Let the historic dissection begin. Man-made global warming is a dying market and a zombie science.
The Carbon Capture Report, based in Illinois, tallies up the media stories from the English speaking media on “climate change” daily. Thanks to the tip from Peter Lang, we can see the terminal trend below. The big peak in late 2009 was the double-whammy of Climategate and Copenhagen (aka Hopenhagen). It’s all been downhill since then.
Mentions of “climate change” in news, blogs and tweets dropped suddenly from July 29, 2011
Source: Carbon Capture Report
But something that caught my eye was the drop in mid 2011 (or precisely — July 29, 2011) when media stories fell by half, a step-change fall from which they never recovered.
Media Matters, and Joe Romm make much of of the fact that after Paul Ingrassia (a skeptic) was appointed as Reuters deputy-editor-in-chief news coverage of climate change fell by half.
Media Matters found a 48% decline in climate-change coverage over a six-month period, after Ingrassia joined the agency in 2011.
But Ingrassia started in April 2011 not July. Media Matters compares 6 months before the global fall Oct 2010 – April 2011 — to a six month period after the global fall (Oct 2011 – April 2012). Media Matters and Romm missed the big picture.
The Carbon Capture report graph above includes news, articles, blogs, tweets. The step change occurs in news stories and tweets, but doesn’t happen in blogs til October 15, 2011. When it comes, the use of “climate change” in blogs plummets about 70%. What happened? (Suggestions welcome). Is this an artefact, does it include comments? Is this a moment when the 50c army got new instructions (and why?), or, who knows, perhaps paychecks for astroturfing stopped? I have no data…
Blog mentions of “climate change” apparently fell after Oct 13th 2011
Mentions of “wind power” similarly fell off their own cliff the same week as media mentions of “climate change”. The dot just above the fall is July 26th, 2011.
Mentions of “Wind Power” drop from July 26th 2011.
The term “solar power” fell into a ditch that week, but recovered on and off. It was not the same pattern.
Mentions of “Solar Power” in media, blogs and tweets
I wondered what events has caused the fall. I figured there would be clues in the carbon market, and sure enough, the death spiral in prices began in June 2011.
Carbon credit prices
Global mentions of carbon credits reached a wild peak on July 1o.
What was going on?
Everyone was talking about carbon credits on July 10, 2011.
So I started hunting
I skimmed through wayback machine pages of Climate depot and Tom Nelson. (Keep hunting, you may find something I missed).
In mid-2011 there appear to be a few not-so-good polls released, like Poll: Most see disasters, few climate turn [July 11th] and Climate Change Belief Down 27 Percentage Points in Four Years? [July 12]. There were also media stories talking about a coming ice age, like “Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade “[June 14th] and Christopher Booker “Global warming? A new ice age?” [July 6th].
None of which were enough.
The Chicago Climate Exchange collapsed in late 2010. That wasn’t the trigger. Though it was an early victim of the same general trend. The Republicans took control of the US Senate House in Nov 2010, and Cap n Trade was declared dead then. By February 2011, renewables were off the agenda in “austerity-struck Europe” and I noted the money was leaving the room.
What looks like the most important clue was a key report issued on June 1 by the World Bank which said the international carbon market was in deep trouble: World Bank warns of ‘failing’ international carbon market [Guardian June 2] . Another version said: “Carbon credits market at point of collapse”. They are talking about the international CDM market, which is not the same as the EU market, though the Guardian had a leaked report suggesting that the big EU market was in trouble too.
“THE international market in carbon credits has suffered an almost total collapse, with only $US1.5 billion of them traded last year – the lowest since the system opened in 2005, says a report from the World Bank.
A fledgling market in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States also declined, and only the European Union’s internal market in carbon remained healthy, worth $US120 billion. However, leaked documents appear to show that even the EU’s system is in danger.
The international market in carbon credits was brought about under the Kyoto Protocol, as a way of injecting investment in low-carbon technology in the developing world.
Under the system, known as the clean development mechanism [CDM], projects such as wind farms or solar panels in developing countries are awarded credits for every tonne of carbon avoided. These credits are bought by rich countries to count towards their emissions reduction targets.”
By June 25th 2011 on WUWT we can see that the EU price was falling too. Poland was blocking EU legislation as well. EU Carbon Credit trading takes a dive. In Greece, they could hardly give EU carbon credits away
Last week, Greece started auctioning their EUAs (European Union Allowances). They need the money, and probably other countries will follow, including Portugal. But they were not that lucky! Of the 1 million permits, only 6000 EUA were sold. The reason: nobody is buying…
In the meantime, Poland has blocked an EU deal on CO2 emissions. They are the largest producer of hard coal in the EU, and the share of coal in electricity generation (92% in 2004) is the highest among the EU Member States. They are also pushing for shale gas. The result for them: the biggest GDP growth in 2009 and the third in 2010, amongst the 27 European member states.
Finally, Yvo de Boer has confirmed what everyone knows: the Kyoto Protocol is dead
What about the monster spike in carbon credits stories?
By July 10th, perhaps the world’s media finally realized what traders, bloggers, then bureaucrats had already figured out. The price of everything to do with carbon credits was falling. It could be that in a brief flurry they woke up, announced that, and then lost interest. Meanwhile all the groups who normally issue press releases were downsizing or closing, didn’t feel like telling the world, and the rain of wind-power and climate change news slowed as the investment money, and the press writers, moved to different industries.
It seems hard to believe, but the July 10 spike could have had something to do with Australian PM Julia Gillard. With impeccable timing and style, as carbon markets fell, Julia Gillard signed Australia up to the most expensive carbon tax scheme in the world. She announced those details on Sunday July 10th. She really did pick the last possible moment to leap from the life-raft onto the burning ship. And hasn’t Australia paid dearly for that.
So Copenhagen was the peak, the markets lived on sheer momentum for another year, but underneath the surface the big players were quietly leaving. Meanwhile the Greek and other EU economies were hitting the wall at the same time as the promise of the renewables industry and the carbon market were proving to be hollow. The carbon market for the EU maintained the price in 2010, but had none of the strength, and when the World Bank report appeared the medium-serious-money started walking away too, and has been walking away ever since.
Pure speculation…
It may have taken 18 months, but the Great Global Warming Scare was tested for real for the first time in Copenhagen and it failed. The collision with decades of dismal EU monetary policy, and a couple of cold winters help seal its fate. How much of that was due to FOIA and Climategate, we’ll probably never know.
If the media had really reported what happened in Climategate at the time, they could have led opinions instead of being the mere recorders of history after the fact — telling the world what it mostly already knew. The MSM is in its own little version of a death spiral, largely because we no longer trust it to report the news without omissions. Science journalists could have punctured the global warming scare years ago if they’d been doing their jobs. Thank goodness for Booker, Bolt and Ridley, and for Delingpole. Thank goodness for Blogs.
Occam says that the most likely explanation is the simplest: in this case, that there was a change in methodology. Certainly looks like that in the second chart.
110
I took a long time sitting on the page without refreshing before posting my comment so my hat is off to you for saying it first and with fewer words.
70
I wondered that too. If there was a methodology change it caused a step change in biofuels on July 27 and hydroelectricity but on August 24 (+ there’s no “blog” step change), but not in natural gas, or nuclear, or oil . Blog posts on alternative energy slowed from Sept 22 – Oct 26 (you have to untick the boxes underneath to see these “blog graphs”.)
But yes, it’s possible that Carbon Capture changed it’s methods on or about late July 2011. But if they did, it appeared to affect renewables rather than non-renewables mostly. (There is potentially a messy step in news mentioning Coal – but that may be because coal gets a mention in many stories on carbon credits. On the other hand, the step change in blog posts on coal ends Oct 19, and that looks suspiciously like it explains about half – peaking at 300 daily — of the blog traffic mentioning “climate change” which peaked at 600 daily. The big step change in blog posts appears to be related to a coal campaign?)
240
It starts to get complicated, but you multiple collection changes are also possible. As I mentioned below the different data types might respond to a change in amplitude and time but how and why is just guesswork from me.
I initially wondered some change could be to do with introduction of media paywalls but these should not affect blog data, unless they are paid media blogs.
50
I really don’t know what to make of the blogs data. It doesn’t mesh with what I know of the blog world, but I wasn’t following “coal”. The site lists many of the stories (see the box below the graph), though I couldn’t get that plugin to work. Perhaps if someone else can, they can check those coal “blog” links before Sept 2011 and see if they are real, or if there was a pro or anti bias and if the same kind of articles or sites stopped in October.
102
ever thought of plotting yourself to see whether you go up and down? Life is a roller coaster.
42
I am tempted to ask if “plotting yourself” makes you go blind, but I will show some restraint.
200
Rereke,
Your reply to Gee was both witty and hysterical!
I was tempted to tell Gee to ‘Go plot himself” but that could be perceived by some of our more gentle readers as being rude!
I always enjoy and benefit from your comments!
90
or maybe I should have added “nudge, nudge” to the end of my post so that the readers didn’t have to read two replies that not only repeated my comment but removed all its subtlety (as would the nudge nudge comment). Well done clever ones.
63
Well after Climategate I think most political parties are avoiding to use the words above? More and more are more worried about other things. And for many the words now means a lie and a lot of pain for no gain? I remember at my work at that time that some of my friends approached me and told me that I was right after all being Sceptical.(Blogosphere and Climategate), Earlier they looked at me as a loony with strange ideas?
70
It could also be about getting Obama re-elcted nov 2012 and remember that climate was not a theme during the election. Obama’s slogan was “Forward”(in all directions?)
So it could be political reasons? Look at what happend to that liar priminister in Australia because she did’nt listen to the Public opinion?
60
Saying that you have to remember that there is an international Connection here at play. Norwegian mostly socialist liberal media did their best to pump up Your liar priminister. She goone is going to change nothing about the state for your Labour party. If you vote laour you will get the same but With a different wrapping?
10
I have been through the world news database for the week ending 20110730, and have to say that it was one of the most boring weeks I have ever seen.
But then it occurred to me that it was at the height of the Northern Hemisphere holiday season, so perhaps the Journos went away on holiday, causing the drop in all content. Then they came back to work, and instead of going back to climate issues, they moved on to more interesting stuff, such as a pending crisis within the EU, with Germany and France taking a hard line with the PIIGS.
There were also quite a few articles concerning the future of the Polish Shale Gas deposits, so perhaps that was where the science correspondents went.
But that is all speculation.
100
Agree it could be caused by the “Team” media gatekeepers are away on summer holiday? And that we get cucumber news instead? And maybee the medias find out that they sell more and more watch if they keep away from these themes on the front page? Because I don’t buy or watch these themes in the media. Because it irritates Me so much that these policy based far fetched claims are sprayed over the public. Critical journalism? My leg!
20
I’m wondering if the high volume prior to end July was all the financial sector keeping abreast of the financial aspects of climate change. Once the money was out of the picture, the thousands of brokers and in-house brokers stopped keeping up.
