were no flood warnings in effect for the Upper Derwent at the time of the flight,” a company statement said. “This area received a substantial, but not excessive, amount of rain after Sunday morning’s flight.
“Water in the (flooding) Ouse River came from the overtopping of Lake Augusta due to the flood event. Lake Augusta is not in the catchment targeted by Sunday’s cloud-seeding flight. Hydro Tasmania’s cloud-seeding program is currently on hold.”
Read more in The Australian
Tasmania is seeking money from the rest of Australia to build a second cable. It is the ultimate welfare state basket-case.
See The Marcus Review for the full glory of the first “four part act in Tasmanian tragedy”. The latest cloud seeding debacle shows how little anyone learned.
The Marcus Review notes the whole energy debacle has cost $560m to Tasmania (not counting anything due to cloud seeding):
To put this in some perspective, the current cost of $560 million is already well over twice the $230 million it cost to build the Tamer Valley gas station.
One thing is for sure, the short term money that Hydro Tasmania made between 2012 and 2014 will be completely and utterly dwarfed by the cost of this mess.
On May 12th Tasmania Hydro proudly announced they had been 100% renewable again for a whole week. They had turned off the gas and diesel and had to use hydro because some of the smaller dams were in danger of overflowing.
For info: Tasmania has about 500,000 people, and the Bass Strait that separates it from mainland Australia is 240km wide, 400km long and about 60m deep. It is notoriously wild, and infamous for disappearing ships. It is described as twice as wide and twice as rough as the English Channel.
h/t Marcus, David B, Robert for keeping me up to date.
Yet again, as the onion is peeled we find that at every stage the human influence is so small it is undetectable. Go with the data — humans are not even driving global CO2 levels. What does? — maybe ocean currents, phytoplankton, Australian deserts something else…
The Guardian trumpeted the rise of renewables as the reason man-made emissions of CO2 have stopped rising. Oh Bravo.
Note the success and grand achievement of trillions spent on expensive electricity and carbon trading programs — record global CO2.
Here’s the newest Mauna Loa figures showing an unprecedented high of 408 evil ppm, a tipping point, a sign of numerical doom. Run, run ye heathens!
Why are CO2 levels so high — A record El Nino in 2016 perhaps?
We need global anti-ENSO programs. Give us more money. Save the tradewinds!
Chinese Emissions? Take the emissions figures with a pound of salt. Carbon accounting is hopelessly inaccurate, China can’t be trusted, and everything else is a guess. How can we run a global market on figures so prone to corruption. Is China artificially elevating figures now so they can make cheap “reductions” in future, or are they underestimating figures to reduce the pressure on them to sign up? Could it be that they just can’t account due to the sheer difficulty of it in such a vast and varied economy?
Keep reading →
Indian PM, Modi, has shaken hands and said nice phrases but India isn’t going to commit to Paris until they are ready (if ever). That’s a bit of a blow for the Paris agreement which has only 17 signatories of the 55 countries it needs. For the Paris agreement to come into effect it is also supposed to include countries that produce 55% of global emissions. Thanks to the GWPF for compiling some of the stories here.
There are two versions of reality out there in media-land. Some Media spins it as “success”:
India to work towards Paris climate pact
India-US Joint Statement- Climate: In halfway meeting, both nations come a long way
India Aims To Join Paris Climate Change Agreement This Year
And somewhere out there will be poor sods who aren’t paying attention, and think that India might actually reduce emissions. But instead of megatons of carbon, they’ll be getting a “jolt of momentum”. Did you feel it? Me neither.
WASHINGTON — India has agreed to work towards joining the Paris Agreement on climate change this year, India and the United States said on Tuesday, giving a jolt of momentum to the international fight to curb global warming.
But the hard word is “No” — it didn’t happen, won’t happen this year, and was below expectations:
US to Ratify Paris Climate Pact This Year, No Timeline from India
India contradicts US claim over signing climate deal this year
The Hindu: India denies that it will ratify Paris Agreement this year
The Whitehouse statement contains these telling lines and the misleading use of “similarly”:
The United States reaffirms its commitment to join the Agreement as soon as possible this year. India similarly has begun its processes to work toward this shared objective.
By which we can definitely say that India has not done nothing. They have written a memo.