It does look like methodology, but the coincidence with financial interest is suggestive that a systemic change took place such that the sites once of interest became not of interest. Like a big internet search machine was turned off or turned in a different direction. Like an App that is superceded.
30
It could also be an effect and proof of “climate disruption”?
11
You mean Big Oil financed are adjusting the data? Or search engines started censoring critic blogs?
20
10
As soon as the media realized they were not going to make
any money on carbon credits they got pissed off and said
to hell with these wankers. (is that proper Aussie/Brit terminology?)
20
and thank goodness for Joanne and David!
Yes it’s over, I don’t even bother to argue it anymore, if someone makes outrageous climate change claims I just walk away – it’s not worth the discussion anymore.
340
As for the media… Its the same thing they said they had learned a lesson on after Gulf War 2. They all stood around wringing their hands over their lilly livered coverage of the conflict and utter spineless fear in questioning its legitimacy, then all stood around hugging and crying like high school students hearing of bad exam results about how they failed to their jobs as independent reporters of the friggin news!
Same thing with AGW, the fear of being the one voice, the one head above the parapet was too much for all bah a handful. No surprise though, Neville Kennard summed it up.
“Being curious may bring you back to the conventional wisdom, or it may not; but at least you’ve arrived there of your own accord and not just followed the crowd. Be a sceptic, a contrarian, an iconoclast even, if you have the where-with-all for it. Most don’t, so it will never be a crowded field.” Neville Kennard 1937-2012
311
Exactly. The media just repeat the official lies.
170
I actually say it was always BS and still is and then walk away.
20
From the point of view of someone with a lot of experience looking at data and data presentation, the step in the green blog graph (be easier if you labelled the figures 1,2,3 etc) looks like a change in data collection method or a change in the data sources accessible if the same method. The other graphs support this purely visually based and untested position to a lesser extent.
The fact that steps and changes are happening at different but close time points does not rule this out as the change in data acquisition could have influenced different data sets at different times.
As I have no suggestions for what the change is or evidence to back it up I will happily accept all the red thumbs I deserve.
180
…gets a thumbs up from me.
It does seem weird. I did wonder if something big happened in the world on October 2011 that got the blogs talking about something else, but the only big news I could find was that Gaddafi was killed.
60
Listening to an election based talk show on ABC Radio Nat. on Saturday a week ago. The show focused on the major policy positions of the 2 parties and the reasons for those choices. One of the interviewees was someone from Morgan Research who on the topic of Climate Change gave some interesting stats that go to the heart of your post.
They stated (not exact numbers but my best memory) that the height of climate change as a topic in the “front of mind” of voters was in the second half of 2008, when Rudd had recently declared it the “greatest moral challenge of our time” (or whatevs… thanks Kev). The number of Australians listing it as a first vote winning topic at that time was about 38%. Fast forward to the same question asked in 2012, the number of people was 8%.
Science or not, consensus or not, the AGW fraternity have in my opinion been the architects of their own argumentative demise. They ignored all their own good knowledge about what sort of things are likely to occur over what time periods and started saying things like “it will never rain again”, “it will never snow again”, “we will tip the climate into chaos” etc etc. As more time has passed and almost none, if not actually none of these catastrophic predictions have come to pass. In fact in most cases the results have been the polar (no pun) opposite of the predictions and people have become rightfully skeptical about the accuracy of the science when the predictions are both preposterous and provably incorrect.
As people’s fear has diminished, so has the media’s interest in the topic. We all know that fear and sensationalism sells, but its pretty hard to keep trying to scare people when the last 10 times you tried, it didnt amount to anything.
The 97% of scientists who allegedly agree with the notion that we are going to hell in a hand basket by Tuesday fortnight, might be smart and well meaning people, but many of them forget a little fable they probably all got told as 5 year olds, its about a boy and a wolf and a tall tale.
The public have stopped listening. Perhaps people’s innate ability to sense bulldust isn’t as lost as I thought it was. Our antecedents made it through at least 2 ice ages with sticks and bear skins. Deep down inside people know that even a 3c rise in global temperatures is as nothing compared to the abject horror that would be another ice age. Man will survive and thrive, have no doubt. People are interested once again in jobs, energy prices, education, health and all the things they should concern themselves with.
The pure spineless weakness and yellow bellied fear of those who seek to somehow scare the rest of us into action on something, that when compared to 3rd world starvation should not even rate as a conversation piece disgusts me. These same people seek to reduce 3rd world populations and first world living standards because of their own self loathing at merely being human. They side with other species against their own kind. They are the worst kind of double agents, they live among us and hate being one of us. My message to them is this, put your money where your mouth is, if you genuinely believe people are the problem, then have the courage of your convictions, get a hammer and start with your own family. Otherwise crawl back into the narrow minded, fear ridden hole you slithered out of and let the rest of us get back to advancing as a species without your shrill, chicken little nonsense causing such an annoyance.
920
Your comments are also backed up by the UN survey results released recently ( sorry I have not got the link). But it asked a large number of people to rank their concerns. There were about 16 options –AGW came last.
190
Well put SG66. They’re so spineless they wouldn’t line up to have their own CO2-emitting lungs removed, but would advocate it for everyone else.
Another brilliant post Jo, one of your best. Should send these charts to Cook et al and Obama.. That would send a useful message that the vast part of the intelligent world’s no longer listening or willing to put up with their lies and overinflated egos. What consensus?
270
Agree it’s mostly “bulldust”, lies and policy motivated and based “science” fiction?
Today the Norwegian TV2 , private broadcaster, “informs” that IPCCleaks claim that it’s 95% “certain” that we are to blame for climate change and in worst case the sea level will increase by a meter by the year 2100.
The public broadcaster, NRK, say nothing.
Why don’t they tell the truth? The 95% is not a scientific but an opinion number from a small policy based group? Why 95? What’s wrong with 110%?
Up to one meter by the year 2100? That means more than 12 mm a year? Yeah horse crap my leg!
40
‘That means more than 12 mm a year?’, but not every year! Because the rise will be like an avalanche when it happens, because of the accumulated feedbacks kicking in. In an avalanche the first snow flake has to move, just as we are seeing relatively small sea rise and then all hell breaks loose, soon after as the domino effect multiplies the force. That’s what will happen to the climate. And it will just like an avalanche taking up a new/different configuration, that will not be advantageous! We’re just currently watching the warm up act to a mega group!
117
So why didn’t that happen before withing about 3E+09 years of an Earthly atmosphere containing CO2 as a stable substance?
Heaven knows what your sexual deviancy would be if you you didn’t have this to entertain yourself
50
There is, it appears, a conspiracy of scientists a foot. Their purpose is to break down religion, propagate immorality, and so reduce mankind to the level of the brutes. They are the sworn and sinister agents of Beelzebub, who yearns to conquer the world, and has his eye especially upon Tennessee. -H.L. Mencken’s beautiful sarcasm regarding the Scopes Trial
111
Stay where you are, I am calling someone to come pick you up.
100
The Emergency Medical Technicians EMTs just hate dealing with lunatics in a paranoid rage shouting nonsense with arms flailing
60
Brilliant comment SafetyGuy66
80
All true, but not relevant.
JoAnne is asking, “Why that date? Why so sudden and clear a step change?”
10
Here’s the graph of UK mentions of Climate Change in UK Newspapers 2000 to 2013.
8 UK Newspapers
110
Same type of report for US newspapers 2000 to 2011
5 US Newspapers
140
Excellent find Dave. Thanks. No step change in UK news in July 2011. But the 2009 media peak and general downward trend is confirmed.
110
Even South Park had a take on this?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dxf69EEL3WBk
30
Good sleuthing, I’ll take it away and hopefully return with an answer.
50
This doesn’t fare well for the Obama admin and their very recent spate of attempts to marginalize “denialists.”
Obama has obviously chosen the wrong route to leave a favourable “legacy.”
On the other hand, I have absolutely no sympathy. None.
334
Science is not based on media reports. The science has not changed, the data observations and support within scientific circles gets ever stronger. That the fake campaign of misrepresentation by the hate media, by think tanks, by facebook pages, and by opinion blogs might be having an effect will be to the detriment of us all, our children and our grandchildren.
581
I certainly wouldn’t want my grandchildren to suffer the poverty that the AGW nuts would impose on us.
590
Out of a choice between running your air conditioner for a few weeks more per year, or not having a job to have the air conditioner in the first place, I think Im with you RoHa, the kids of 2050 and beyond will opt for the job and the Fujitsu every time.
410
Oh come on!!!! There will be plenty of jobs wiping down mirrors of solar plants and picking up dead birds under wind turbines. The new ‘Green’ economy!
480
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxUZq-oWGcY2UVNyaXJMVEgzSkU/edit?usp=sharing
120
Lol. Nice.
50
God I must be thick, was frustrated that the page would not load. Palm meet head!
20
Global abject poverty has not been solved by several hundred years of cheap polluting power you could dig out of the ground. So that argument is a lot back to front. More likely we could improve developing worlds situation by giving them, and us, cheap renewable at the source energy, instead of being dependent on the large corporations ruining the developing world and the globe at large.
‘Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP’
‘Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.’
‘Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the deaths of at least 4.5m people a year, the report found.
The 331-page study, entitled Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet and published on Wednesday, was carried out by the DARA group, a non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. It was written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments.’
http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy?cat=environment&type=article
http://daraint.org/about-us/what-we-do/
677
Oh the Guardian. A scientific journal of the highest calibre no doubt. Slightly more balanced than the green left weekly.
530
Michael you’re unreal. The science HAS changed. Without all that grabbermint loot literally thrown at them, how would human greed NOT take over?
What sort of “renewable” energy would you advocate? Are you aware what exactly goes into a wind turbine, solar panels, batteries etc – and the thousands of them? Are you THAT unenlightened?
490
“Global abject poverty has not been solved by several hundred years of cheap polluting power you could dig out of the ground”
Yes it has! Or are you somehow unaware of the vast improvements to the human condition occasioned by industrialisation fueled by cheap energy
470
Michael “the realist” is clearly a complete moron. A quick comparison between the standard of living in the parts of the world that run on cheap power from the ground, and the parts of the world still running on animal power and cooking over open fires using wood and dung is all it should take to convince anyone with half a brain of the utter senselessness and idiocy of his pronouncements.
522
So you guys still are not intelligent enough to string an argument together without a rude personal attack.
Obviously anybody with half a brain would realise that the reason these countries are still the developing world is due to many other bigger issues than the availability of cheap power, which after several hundred years has not helped their case. Maybe look a little deeper than your pointless love affair with climate changing globe polluting profit motivated fossil fuel barons. maybe then you could actually put humanity first for awhile…
560
Michael, your post at #9.1.2 is just so typical of people like yourself. You throw these dubious factoids at us in the desperate shrill way that has become a hallmark of your tribe. All manner of calamities have been attributed to AGW and it’s all BS. The party is over. The models so cherished as conclusive evidential proof diverge from observed reality daily and exponentially. I won’t call you a moron but I do believe you are completely deluded. The smart money has moved elsewhere nursing the bruises to it’s ego and quietly castigating itself for being taken in for so long. The only players left are the hopelessly politically embedded. You must be one of them. Also, I don’t think it’s wise to cite The Guardian around here.
502
Oh, the irony, Ceetee! So ironic it’s almost painful.
http://web.archive.org/web/20111019211836/http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ar4mods.jpg
I am not a climate scientist, therefore I could be easily mislead by somebody who either wanted to do so, or who was too ignorant to avoid doing so.
I therefore don’t rely on “dubious factoids”, I rely on the professional, scientific agencies who are reponsible for collecting and analyzing the data.
One such agency is NASA, and their website is an excellent cure for “dubious factoids”:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
323
Margot, you kid yourself that you form your own opinions and think for yourself, but in the end your defense always boils down to farming out your brain. Margot = sheep. Follow the herd.
No human agency is perfect. NASA is not God.
211
Sorry Margot, but you have, indeed, been “mislead”. You demonstrate just how far you have been mislead by posting a link to an IPCC graph that has been “adjusted” every few months since it came out in the 1990’s, in order to make the “prediction” fit the facts.
Let’s look at a REAL, UNADJUSTED graph of predictions versus facts.
The coloured spaghetti are the 73 most used sets of “predictions”. The solid black line is the average of those “predictions”. The green circles and blue squares are the measured reality.
.
Notice anything, Margot?
The word you’re struggling for is “divergence”.
190
The fall in extreme poverty over the past 30 years in East Asia, mainly due to industrialisation based on cheap reliable energy, is self-evident.
120
Certainly cheap reliable energy isn’t the only factor, but it is an absolute prerequisite.
100
Oh dear Margot,
You link to a graph by tamino (the person behind the Closed Mind blog) purporting to show how well the models fit to the real-world. Tamino’s graph seems to be using GISS data. Are you aware of the ridiculous (and probably fraudulent) adjustments that have been repeatedly made to the GISS record that has ‘cooled’ the past and ‘heated’ the present?
Here’s a graphic to explain:
Personally, I prefer the following graph that uses the more reliable satellite and balloon data:
Looking at the second picture, how can you believe that the models aren’t a bunch of junk?
40
AArgh!
My pretty graphs haven’t appeared in my last comment.
The ‘image’ html tag doesn’t seem to be working!
Never mind, all I wanted to say to Margot was that the GISS data is only worth printing on toilet paper..
40
Michael – please declare to the World whether:
1. You do not use fossil fuels.
OR
2. You do use fossil fuels and are a complete hypocrite.
Let’s hear it sonny.
41
Thus far, your abject stupidity has not been solved by several hundred attempts of cheap ideas you dig out of your back end.
315
Up above you say “Science is not based on media reports.”
Then start quoting the Guardian at us. really !?? Doh!
451
“Climate Vulnerable Forum”
A group of 3rd world nations intent on extracting as much money from 1st world countries as they can, using all the inventive misinformation they can possibly come up with.
Initiated by the Maldives government.. says it all.
GIVE US YOUR MONEY !!! Say the leaders from their palaces.
241
Riding all the extreme climate hoo-ha for all they can get their greedy little hands on.
251
There’s f****** reasoning [snip] Michael. How about providing empirical evidence? More likely the reality is cheap energy prevented many millions more from poverty. Certainly cheap energy prevented millions from starvation.
[snip]
130
[Snip the snipped]
Is this what passes for civil discourse where you are from? [No. It isn’t -Jo]
Michael’s opinions appear soundly based on fact. This impression would seem to be confirmed by your need to take a bullying and abusive tone with him.
——————
REPLY: M-D’s frustration (“Snipped”) is not evidence about the cause of wealth or poverty of nations. Virtually none of our quality of life or per capita GDP would exist without cheap energy. There IS no such thing as “cheap” renewable energy yet. Try to reason. – Jo
417
Sure there is cheap renewable energy for Heaven’s sake, people burn twigs and dung in mud huts and remain in abject squalor amidst acrid smoke and perpetual sickness.
Thanks to the UN and the World Bank who refuse development funding for remotely generated electrical power from coal or bitumen, thus the UN likes to keep these people in the condition they have been in for hundreds of years.
There’s no “reasoning” with these people Jo Anne, and it leaves people exasperated and hurling epithets at them. If they are capable of understanding nothing else, maybe the Michaels and the Margots can begin appreciate just how revolting their sick opinions make some people.
I’ve reached my limit with them. I treat them no differently than I would treat anyone else promoting disease and filth and sadness and loss and death and destruction
331
Post of the week.
90
Brian, I just gave everyone around me a start when I leapt in the air and yelled YES! upon reading your take down.
I can only reply with the great bard,
“Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!”
100
The answer to the feigned “indignity” demonstrated with puling protests against the “hostility” directed at them
60
What needs to be understood is that these Michaels and Margots are not simply deluded; they are criminals. Green policies kill. How would YOU, Michael or Margot, like being an aged pensioner in your tiny flat in England having to choose between heat and food because of “green” mandates for windmills. How would YOU like to be the Mother in Asia or Africa holding your starving child in your arms because of “green” mandates about biofuels. How would YOU like to go blind because of “green” opposition to golden rice, a genetically altered crop. Google VAD if you don’t believe me. How would You like to be the Mother in Africa holding your pain racked, feverish child in your arms because of a malaria epidemic that could easily be cured by “green” banned DDT. Google that one too. There is no circle in Dante’s Hell COLD enough, yet you have the nerve to tell us “it’s for the children”.
71
How disgusting, sick and incorrect. Power company profits caused prices to rise.
‘Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.’
‘Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the deaths of at least 4.5m people a year, the report found.
The 331-page study, entitled Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet and published on Wednesday, was carried out by the DARA group, a non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. It was written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments.’
http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy?cat=environment&type=article
http://daraint.org/about-us/what-we-do/
17
Judas Priest, Michael, or as he now calls himself,
Salvador Dali, the surrealist,just how many times do you think you can lie and get away with it. We’ve caught you out many times before, and still you have absolutely no idea.
You say here.
Liar.
The power company costs have gone up only because of green policy.
The wholesale cost of electricity has in fact gone down. (well, except for South Australia that is where it has risen considerably due to their reliance on Wind Power)
That is the amount paid per MWH and that is what the generating entities charge for the electricity that they generate.
Then they added on the CO2 Tax, passed directly down to all consumers, adding 3 to 4 cents per KWH, and that cost needs to be recovered from all consumers of electricity.
Then they added on the RET which added a further 4.25 cents per KWH, and that’s the direct cost of renewable power only, because it is horrendously more expensive to generate than any other form of power, except for Hydro power, and that cost needs to be recovered from all electricity consumers.
Then, they add on the subsidies paid at the installation of rooftop power systems, as that subsidy needs to be recovered, hence spreading that cost out across all consumers.
Then, they add on the exorbitant FIT paid to rooftop panel owners for the piddlingly tiny power they return to the grid, again, a charge that is recovered from all electricity consumers.
Then they added on the cost of upgrading the grid, so it can handle the piddling amount of tiny household rooftop systems, now numbering in the many, so, instead of the grid having to handle only a few inputs, it now has to handle a multitude of them, and that cost needs to be recovered from consumers of electricity.
Profit margins of the billing companies have remained either the same, or have gone down, because if they increase them, there would be hell to pay.
That, Michael is what has caused the cost of electrical power to rise.
Michael, I’ve mentioned to you that you should assiduously avoid commenting on anything to do with electrical power generation and consumption, because you know absolutely nothing about it, other than blindly repeating the meme that your string pulling political and religious overlords tell you to say.
More lies from Michael that have been shown to be outright lies.
Get your facts right Michael. You are utterly clueless.
Tony.
91
Boy Tony you sure throw the word lie around a lot. I think thou dost protesteth to much. basically you are just very rude and ignorant. Firstly the comment was made to a quote about pensioners in the uk, a news article that was conveniently cherry picked to remove the reference to huge power company profits. Secondly, studies in australia have shown that the carbon tax has only contributed around 10% or less to power bills and that most have been caused by state gov (mostly libs) gouging. Also the compensation for the carbon tax was overcompensated towards pensioners and the low paid, and that the overall effect was less than expected.
So really take a deep breath and stop being your disgusting insulting self for awhile.
17
Ah,
SalvadorMichael,just like to you to respond to a lie with another lie,
You say the CO2 Tax has only contributed 10% to electricity cost spike. Another lie.
That CO2 Tax has added 3.7 cents per KWH, so when retail is 24 cents per KWH, then that comes in at just under 16%, and when Labor itself says 17%, then your 10% is just that ….. a lie.
Now, as to compensation, you fool, I told you not to comment on electrical power generation matters, because you know less than nothing.
Compensation was paid to just part of Australian Households, around 75% of them, probably less, but, hey, I’ll go with the Government’s own figures.
So, only 20% of the electrical power being consumed in Australia is in fact consumed in that residential sector.
Now, and follow this closely Michael, so you won’t need to lie again, that effectively means that compensation is paid to only 15% of all electricity consumption.
The Residential Sector power bills are around one fortieth (on average) of those in the Commerce Sector, and one two hundredth of those in the Industrial Sector. Neither of those sectors is compensated, so their power bills rise, almost astronomically because of that extra 3.7 cents per KWH.
Now, in the case of Coles and Woolies where you shop, where we all shop in fact, then their power bill has risen by that 17%, and that comes in at tens of thousands of dollars, for EACH of those supermarkets for each power bill.
Now, don’t try and tell me those costs are not passed on in the increase in the cost of goods, not only at Supermarkets, but at every commercial and industrial sector Company, be it big or small.
Then there’s all the other rises I mentioned in that same comment, the ones you conveniently ignored, and Michael with your piddly little rooftop 1.5KW system, which you received a subsidy for and which you receive a generous FIT for, then we, the electricity consuming public are paying for all of that in the ever increasing cost of electricity.
So
SalvadorMichael, when I call you a liar, it’s not out of rudeness.It’s the truth.
You lie, but hey, you don’t know any better, because, well, ….. you just don’t know, other than what your religion brainwashes you with.
Your Federal Labor string pulling masters are the ones who are profiting from this. For, them it’s just all about the money, so they gouge all they can get, not from the polluters as they call them, but from all electricity consumers, because the power generating entities just act as the middleman, forwarding on to the Labor Government coffers what they have collected from the increased cost of electricity.
Another point too Michael, CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity are only 40% of all emissions, so your piddling little compensation that the Government hypes as their big bribe giveaway is now 75% of 20% of 40%, so the return in compensation now comes in at a monstrously huge 6% of the overall take.
SalvadorMichael, you’ve been lied to and now all you can do is further perpetuate the lie, you poor deluded fool.Tony.
120
Thats OK you continue being your rude and ignorant self. I will as usual respond with polite facts and information.
“But will removing the carbon price really lower electricity prices, and if so, by how much?
A reasonable answer would be by around 5%, with an upper boundary of about 10%.