Keep reading →
Oh the woe! It’s another pointless round of climate-communication-angst.
The Conversation: Elizabeth Boulton
It’s time for a new age of Enlightenment: why climate change needs 60,000 artists to tell its story
The root problem, supposedly, is that skepticism is spreading. But the real reason is not the communication, it’s the message itself. It is a dead dog. It’s boring, repetitive, wrong, and the end of the world came and went already. Oh wolfitty-wolf.
So stop being unengaging:
Climate information is still often confusing, unengaging and absent from the wider public discourse.
Engage people: set up a real debate, put some reputations on the line and watch the ratings sour. Let Professors pit their wits against skeptics. Toss in a live audience of engineers and geologists. (Hehe.)
Linguistic analysis found that the most recent IPCC report was less readable than seminal papers by Einstein.
Get with the game. The unreadableness is deliberate. Einstein wanted people to understand his papers.
The older IPCC publications are easier to read. (Try the FAR report.) Back in the days when scientists weren’t trying to pretend the hot spot was there, wasn’t a fingerprint, and doesn’t matter. They weren’t trying to hide The Pause while they announced yet another explanation to explain the pause that wasn’t there. The confounded sentences are an asset. When the message is bad, you don’t want the audience to understand.
Looks like advertising-speak to me:
… climate communication needs to engage people at a philosophical, sensory and feeling level. People need to be able to feel and touch the new climate reality; to explore unfamiliar emotional terrain and be helped to conceive their existence differently.
There are multimillion dollar Coke campaigns with less psychoanalytic depth than this. (The doggier the message, the harder the sell). When docs were selling penicillin they didn’t need to “explore unfamiliar emotional terrain”.
How much money is on this pyre?
Under the global Future Earth initiative, a team of around 60,000 scientists and social scientists has been assembled to understand and report on the physical, tangible dimensions of the problem. I argue we need 60,000 arts and humanities experts to focus upon the intangibles – the communication, engagement and meaning-making aspects of the problem.
Never waste a million when you can waste a billion, right?
Science-communication angst starts with the science. Get the science right and that will solve most of the communication problems.
Oh the truisms:
Humanity will never be able to defeat a threat it cannot perceive.
Exactly. Go ye Warrior, and fight the imperceptible threat…
It’s time that the warmists awoke,
To the fact that their cause is a joke,
As their art it appears,
Can make silk from sows’ears,
Having first bought a pig in a poke.
Collaroy Beach 1967
Seas Pound Beachfront, Collaroy and Manly. Weds 6th Sept 1967
“…at Collaroy, heavy earth-moving equipment is standing by to prevent the huge seas from further undermining home units and a house which has been in danger for several days.”
Roger Franklin at Quadrant, wrote about a time When weather was just weather, and a Collaroy Storm of 1945.
Houses washed away, Collaroy Beach, 1945
Weds June 13, 1945.
Weds, June 13, 1945
14 Deaths in NSW Storms
Source: Houses Washed Out to Sea.
Blame climate change, without blaming climate change
The climate scientists are telling us that there will be less of this type of winter storm. But all the other experts, planners, engineers — get their moment of glory in the media to tell us that climate change will make this worse. In such a way does a media marketing team (like, say, the ABC) convey the sense of alarm, even when their favourite experts are actually saying the opposite.
Here’s Karl Braganza, head of climate monitoring at the Bureau of Meteorology, in the SMH, saying that this is a common East Coast Low, and we’ll get less of them:
Such storms are typical at this time of year, with as many as eight such lows a year. … climate models estimate the number of such lows may decrease by 25 per cent or more by the end of the century, particularly in winter.
ABC 7:30 report
didn’t have to ask if climate change caused this storm or flood, it just needed to find an expert of something to say “we get more of them”:
ASHISH SHARMA, SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNSW: The type of flooding that you’re seeing from this big East Coast low event is something you can expect to see much more of in a more localised, more regional type of setting, especially in the urban centres of the world.
TRACY BOWDEN: After analysing rainfall and temperature data across Australia’s East Coast, engineer Ashish Sharma and his team predict more frequent and dramatic flash flooding, but stormwater systems aren’t designed to cope with these changing rainfall patterns.
ASHISH SHARMA: If global temperatures continue to increase, then a warmer atmosphere will store more moisture and the storms will get more intense and they will get more concentrated in time and in space.
Sharma’s a rainfall and waterflow expert, and he may think he’s talking about town planning and stormwater drains, but he has the “right” quote, and it all meshes neatly for viewers. More floods, more storms, global warming. It’s a package.
Flash floods such as those experienced across the state will increasingly become the new normal as global warming continues, according to research published by the University of NSW in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
The study finds a link between changing air temperatures and intensified storms occurring across more localised spaces.
“As [global] warming proceeds, storms are shrinking in space and in time,” says the study’s co-author Conrad Wasko. “They are becoming more concentrated over a smaller area, and the rainfall is coming down more plentifully and with more intensity over a shorter period of time.”
Because so much of academia is trained to be politically correct it’s not hard for an activist journalist to seek out a secondary expert and get the quote they seek.
Roger Franklin points out that Sharma has his name on about $2.5m worth of climate grants. He is probably very genuine, surrounded by a groupthink bubble of 100%-like-minds at UNSW (with Andy Pitman, Steven Sherwood, Chris Turney etc). But while the ABC won’t invite any skeptic outside of a “peer reviewed” climate scientist to talk, they aren’t so fussy about getting engineers, or even a coastal planning professor (below) to add to the blur of “experts”.
Not long ago, when the land was parched, droughts were going to become the new normal. Apparently, whatever is is “going to be” the new normal already is the new normal by the time we hear about it on the ABC and Fairfax. Bravo the modeling-prophets.
Don’t forget to ask for money
There will apparently be less storms if the climate warms, and there’s no evidence that this is due to man-made climate change anyway, or that climate models have any ability to predict these storms. What we need are more climate modelers.
Hence the plea on big-government-media for more big-government-science makes perfect sense:
East coast erosion should stop CSIRO from cutting climate jobs: planning expert (ABC)
BARBARA NORMAN: …I might as well add to this, the pending sacking of CSIRO scientists who are providing the data to local councils who cannot afford that data in their own right.
If that data disappears with those scientists disappearing then councils will again be having to make decisions in an even greater vacuum.
Should this be a wake-up call to the CSIRO itself to stop some of those sackings of the climate scientists?
BARBARA NORMAN: Absolutely it should be a wake-up call. This is where we need the science…
The councils have been ignoring their own history for a hundred years (see photos above).
Reporters can spin ‘expert’ views,
Or some ‘warming’ effect that they choose,
To claim that a storm,
Is a new man-made norm,
Which then becomes M.S.M. news.
Massive storm across Australia’s East Coast — 3 dead, 3 missing. Nearly half a meter of rain fell on Wooli (469mm) in 24 hours. Record rain and flooding occurred in NSW, Victoria, and Tasmania. Sympathies to victims and their families.
Houses left hanging as gardens and a pool disappear.
ABC 7:30 Report
There is a lot we could say, but for the moment, marvel at the government brain that bans unauthorized sandbags, but taxes people to stop the storms.
[The Australian] Families whose multi-million-dollar Sydney homes were last night beginning to break away in another king tide could have faced fines of up to $250,000 if they even used sand bags to try to protect their properties.
Houses at Collaroy have been under threat since at least 1974 but the council has failed to build a sea wall or pump sand on to the beach because of environmental concerns and a belief that it was spending public money for the benefit of private landholders.
Or make that a million dollar fine:
Planning Minister Rob Stokes is proposing to increase fines to $1 million for residents who use sandbags to try to protect their properties as part of a new coastal management bill before parliament.
The council has been considering the issue of sea walls since at least 1992. A proposal in 2002 to build a sea wall was shelved after thousands of residents in the area protested. One concern was that sea walls could cause loss of sand.
Let’s get those priorities straight.
Landholders must pay for their own sea walls:
The council has now implemented a coastal zone management plan that allows for the building of sea walls, but only if land holders go through an exhaustive approval process and pay the full cost.
We would never expect ratepayers to build a private seawall. But all Australians should pay a carbon tax to change the global weather.
You know it makes sense…
To see photos of the storm: news.com.
21 contributors have published
2300 posts that generated