In Victoria, the state with the highest emissions intensity, carbon costs add 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour to electricity costs. Based on typical Victorian consumption of 5000 kilowatt hours per year, removing the carbon costs should equate to a reduction of roughly $110 per year.”
https://theconversation.com/fact-check-will-scrapping-the-carbon-price-lower-electricity-prices-14408
http://www.aemc.gov.au/market-reviews/completed/possible-future-retail-electricity-price-movements-1-july-2011-to-30-june-2014.html
“By far the largest contributor to the increasing prices over the past six years has been network costs. Network costs represent between 45% and 55% of a typical electricity bill, and it is this component has increased the most aggressively (see the graph below from the Productivity Commission). In NSW, network costs accounted for 80% of the price increase in 2010-11 and 50% of price rises in 2011-12.
NSW Household electricity bill increase from 2007-08 to 2012-13. Electricity Network Regulatory Frameworks, Inquiry Report, Vol 1, Productivity Commission
Click to enlarge
According to the Australian Energy Market Commission’s latest report on electricity price trends, network costs are predicted to continue dominating electricity price increases. In fact, of the projected national price increases between now and 2014/15, virtually all is projected to be due to network costs.”
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-power-prices-gone-up-94-under-labor-15701
16
Education is not the silver bullet that gets people out of poverty, cheap energy is. If you have to spend most of your day washing clothes, gathering firewood, gathering food and all those other necessities of life, then you do not have time to do anything else. You cannot spend the time doing activities like going to school if your waking moments are spent doing the things you need to do just to live.
Cheap energy is the answer. With it, people can go more value adding activities, they can spend time improving their situation, not just surviving it. History has shown that it is cheap energy that makes poor people into rich people. The current energy disasters in Germany and other parts of Europe show that expensive energy makes rich people into poor people and poor people into dead people.
Western Europe and North America were once desperatley poor, as poor as any “Third World” country is now. The reason for their wealth is cheap energy. Everything is built from that foundation.
150
Sorry to be a pedant, but the death of the term “magic bullet” and its replacement with “silver bullet” may cause my suicide (using a lead bullet). The media has just let this happen and fed into it by continuing to use silver bullet when the term is magic bullet.
Silver Bullet = something you kill werewolves with
Magic Bullet = something that may offer a fix all solution to a problem
Ok I feel better now….
70
SG66 – pedantry accepted. I was following common usage rather than correct usage.
If can be pedantic about your pedantry, you did miss the typo in the second sentence of the second paragraph (“go” should be “do”).
You just can’t get decent proof readers these days …
40
LOL good pick!
10
What is wrong with you? Get off the grid and report back in a year’s time how your life is going.
30
Michael the “realist” goes more and more off the deep end into fantasy-land every single day. It is quite a sad thing really, his monicker is so far off-base I am beginning to think he is a climatologist.
Michael, I know that you will completely FAIL to understand this, but the main reason that global abject poverty has not been solved by cheap abundant energy you can dig out of the ground is that THE ONES WHO ARE IN ABJECT POVERTY WERE NEVER GIVEN ACCESS TO THE CHEAP ABUNDANT ENERGY.
I fear for your sanity if you fail to understand this simple reality.
Every country that gains access to cheap abundant energy rapidly increases the standard of living. Every country that restricts access to cheap abundant energy lowers the standard of living, and every country that does not have access to cheap abundant energy exists in a state of abject poverty. End of story.
81
Spot on, very well said
40
“Global abject poverty has not been solved by several hundred years of cheap polluting power you could dig out of the ground.”
What an amazingly brazen re-write of history, your hide seems to know no bounds.
The countries that HAVE developed their resources and built a tax base HAVE lifted out of poverty. The countries we are discussing and you are ignoring are the ones that HAVE NOT yet developed their resources and built a tax base. Green politics seeks to deny these countries the opportunity to follow the exact same development path we have enjoyed for 200+ years.
In my opinion we have no right whatsoever to even express an opinion on how African countries or Pakistan or India or China or South American nations deploy their economies. If they want to chop down their rain forests and burn their coal, so be it. We did it and we enjoyed the benefits. For us to even express an opinion on how they manage their resources is a disgraceful belittlement of their sovereignty. It is elitist, racist patronizing of the worst kind, in other words the stock and trade positions of green politics.
Even if they spend their resources with the soul purpose of destruction of the environment in the most horrific way we can imagine, its basically none of our damn business. We spend a small portion of our wealth assisting them and continue to, however we do it in poorly organised and pointless ways which usually only serve to prop up dictators who will allow our companies to exploit their nations resources. That’s why the west hated Chavez so much, because he tried (in the main) to distribute his nations wealth in his region rather than bending over to the USA.
You don’t seem to be a student of either science or history Michael, I wonder what your true motivations are because your nonsense seems to conceal any semblance of a sensible position.
71
MichealtheDelusionary,
“More likely we could improve developing worlds situation by giving them, and us, cheap renewable at the source energy, instead of being dependent on the large corporations ruining the developing world and the globe at large.”
When you have developed this magical energy source, you will let us know won’t you??
10
Yes well said Roha et al.
Michael…Your alarmist comments are coming straight from the political handbook. I completely understand that someone has convinced you that those ‘future generation’ or ‘our grandchildren’ sound bites make you appear intelligent and caring but they are seriously NOT intelligent…they are merely propagandist, political, rhetorical spin which were designed to tug at emotions and heartstrings and are often used to confuse or belittle anyone who dares to question their authenticity.
It’s really not that smart you know. Belittling tactics really should have been left behind in your schoolyard days.
There are several, evidence based problems that are facing you. The world has moved on from 1998. All you and people like BA4th are doing is just resorting to your out-dated handbook and insinuating that people who supply updated evidence either lack intelligence or have ‘suspect’ motives that somehow link them to ‘big oil’ or ‘big tobacco’ etc.
Unless you can adequately answer some simple questions like these… you really don’t have much other than political bluster.
1) Why is the evaporation trend in the models incorrect?
2) Where is the missing tropical hotspot?
3) Why are the GCM projections based on ‘climate forcings’ performing outside the error ranges?
4) Why is the Antarctic sea ice trend opposite to the model projections?
5) Why is your mob clinging to weather events when they continually lecture everyone else that there is a clear difference between weather and climate?
6)WHY ARE WE HAVING TO PUT UP WITH THIS SORT OF RUBBISH???????
http://www.krcc.org/post/how-extreme-australian-rains-made-global-sea-levels-drop
They dropped but they’re really rising and it’s all the fault of Australia’s odd geography?
A friend of mine saw this one and said very simply
I did a quick calc and the volume of water in 1/4″ (6mm) of ocean is just over 2,000 trillion cubic metres. The Volume of lake Eyre full is approx 14 trillion cubic metres. I wonder where the rest goes?
Can you answer that too Michael?
51
Oh Debbie, how sad that you cannot see that the whole point of this is for our children. Unless you only care about your short term needs then the problem is the world we are leaving future generations, otherwise it doesn’t matter.
Your questions are fairly unimpressive
The models are not perfect, they are merely projections under certain scenarios. I have said over and over that the science itself is not based on models but on the actual physics and observations. So model excuses do not prove anything, look at the actual evidence.
*The tropical hotspot is not a specific fingerprint of AGW and it has been found in some data.
*Sea levels are rising
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
*Not sure what your water calc is asking
So now can you answer these questions.
*Why do you cherry pick a specific strong el nino year rather than look at the whole record with its clear trend?
*Why is the 1991-2000 decade that includes your el nino year of 1998, and was predominantly influenced by warming el ninos, still colder than the 2001-2010 decade that was primarily influenced by cool la ninas?
*Why is the 2001-2010 decade the hottest on the instrumental record globally, on every continent, over land and sea and on both hemispheres?
*Why was 2011 and 2012 the hottest la nina affected years on record?
*Why was the 2001-2010 decade predominantly showing a climate with increasing, floods droughts and heat waves far in excess of natural variation?
*Why was 2007 and then 2012 record ice surface melts in the Arctic if warming has stopped?
*Why is ice volume falling globally, including ice volume in the Arctic?
and much more, but I will start with those…
112
Actually, what’s sad is that you still think anyone here is slightly swayed by anything you say. It is merely leftard greenie ALP loving bullshit.
Oh, we do care about our kids, just not yours.
60
No, it HASN’T, oh Michael of the Great Acidic Alkaline Ocean.
The Tropical Tropospheric Flop Spot (where old global warming theories go to die) REFUSED to be found in ANY existing, measured, observed data whatsoever.
So a “climate scientist” wrote a computer model (yes another one) to possibly, maybe, perhaps, “theorise” the existence of the non-existent flop spot. The effort was so poor he even had to change the colour scheme of his graph to give the appearance that his computer model actually displayed something other than abject failure to prove his point.
.
That is NOT “data” Michael.
It’s an unsuccessfully polished turd – like all the other “computer models” that are supposed to “prove” something.
.
Oh, by the way, before it was discovered not to exist, the flop spot was described by “climate scientists” as “the indelible fingerprint of global warming“. You DO know what indelible means, don’t you Michael? Too late now try and claim “it was not a specific fingerprint“.
.
And one last thing – about “the children”. My Great Grandmother had a saying:
80
Please point me to the peer reviewed science that says that the hotspot is a unique fingerprint of AGW.
26
Obviously it’s important Michael.
Why else is Kev Trenberth saying now that the reason it can’t be found is that it moves around the world. What a cunning little hotspot. Just when the instruments think they have it cornered, it moves!
Get thee back to thy dank, unlit cave, Michael. And stop worrying about my children and grandchildren, they’re none of your damn business.
50
Please point me to the DATA (NOT computer model) demonstrating that the “flop spot” (finger or not), has been “found”.
.
Only fair, basically acidic Michael. After all, you are the one challenging to play “you show me yours, and I’ll show you mine”.
It is only fitting, as challenger, that you go first.
30
Michael the Delusional,
you may have printed that out before but it has little to do with your flospot that has not shown up and shows the models are in error and the list of things you have made is as pointless as I hope your head is.
How do I KNOW that you either
1) do know the flopspot details but KNOW it is a flop and are lying to hide this
or
2) you are as ignorant as I believe you are??
I will tell you Michael the Delusional.
Michael the Delusional, your cute little list of what YOU think are important items are missing one very important to the flopspot observation. That observation is the humidity of the air in the tropical upper troposphere.
Come now Michael the Delusionary, explain to us why that is important and pull the observations out and show us how it all fits together!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, you seem to be so proud of your “PROOF” I just had to try my undereducated, ignorant hand at analyzing it!!!
Look at the following graph.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
This GISS graph is out of date and therefore tends to NOT show how flat the temps have been for the last 15 years matching the lack of cooling in the stratosphere over the same period!! Funny how you Gorebull Warmers use BS like the Hockeystick to try and LIE to people!!
I would also point out that according to this chart it would appear that since ~1900 you have a grand total of ~1c warming!!
WE’RE ALLL GONNA DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Look at the following graph of ENSO
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
This is a cool chart, literally!! It shows we haven’t had an El Nino for about 3 years. It shows that the magnitude of the ENSO has been going from High El Nino to High La Nina since the super El Nino in 1997. Take a look back to about 1979 when the current alleged hyper warming started and you will see that in about 1985 there was a very strong El Nino and there were two other strong El Ninos between with only 1 La Nina and maybe 3 years of negative Enso. Ya gotta problem there bud. Better stop using this chart if you wanna win the argument!! It shows another climate shift away from the warmer El Nino regine.
Now let me explain it to the nth degree.
# The long term trend over the whole period is obviously up.
(this is meaningless without a model showing that it would continue to a dangerous level. Back to the lack of a flopspot genius!!)
# The long term trend has pauses and dips due to natural variations but the trend is unchanged.
# The current period is at the top of the trend.
(so were the temps in the middle of the Holocene Optimum, Roman Optimum, and the Medieval Warming Period. Seriously, are all warmers this stupid?!?!?!)
# 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on the record despite a preponderance of natural cooling trends. (globally, ocean, land and both hemispheres)
# Hotter than the previous decade of 1991 to 2000 with its preponderence of natural warming events.
(Lemme think, if I heat up a steel bar slowly till it is glowing, and then turn back the heat so it is cooling veeeeeeery slowly, will it drop back to its original pre heated temp quickly?? You guys really are dufi to eat this swill!!)
# Every decade bar one has been hotter than the previous decade since 1901.
(Actually this is only true AFTER NOAA adjustments, but, you BELIEVE this stuff!! I would also point out that picking 1900 is a cherry pick as it is warmer in the late 1800’s. TCH TCH.)
Please explain why the above is true if not AGW with proof.
Now let me explain your delusion with your “enhanced” temperature charts. A trend is as good as it gets for you. Unfortunately y’all pretend that the trend will simply keep going up forever. It stopped 15 years ago. If you want to talk about trends you can get a really good one by starting from the last ice age. The temps have really gone up since then. Of course then I will go bac to the Last interglacial and the trend will be down!!! More recently if we go back to the Roman Period the trend will be down and from shortly after the end of the last glacial the trend will also be down.
Basically without a solid reason to believe the temps will continue going up, such as what the models and the flopspot provided, you are just another cherry picking propagandist!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
30
It doesn’t matter. For the hundredth time. I agree with you, an opinon blogger and the IPCC that it is not a unique fingerprint of AGW. Unless you have changed your opinion and can provide some evidence, I don’t see the reason for any further debate on it. By the way it is hotspot, not flopspot, if you can’t even spell it why make it such an issue?
I will reprint what I posted on a previous thread as it answers your other questions. Moderator this is a different thread and different poster but same answer, so should be ok?
Firstly from a paper by John McLean, Chris De Frietas and Bob Carter the effect of ENSO is about 7 months ahead of the event. This is from a paper that was predicting that 2011 was going to be the coolest year since 1956 due to the preponderence of la nina conditions. How did they do with that? I will give you a hint, 2011 was at the time the hottest la nina affected year on record (until 2012). So does this mean that your own scientists cannot explain the lack of cooling?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349
So then lets look at the available ENSO data. I don’t know about you, but from my eyeball it looks like more la nina than el nino except for the decade with your cherry picked year, which was then still cooler than the next decade (2001 to 2010).
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Except that during a period of predominantly cooling la ninas we have had a massive amount of warming over a geologically small time scale with no other explanation except what real scientists have been telling us, AGW.
So sad, reverting to the conspiracy theory, even though satelite trends are virtually identical to GISS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1978/trend/plot/rss/from:1978/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1978/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1978/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/trend
So basically all of your post is nonsense.
I have used actual data and observations. Models are not needed, they are only there as projections under certain scenarios. The science, actual data and observations do not need them to prove AGW.
13
But not so important that you have any actual scientific proof of its validity. Yep, typical misdirection and vague references to other scientists saying things they probably never said. How predictable.
No need. I don’t believe it to be important. I am pretty sure you guys don’t really understand what it is and why it might occur. Regardless it is not a specific fingerprint of AGW, not like the lower troposphere warming and stratosphere cooling, which is actually occurring.
17
Still waiting for the proof. Should be documented somewhere, surely.
14
Proof that the IPCC foisted the Flop Spot on us in the AR4??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
MichaeltheDelusionary, you are a better denialist than I am!!
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/
Here Chris Colose gives a tortured reinterpretation of what the Hot Spot means and is and in the end completely misses, probably on purpose, the real meaning.
The IPCC shows that ANY method of heating the earth, whether from GHG or Solar or something else causes a hot spot. Chris and other Warmers claim that the hot spot is not a UNIQUE fingerprint of AGW. I agree with him.
What you DENIERS (snicker) miss is that ANY warming will cause a hot spot. We do not have a hot spot. You warmers went to extremes to even try and use wind speed in the balloon measurements to reanalyze the temp readings and try and show some hot spot.
THERE IS NO HOT SPOT. No hot spot means there IS NO WARMING!!!! This completely falsifies your delusionary processes and shows that the ADJUSTMENTS applied to the temperature measurements are completely BOGUS!!
THERE HAS BEEN NO NET WARMING OF A LARGE ENOUGH MAGNITUDE SUPPORT THE DELUSIONARY AGW!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I would add that the Stratospheric temps, the second leg of the AGW fingerprint, has been FLAT and not FALLING for over 15 years. The Height of the Tropopause, the THIRD leg of the AGW Fingerprint, has DROPPED instead of RISING!!!
The King has no clothes and is arrested for molesting children!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
40
i also agree. But then you go on to say…
Do you really no what you are saying? I think it is clear you do not.
As to the stratosphere cooling, from the NOAA 2012 state of the climate report.
“The average lower stratospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record to near-record cold, depending on the dataset. Increasing greenhouse gases and decline of stratospheric ozone tend to cool the stratosphere while warming the planet near-surface layers.”
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2012-highlights
14
Ahh yes Michael, hide behind reports that are written to maintain the scam!! The Stratosphere was cooling from about the 50’s all the way through to the late 70’s, the it appeared to be extended by the two volcanoes in the 80’s and 90’s. Of course others claim that the volcanoes caused step changes in the strat so it does not fulfill the idea of a long term TREND!!!
As I said, over 15 years FLAT in the Strat!!!
Interestingly all the features that would have matched the Gorebull Warmers scenario seemed to be happening while we were coolin between the 50’s and 80’s. (except possibly for the Hot Spot which is supposed to be an area warming multiple times FASTER than the ground) Ain’t that a BEEEEYOTCH for you?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Apparently YOU do not know anything about the flopspot.
Maybe you can tell me what it has to do with the amplification of CO2 effects that were to cause the TIPPING POINT!!! No amplification and you are stuck with the base sensitivity which even the IPCC says is less than 2c/C. Not much to scare people there especially since we are not even seeing it in the inflated temperature series from NOAA, GISS, CRU…
You probably are too ignorant though.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
40
Not at all. Just nobody has presented any evidence to say that it is a unique signature of AGW. In fact you yourself said just above…
and I agreed with you. So not sure why you are still banging on about it. It is not a unique signature as you, the IPCC and your blog and I have agreed. So why you then say it means AGW is a scam and it is all over, is beyond my logic.
Ok so lets try some very basic logic and data only…(and yes I know I have presented the argument before but nobody has been able to answer it yet)
Look at the following graph.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Look at the following graph of ENSO
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Now let me explain it to the nth degree.
# The long term trend over the whole period is obviously up.
# The long term trend has pauses and dips due to natural variations but the trend is unchanged.
# The current period is at the top of the trend.
# 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on the record despite a preponderance of natural cooling trends. (globally, ocean, land and both hemispheres)
# Hotter than the previous decade of 1991 to 2000 with its preponderence of natural warming events.
# Every decade bar one has been hotter than the previous decade since 1901.
Please explain why the above is true if not AGW with proof.
13
Oh Michael, how very sad you went straight back that raggy old handbook.
🙂
How totally and laughably predictable.
🙂
50
So you can’t answer the questions? Thats ok, nobody else has been able to either.
You may not be familiar with actual science, having been told what to believe by opinion blogs, so look at the following graph.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Notice the predominantly strong el ninos of the 1991 to 2000 decade, especially your utterly predictable and non scientific selection of the cherry picked year of 1998.
Now look at the 2001 to 2010 decade of predominantly neutral to weak el nino and strong la ninas. Now the global data set GISS has 2005 and 2010 as equal hottest years, can you see how much lower 2010 el nino is to your cherry picked year. Now have a try at some common sense and logic and think about that for a bit.
Now look at the entire record of instrumental temperature data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Do you see the strong upward trend in the data for about the last 100 years, despite numerous ups and downs and pauses due to natural variations and cycles. That is real science, not cherry picking to suit your confirmation bias and then basing your whole conclusion on that cherry picked piece of a graph without any science or context and without looking at all the data, or basing your whole rejection around model projections, which are only there to get an idea of the likely direction. Due to the strong natural cooling influences it is likely that the temps will go through another spurt as it always has in the last 100 years and catch up to the model. It has been there before.
This is basing the whole lot on atmospheric temperature alone and has destroyed your whole story, not counting all the other signs of a warming climate by AGW such as ocean warming, melting arctic, global ice volume falling etc.
A climate is not based on cherry picking years, it is complicated with many natural and anthropogenic forcings in both directions, generally you should make comparisons on at least decadel time scales.
So explain away, or does personal attacks pass as argument for you as well?
“The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.
Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
16
Michael,
Your entire above post is about natural variation and how global warming is still going on, but it is being masked by that natural variation. Fair enough.
Trouble is, for over a decade people like you, and the scientists you quote, kept telling us emphatically, that the global warming then apparent could not possibly be from natural variation. You and they said natural variation had been studied and eliminated as having any influence. It wasn’t powerful enough to account for the warming.
.
Do you understand what “credibility” means, Michael? In this case it means you and the “climate scientists” have to now either admit you were wrong in the past (so much for “settled science”), or you have to explain how natural variation – too weak to cause the warming of the past – is now nonetheless strong enough to overwhelm the global warming of the present.
.
Off you go.
70
Umm?
No. . . you didn’t answer my questions. . . just evaded, dodged and sprayed rubbish insults in an ironically predictable manner. You have absolutely no evidence about my ability to ‘care’ about ‘our children’
Sorry about your obsession with 1998. . . The world has moved on from 1999 or 2006 or 2012 or any other pre 2013 you would care to choose
1998 just happens to be a neat 15 years ago. . . but if you want to ‘cherry pick’ another timeframe. . . Go for it.
It neither makes a difference NOR answers the very simple questions.
40
Nope. Nice bit of twisted logic and evasion there. Scientists have ALWAYS agreed and tried to determine what the natural factors were and the influence. Those figures are in all IPCC reports. It has been fake skeptics cherry picking a period and saying ‘look its all over’, while ignoring natural variation, the science and the long term record
For instance see here from AR4, breakdown of radiative forcing components
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/fig/figure-2-4-l.png
So you brought up 1998. Your excuses were laughable, there was nothing there to respond to. The model stuff is just that, model projections, never going to be exact. We cannot perform experiments on the global climate in a laboratory so we use models. They have been remarkably accurate and useful but they are not the science. The basic science of CO2 being a greenhouse gas that causes warming has been basic physics and easily provable and measurable in the laboratory and in the air and by satelites. We have increased it by 40% since industrialisation, also basic math. After that, yes it gets hazy, its a planet, with many interacting variables, but all the consequences predicted have been occurring and most worse than predicted.
The Antarctic trend is within natural variation, unlike the Arctic which is worse than predicted and globally as well as in Antarctica ice volume is falling. I showed the satelite record of increasing sea levels, I didn’t see anything else of substance left. I have proved above that we are still warming on atmospheric temps alone if you take into account natural variations, of which I have produced figures for, I would also add we are in one of the lowest solar cycles in a hundred years as well. So can you explain why the decade 2001 to 2010 is the hottest in every way, or not? considering the preponderance of natural cooling factors after a decade with a preponderance of warming factors?
I can understand the evasion, like I said, nobody else has been able to explain it either. By the way my time frame is the entire instrumental record, no need to cherry pick, we are at the top of that record.
15
What rubbish Michael,
The updated evidence is clearly indicating that the ‘real climate’ is operating well outside the error bars.
The previously observed trends have not continued.
I am a fan of modeling but I also know that it is just a useful tool. If it is not correctly updated it rapidly loses its usefulness.
50
Debbie if you cannot answer the question then just admit it. I am talking about reality, not projections (hence my name). Please explain why the 2001 to 2010 decade with its predominantly natural cooling factors is still hotter than the previous decade with its preponderence of strong natural warming factors?
If you don’t know then please be honest about that.
16
Michael,
After accusing me of cherry picking (which was not relevant to my point about the world moving on) . . . you have clearly asked me a deliberately cherry picked question.
Change your decadel parameters and VOILA! !!! you will notice changed results.
🙂
40
There has only been one decade since 1901 that has been cooler than the previous decade. I see you have given up and just making excuses. I understand your frustration, it is clear you are wrong and warming is occurring.
“GENEVA 3 July 2013 – The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade, according to a new report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”
http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15110
14
History and the truth of seem not to be your strong points, it would be prudent for your future sanity to look at the real history of climate and its cyclic nature.
The hugging of trees in a druidic sense is good for the soul but they also followed the sun in a big way. The history of old Sol and its followers noted a very good correlation between Sol and the climate, it may be in the best interests of your state of mind to catch up on his recent antics.
It would seem that old Sol is up to his normal practice of having a sabbatical every few hundred years, this normally follows a hectic period of cyclic craziness like a big party.
We have had the party and the warm glow, Sol is now on holidays, the BBQ is over and the warm glow is fading, I do urge you to look outside your favoured propaganda science, take off your green tinted glasses and look at history and real science, it does not hurt.
60
Would you like a tissue for your issue?
Quick, throw money at the problem!
How much of an effect will these billions (if not trillions) of $ have on the temperature AAD?
260
As long as they are white and living outside of Africa thats ok right Michael ?
200
No shit Sherlock, unless it is from the UK Guardian, than it’s OK for you to refer to it.
If you don’t like the subject matter that Jo (it is HER BLOG after all) publishes, feel free to start your own blog and demand whatever content you like.
“by the hate media”
The hate media?? Oh, that’s right, you are a Labor zealot.
350
“The science has not changed”
You never did answer the question “When did you meet “the Science”.
Michael me boy, you and your kind have no concept of what the discipline of science entails.
260
Do you post as the satirist Hammy at Catallaxy files?
60
Sigh. Trotting out the children and grand children again. Doubtless most in the developed World will be unable to afford them as they struggle with food and power prices. Wonderful vision for the future.
140
Yes Michael, the data gets ever stronger that nature is responsible for about 99.9% of recent changes in climate and man’s activities have very little influence or impact.
Same as it ever was.
50
I’ll repost a comment I made at the bottom of the last thread.
“It seems to me many of the “main players” are letting the back open slightly so they can make a dash for it the near future.
This article by Abrahams also mentions the future of the IPCC
( has it had it’s day?)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/19/global-waring-ipcc-ar5-report?CMP=twt_gu
Note : the last two paragraphs in particular.”
For a “high priest” like Abrahams to be questioning the worth of the IPCC says alot about the discussions going on behind the scenes by the fanatics.
180
No surprise. Once the Big Money Boys found the vast sums were no longer flowing in, they dropped it and moved on. No Big Money backing = no press interest. Watch out for their next scam.
210
The Money problem will finish it.
People are paying more for Electricity and most associate the increase with the Global Warming pandemic.
Bigger electricity prices world wide to pay for the Subsidisation of Eco Power is well understood by the electorate and people are not happy.
Money wins and will kill AGW as a political playing card.
KK
220
KK
Seems to be worse in Australia in terms of increases.
Almost at the same time 2011, no wonder people are off this garbage of CAGW.
Build more cheap coal power stations.
231
Its the pendulum of public discourse. You see it through history, it swings one way, then the other. After the right wing redneckery(I made a word) of GW Bush, it was natural that you would get an Obama next. After the sound, statesman like leadership of Howard, it was natural you would get a complete basket case like Rudd next.
Again I say the AGW proponents have been the architects of their own demise as a movement. Instead of settling for a perfectly reasonable transition energy source such as natural gas, to comfortably get us through the next 50-100 years with dramatically reduced emissions, the extremists had to go for 14th century tech windmills. They swung the pendulum too far when they had control of it.
Now it will swing back the other way much further than it would have if the AGW disciples would have just been reasonable during their brief flirt with power. In Australia the Abbott government will all but completely rebuild if not expand coal fired power generation and good on them for doing so. They will roll back carbon nonsense and they have even talked about seeking a reversal of some world heritage listings.
If your a greeny, strap yourself in because the next 5-10 years is going to seem like the gates of environmental hell have been flung open in terms of policy and while you are enjoying it, remember you caused it.
420
Australia has ingenious uranium, I understand. And they have the scientists and engineers with the skills and experience (overseas) to process it into fissionable material.
I do believe that there is a chain of logical reasoning here, I wonder where it leads?
50
Thanks for this Rereke:
So then, how difficult do you think that task is.
Nuclear Electrical Power Generation – Why The Fuss? (Part 5)
Tony.
50
There is a problem with your theory Safetyguy66, and that is the following:
GW Bush was neither right wing, nor a redneck. Ok, wait a minute, he probably was a redneck… but right-wing? Hardly. The hallmarks of the GW Bush Presidency were less privacy, less freedom, more regulations, and higher debts and deficits. Hardly right-wing.
Here in America, we only have one political party right now, which should be called “those who wish to control you”. Half of them wear red ties, and half of them wear blue ties in an attempt to confuse the populace.
Unfortunately, due to the debacle of “public education” over the past 60+ years here in America, the vast majority of the populace is so stupid that they actually BELIEVE that the “two” parties have significant differences. They do not.
70
Hey Peter I enjoyed your comments so far and your right. It would have been more accurate if I said “people perceived GW Bush in that way” whether he was or not is almost unimportant for the reasons you point out. Particularly in America, people seem to have lost all memory of the last election when the next one comes around, they flock to the new messiah seemingly sincerely believing that the next person will be different.
50
Yep money, greed and self interest win. People and the future for humanity loses. Nothing new here unfortunately.
262
Yeah, like flying to 32 countries, planning another trip and preaching to others to reduce their own carbon footprint. Self interest indeed.
390
Prove it. Prove humanity is losing out.
I can show you humanity losing out right now pal thanks to your fairy stories and boogeymen.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-17/world-bank-to-stop-funding-coal-fired-power-stations-in-develop/4826928
So people have to
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/
But that’s like so much noise to you isn’t it Michael. As long as in your little myopically focused fraction of life, your white kids are able to enjoy the benefits of a first world existence, its all fine right ? As long as we don’t threaten your lifestyle all bets are off.
Have a listen to yourself you fool.
400
Seriously you are wrongly named. 3 billion people spread out in the developing world was never the target and never going to be saved by your fossil fuel love affair with pollution for profit. These countries do not have the infrastructure to deliver power to these people any time now or in the foreseeable future. It is sad that you cannot see how myopic your vision is, that you guys think that the savor of the developing world has been and is going to be its ruin. The world bank can quite clearly speak for themselves.
“In its latest climate change report, released last month, the World Bank president Jim Yong Kim said a two degrees Celsius rise in average temperatures would leave millions of people trapped in poverty.
“We wanted to make clear that a two degrees Celsius warmer world would be a disaster that we have to avoid,” he said.
“The good news is that there are things we can do right now.
“Things that we are working on at bank are one, sustainable energy for all, we think that we can provide funding and technical expertise so that every country in the world can have the energy they need to grow but grow in a sustainable fashion.””
251
You know how politicians talk though Michael. It’s all rhetoric. He’s reading from a script. No one believes it, not even Jim (or is it Kim).
230
Michael can’t even get his name right. “Kim” is a Korean family name (like “Smith”) in the UK.
110
So by simply increasing the temp by 2deg we can reduce the number of people in poverty from 3 billion to millions! Sounds good to me 🙂
200
Listen Michael, I am getting seriously annoyed with you, and your self-serving egotistical bullshit.
Let me share something with you.
The School of Business at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, runs a programme every year, in which a number of students in New Zealand, each identify and link up with other students around the world, to form an international team to collectively identify a third world problem, and then collectively work together to solve that problem in a way that is commercially sustainable.
Around a dozen teams of eight to twelve students from eight or nine different countries.
Some of these international students must travel for three or four hours from where they live, just to reach the nearest village with a PC and internet connection. Also, with all of the time zone differences, they are often doing this at night. The project itself takes about three months, so that is three months of working in this way.
One of the earliest problems that was identified was the lack of electricity, at night, when their meagre solar panels were useless. Battery backup was not an option because of the cost of the batteries, and the infrastructure required to maintain them in hot or humid conditions. So one of the teams came up with the solution of crossing a bicycle frame with a PC table and a generator. This worked, and the African member of the team that identified the problem, and its solution, is now commercially developing these units for other poor countries, so that other people can communicate internationally across time zones.
You will note that the only “Western” influence was arranging for the exercise to be run, and then providing moral support. The students did everything for themselves, and solved all of the problems by themselves. No intervention was required by aid organisations, or environmental groups or government agencies.
The overarching problem that they, and all student groups, had to come to terms with, and solve, was the need to overcome the sense of dependence that people in the third world are brainwashed into accepting by the very agencies that are supposed to be providing them with developmental assistance.
Aid agencies and environmental groups, are dependent upon having people they can assist or guide. If those people become self sufficient, then the aid agencies have lost their customer base, and hence their reason for being. They are therefore part of the problem.
If burning derdy coal, helps people to improve their health, welfare, and prospects, then let them burn coal. Once they have lifted themselves out of poverty, they can then decide for themselves if they want to continue doing that, or would rather go straight to nuclear fusion reactors to supply electricity.
But none of this needs you, nor your mates, to get involved. You too, are part of the problem.
492
That’s a bit of an unfair advantage don’t you think? The rest of us have to work with that crap holding us back, so I demand third worlders have all the handicaps I suffer.
200
Good point Tel.
70
I remember disagreeing with one of my lecturers (that was back in the Eighties, when such temerity was still valued).
It was about supplying technology to 3rd. World countries.
There was him on the local radio saying we should supply complex systems with easily replaceable parts, which all they had to do was swap.
Well in my dissertation on 3rd World Development I cited that broadcast as being much of what was wrong with support to the Third World, and naively suggesting we should keep it simple so they can repair themselves and not be dependent on our continuing good will to get the parts.
It didn’t do my grading any harm, but now I know better 😉
110
Well most of your post was more a conspiracy theory than anything useful. More of the ;keep there jobs’ yada yada yada rubbish. People go into certain areas because they want to help, the ones that are pulling your strings, the fossil fuel industries, are the ones that are the richest in the world and are only in it for the money, and the longer they delay the fatter their bank accounts are. But you are happy to be a good little puppet because they tell you what you want to here.
You are not reading what I am posting, it does not help their health, welfare and prospects, far and away the opposite, and they don’t have the infrastructure to get it even if they want. That is why this, dirty coal will save the 3rd world, bs is such bs. It is not and never has been about them, it is about what YOU have to pay for power and what the FOSSIL FUEL companies can pocket. If you think your argument is helping them in any way you have been sold something you want to hear, that is all.
134
Rereke made no mention of conspiracy amongst or within aid agencies, only pointing out (like all organisations) it is in their own interest to preserve the need for their organisation. Your response is to concoct a bizarre disconnected confabulation in which the richest companies in the world care what Rereke thinks of them…because… Rereke has the power to force these companies to build unprofitable power stations?? What a compliment!
Yes we know the fossil fuel companies are only in it for the money, what possible relevance is that?? Your greengrocer may well be in it only for the money but you still receive your lentils and leeks just fine, right?
Big Coal and Big Oil have nothing to fear from renewable energy in the developed world because renewables are presently unfit for purpose and more expensive than coal and nuclear power. It is only climate change hysteria that provokes governments into distorting the prices through subsidies for renewables. As for the developing world, how cruel is it to require them to use the most expensive form of power generation around and pay for improvements in that technology when they are flat out getting power at all?
Money is certainly a powerful motivator and if there was anything a capitalist could invest in that would be bound to turn a profit one day it would be getting in on the ground floor of infrastructure for a developing country. Power stations and thousands of kilometres of electrical wires are needed, which costs a lot of money, but it can be paid for by earnings of the people who use the electricity to attain education, higher earnings, and lower healthcare costs through higher standards of living and labour-saving devices JUST LIKE YOU DID. Your own life is the proof that electrification improves wealth and prospects and is also the proof that coal-fired power improved your health. You are a living example of what you say is impossible.
Now you have the World Bank saying No to what is a surefire solution to poverty as well as a profitable investment. The World Bank can’t break ranks, they have to take the UN’s own advice on climate. So it is IPCC disinformation that causes the world bank to abandon the developing world and leave them to take the hard road out of poverty instead of the easy road. IPCC misinformation is the entire basis of that decision. We are showing you day in and day out how you have been misinformed by this political organisation that has deceived, omitted, and lied about climate change, how you are misinformed by a gullible and lazy media, that peer review has become pal review, and that your belief in climate catastrophe subsists on statements that are without experimental basis and in some cases demonstrably false. There is no scientific basis to CAGW.
And still you defend the purely political decision to keep development out of the developing world.
Stop flogging that moral high horse, Michael, it’s been dead for 5 years and counting.
260
Well most of your post was more a conspiracy theory than anything useful. Bullshit. More of the ;keep there jobs’ yada yada yada rubbish. Bullshit. People go into certain areas because they want to help … Who would those people be, Michael? … the ones that are pulling your strings, the fossil fuel industries, are the ones that are the richest in the world and are only in it for the money, and the longer they delay the fatter their bank accounts are. I have no connection whatsoever with any fossil fuel company apart from using locally distributed electricity, as all my neighbours do. That is a desperate attempt at a deflecting slur, but it doesn’t work here, on this blog. But you are happy to be a good little puppet because they tell you what you want to here. Again, I call bullshit. I actually run a consultancy, working in the public sector.
You are not reading what I am posting, it does not help their health, welfare and prospects, far and away the opposite, and they don’t have the infrastructure to get it even if they want. OK, so where is the aid money to build the required infrastructure? Non-existant, because it is not politically correct amongst the latte set. That is why this, dirty coal will save the 3rd world, bs is such bs. Coal is a stepping stone to development. You need to have a reliable source of energy before you can build cleaner and more efficient forms of energy production. It is not and never has been about them, it is about what YOU have to pay for power and what the FOSSIL FUEL companies can pocket. It is about them, because they are the victim of your sanctimonious lack of world view. If you think your argument is helping them in any way you have been sold something you want to hear, that is all. Total crap – have you been there? Have you lived in an African village? Have you had to cook day in day out over an open fire? You are the one who is self-centred,
200
Andrew,
That was supposed to be our little secret …
70
Michael..get this, I dont give [snip] about the third world, big companies, you, your children or their poxy selfish future…I only care that my winter is going to be utter misery because [snip] like you have pushed up the price of fuel way abov what it would be otherwise.
Get that, you make people suffer for YOUR self interst, and believe me Ive suffered, and believe me, I would love to you and your [snip] brethren get theirs in return. This isnt about your poxy ideology, its about the pain of freezing through an English winter, unable to feel my f**** feet…because of a few million [snip] like you.
———————–
Ace: Tone down the language thank you. – Jo
160
Hello Ace
Ahhh.
We may need a few spelling corrections: replace C with “unpleasant people” and just delete F altogether ?
Otherwise an interesting comment.
KK
30
To substantiate the 5 year claim for the death of the moral high horse, I offer the paper Jevrejeva 2008, a graph of sea level rise which shows the rate after 1945 to be virtually unchanged from the rate between 1860 and 1945 (i.e. no measurable AGW.)
40
Jo you ruined it…the whole point is the language, why is Henry Miller regarded as one of the greatest writers in English…precisely because that is the felt and ,meaningful form of English that he used.
So I will describe Michael another way, Id like to crack his head open and smash both his legs in with sledge hammer…him and his fellow cult followers.
Now thats not something I would actually DO…but Id love to be the one to refrain from doing it to highlight my moral superiority over him and his crap excuse for their version of humanity.
30
Oh Michael,
please don’t venture into electrical power generation.
You know less than nothing, and speak from ignorance and rank hypocrisy, and all this from you, who rely so heavily upon what you decry so loudly.
85% of everything you do, all day, every day, at work and at home, is totally reliant upon CO2 emitting electrical power generation, and please, no more about your piddling 1.5KW rooftop solar panels, because without coal fired power after dark, then you wouldn’t be coming here.
Tony.
340
Isn’t it amusing how the Surrealist runs around squarking about CO2 emission and power generation while he himself is on the grid, drives a car etc. and almost everything in his life DEPENDS on fossil fuels?
ADMIT IT MICHAEL!!!! IN TRUTH YOU ARE A FOSSIL FUEL JUNKIE…… and a hypocrite of course.
30
World Bank? How are they tied to carbon trading? How much wealth did they hope to capture in the carbon market?
So you trust the words of the president of this organization to be unbiased?
Michael you are a treat, an example of a warmist to behold.
190
Mark see my post above, also applies to you. More conspiracy nonsense. The ones with the obvious conflict of interest are the fossil fuel companies and the scientists being paid by them. The world bank knows that their prospects are worse off if the world goes to crap.
135
OK, I start to see the rationale here:
1. If Michael’s indoctrination and world view is adopted by everybody else, within his social circle, then he appears normal and accepted.
2. A group that has not adopted Michael’s world view, are obviously misinformed, and need to be educated.
3. If the said group fails to come into line with Michael’s world view, then they have obviously been counter indoctrinated by Big Oil, the Republican Party, the Mafia, and the Society of Kiddy Fiddlers.
4. Michael then resorts to the skills learnt in deep indoctrination, stage 2, and starts firing off ad hominem attacks at random. At this stage, all facts are treated as dangerous, and not to be trusted, so the only things that remains reliable in Michael’s eyes, are his underlying belief system, and the teddy bear he cuddled as a baby.
250
But the scientists being paid by left leaning governments with billion dollar carbon taxes and a political objective don’t have a conflict of interest? Is it only a conflict of interest when they don’t subscribe to your point of view?
So it IS about the money?
110
Rereke:
What do you mean as a child? How do you know he doesn’t have it in his lap as he types?
Michael does make you realise how they get the candidates for the Darwin Awards.
90
Good point.
Do you think he is in the market for a JATO “car booster” pack?
50
““In its latest climate change report, released last month, the World Bank president Jim Yong Kim said a two degrees Celsius rise in average temperatures would leave millions of people trapped in poverty.”
So right now they are trapped in opulence?
Your saying that never having the opportunity to develop their resources is better than having that opportunity?
Wow…. Im speechless, well done, I really didnt believe anyone could be so cruel and dismissive of the welfare of fellow human beings. Your a piece of work.
200
Michael,
What leaves people trapped in poverty is the governments of the “civilized world” continually exploiting them and denying them access to cheap, abundant energy.
There is NO OTHER WAY to trap people in poverty.
For a realist, you sure do live in fantasyland.
40
Michael, the far left couldn’t give a rats for humanity. They are far to full of self loathing for that.
260
So much selfish action is justified in the name of the poor, who won’t benefit other than incidentally.
It used to be for God, King & Country, while now it’s invariably for the poor or saving the planet that gets invoked to dignify all & sundry.
120
Think of the children.
The future of the planet.
.
.
.
and the poor (a long way last)
70
Of course Greg , how could I forget the children ?
The children are used more often as an appeal to guilt , to make you feel bad ( while the appelant knows its a phoney) while the poor are merely used to make the appellant feel better about themselves, while the planet is for a bit of both, as I see it anyway.
There you go, creepy Krudd just tagged the children line as an add on to his cheesey throw away statement about being a ‘builder’. Pass the sick bucket.
60
“Yep money, greed and self interest win”
Yep, so far the greed of the wind and solar entrepreneurs, sponging up government subsidies has in the self-interest of their wallets has kept the energy price increasing rapidly for those how can least afford it.
But that money is now running out, and the entrepreneurs, like Gore, have pulled out of the farce that is wind and solar, and taken their ill-gotten gains with them.
Now the real people of the world have to pick up the tab. It truly is a pity to see such waste and self-greed causing such poverty, environmental damage and holding back any chance of decent development in many 3rd world countries.
An absolute gross amount of waste, for …. NOTHING !!!
Cheered on by people like you.
You really ought to be totally ashamed of yourself…….. as if you cared.
241
What a load of rubbish, Over 1.9 trillion globally still goes to the mature several hundred years old fossil fuel industries. Should they not be able to stand on their own feet? New industries have always been subsidised to get started as that is where new jobs come from.
131
You disgust me.
Which climate trough do you swill from ??
101
Electricity renewables are subsidied at 5 times the rate of fossil fuel generation. I have proven this many times.
Fuel subsidies benefit EVERYONE, not just those who demand a green utopia.
90
Furthermore, I DEFY you to live as you would want 3rd world people to live.. with an inconsistent, intermittent energy supply.
I dare you to disconnect from the grid and live ONLY using solar and wind energy.
How will your fridge function, How will you cook after dark.
Batteries use lead and are horrendously expensive and polluting in their manufacture. So no batteries.
You aren’t allowed to burn wood, its puts out real uncontrolled pollutants. No candles either .. more CO2.
So, come on, you pusillanimous git. Put your life and money where you want others in the third world to be. I dare you.
Either that, or get the **** out the way and let the world progress.
261
Oh and another thing. Heres my list of climate actions, lets see yours.
– 6 years working on windfarms with the 2 biggest suppliers in the world
– Solar panels on my house producing more power than we use
– All low watt long life globes
– My car (2009 Lancer) averages 5.9l/100km which is only slightly worse than a Prius at 4.9l/100km
– About to install a domestic wind turbine
Still think your doing something by just whining and carping?…. yup thought so.
One thing I am even more proud of, I did all those things for the right reasons, because they make sense and are good for my life. I dont need to be frightened by monster fables to know a good thing when I see it.
131
Michael the realist that can’t remember his name says:
BwaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhhahahahahhha
What a stupid stupid thing to say. This from a college educated person?
80
If an industry needs to be subsidized in order to compete, it is, by definition, an uncompetitive industry.
Ford was NOT SUBSIDIZED when he made cheap, abundant automobiles which put horses and buggies out of business…
IBM and Microsoft WERE NOT SUBSIDIZED when they revolutionized the world and brought computers into everyone’s home.
Facebook WAS NOT SUBSIDIZED when it basically created the phenomenon that is “social media”.
I don’t know what world Michael the Realist is living in, but even though it isn’t the same world as the rest of us are living in, apparently it is perfectly “real” to him!!!
80
Self interest for a sufficiently large number of humans IS a win for humanity.
Think about it for a second.
Besides, how do you know what “humanity” wants? Did you ask? How exactly?
230
You cannot ask future generations if they want to live in a polluted, continuously deteriorating world. If you could I am sure they would ask us to think of someone other than ourselves. You don’t get a group larger than future generations.
134
And we should be building the future, not wasting what we have now on environmental vandalism such as wind turbines etc.
CO2 is not pollution , not now or ever. It is one of the most important gases for life on Earth. The Future NEEDS CO2 and the extra biosphere that goes with it.
And based on some shoddy half-arse non-science, you want to demonise it. Idiot.
161
Michael,
I will try to be polite, as you have been reasonably polite so far:
You seem obsessed with the fossil-fuel industry and also seem to believe that everyone here is in the pay of ‘Big Oil’. You couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, Big Oil sees the CAGW scam as a great way to put its rival ‘Big Coal’ out of business.
To hammer home the point, here’s just a few tidbits I have unashamedly taken from Donna’s excellent No Frakking Consensus blog:
– BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years
– BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”
– ExxonMobil has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”
– The billionaire Jeremy Grantham, who has around $1.5 billion worth of stock in oil companies, is the benefactor of the influential Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change.
If you want to see where some of the rest of the big money is Michael, you only have to look at the two biggest players in the ‘Big Green’ world:
– Over a 12-year period Greenpeace raised $2.4 billion. That works out to $200 million a year in resources.
– The World Wildlife Fund raised $3.1 billion in just six years (2003-2008). Which means that that organization has ready access to half a billion dollars annually.
Whilst some of us on the sceptic side will have worked in the oil-industry (and there’s nothing wrong with that) I can state without reservation that they are far outnumbered by the hordes of us who aren’t working for ‘eeeevil’ Oil. Take me for example: I’m a high-school maths teacher who can do a reasonable job of crunching the numbers and so I can see that the CAGW thing is all a load of rubbish. I just sincerely wish you would see it too.
BTW Whilst my job as a teacher doesn’t involve me making any money from Big Oil, if Exxon or BP want to wave a cheque my way I’d be more than happy to accept 😉
200
Good points Andy Wilkins
10
Cheers matey!
I just hope Michael thinks they’re good points too (although pigs might fly)
30
Michael, put a number on “future generations”. Then propose a tax on them for all the effort we and every previous generation have made to assure them of their birth. I would like my check mailed to: [snip personal information]
Your continued blame game based upon the unknown future is the most aggravating thing you do. It is a human rights violation to an obscene degree. In fact, I believe IF you and your kind continue down that path you will start wars.
70
No sh!t Sherlock! Unless you have discovered a means for time travel I guess we will have to wait! This is of course assuming that your Soylent Green hypothesis is correct and the world is the apocalypse you seem to envision!
Why? what makes us less important than them? Maybe they should think of someone other than themselves? Who knows, maybe we the people will start thinking in the abstract about the needs of all? You forgot the “What about the children!” plea.
Unless of course a disaster befalls humanity! You know, an eventual ice age, an asteroid strike or perhaps something worse?!
The only difference bteween your post and venal, banal and anal is that they don’t quite rhyme!
120
Wow; Michael does bring out the worst in even the most polite of posters.
Have a bear Eddy, it’s only a blog post.
40
The death spiral began with climategate and it has been downhill since!
Unfortunately for the warmist their pet theory was betrayed by the very thing they championed, climate change!
Instead of warming as prophesied we have seen a stall and, in recent years, cooling of global temperatures! I do not claim to have a crystal ball but we should all be grateful for what will probably be a pending solar somnolence. As solar output decreases we will probably see global cooling. Cooling is bad for humanity in general but the “cure” foe global warming would have had much more of a deleterious affect on humanity than cooling!
Ah, the least of two evils!
Hopefully, we will see the leaders of this criminal conspiracy prosecuted by an international tribunal for crimes against humanity.
I can see the climate scientists now! With all due respect to the good and the ugly!
Well, I can dream, can’t I? 😉
70
Michael. you need an “intervention” to rescue you from this nutty cult that has captured you. You sound like a Green Party election ad.
70
Michael…
The world is already about 90% LESS POLLUTED THAN IN WAS IN 1970.
Get real please.
40
It’s easy to pontificate in the name of future generations, the poor third world & the planet, none of who have a voice to tell you how wrong you are , how patronising you sound and how your motives stink.
60
Michael, change that to money, greed, and GOVERNMENT INTERESTS win, and you might actually have it close to correct. Rational Self-Interest would actually CURE most global problems.
40
Yep, Al “an inconvenient moron” Gore, is the poster child for that greedy self interest scamming people with delusionary environmental scares to line his and his fellow scammers pockets. How many billions have been funneled into renewables and climate scientology?!?!?!
30
Solyndra’s fortunes were in full collapse around the time of the step. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
It was complete in late 2011. It was a very big deal because it allowed Americans of both parties to see what a fiscal idiot we had for a president, and cost tax payers hundreds of millions. It was very high profile – if alternative energy can’t make it even with government handouts, a regular work-a-day factory was never going to turn a profit. It was also about that time that we were told brownouts would become the norm because alternative energy sources are sporadic and lack storage capability. We would have to retain our fossil fuel plants to ensure continuous service or suffer those promised brownouts.
The final nail: FRACing in North Dakota changed everything. By early 2012 the forgotten state was second only to Alaska for energy output. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=North_Dakota_and_fracking
Young men from every corner of the nation flocked to ND to get in on the boom. It’s still going on. Families from all over the nation were getting first hand information from their kids about all the cheap energy. Check the data for FRAC/FRACKing (how a “k” slipped into fracture I dunno) and see where it crosses climate change for frequency. I just have a hunch there was a sea change beginning in mid-2011.
180
“Republicans took control of the US
SenateHouse in Nov 2010″.Purse strings covered. Still working on the Senate issue 😉
—–
Thanks. Will fix – Jo
70
Conservatives, Leftists & AGW Beliefs
In America…
Days after climategate (Nov 2009), in America, I was surprised that most conservative talking heads on tv still maintained that AGW theory is correct. I’m talking about… conservatives!
But 2010 would be the year that conservatives in America switched … en masse … to the skeptic position.
Why? I think climategate opened up our minds to the effective skeptic arguments, and at some point maybe a critical mass was reached and the switch snowballed. (Though I don’t know exactly what happened in other countries in 2010 regarding conservatives & agw.)
And I don’t know the polls for conservatives & AGW in other countries. But in America, recently skeptics have felt a need to concentrate on consolidating gains among conservatives, making sure that we are unified. Conservatives ~ all switched, but leftists barely budged. Why didn’t leftists budge? The US Senator Tim Wirth said (in ’93): “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” So, I think leftists at this point aren’t going to go out of their way to seek out skeptic arguments. They also think that the warmist policy prescriptions would “build a better world anyway.” You hear that a lot. Well, the draconian 83% mandated CO2 cuts by 2050 in the 2009 US Cap & Trade bill would have had a ruinous effect. Not a better world.
But leftists may eventually see the folly in the “better world” argument. And at that time we need to try to be more open toward inviting independents and leftists to share our skeptical position. And our chances at succeeding with that may be helped by trying to keep skeptical argument free of extraneous issues or politics (say, abortion) which might scare them away.
100
Its because socialism leads naturally to totalitarianism.
As a socialist a person will always believe they are doing the “right thing”. When others fail to follow that “right path” they must be compelled. Socialism leads to totalitarianism, it cant go any other way. Christine Milne knows whats best for every single one of you, in minute detail and she is more than prepared to enhance and expand the power of government to compel you. Never doubt it.
270
Yes, that’s my conclusion about socialism as well. It can never be compatible with freedom.
At some stage individual decisions will conflict with collective decisions. At that point, either the individual gets what she wants, or the collective gets what they want, but not both. One way you have freedom, the other way you have collectivism, socialism and eventually totalitarianism if things keep running in that direction.
180
And there are always a percentage of people who will not conform, who will not be part of the system, who will actively fight such social expectation.
Conflict can only escalate. The government at this point has a choice, fight back or clamp down crushing all opposition ruthlessly.
It can only end badly.
40
Morpheus: “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”
Morpheus could have been talking about any average city dwelling green voter basically.
100
**Applause**
Great analogy.
40
Actually all government system gravitate towards collectivism. Why? It is simply because those in power want more power. Power is addictive and regardless of the purity of the motivation (“I want to improve life for everyone”), power gained is never relinquished. That means that power accumulates for a ever decreasing section of society. Collectivism increases and individuality reduces.
Freedoms mean a lack of control and if you want more control you need to reduce freedoms. How many laws have been enacted since Federation in Australia? How many have been repealed? If you did that comparison by a word count, the difference would be truly stupendous. If you include “regulations” that differnce becomes astronomical. The growth in the various government bureaucracies is another indicator of this.
The good news is that all collectivist systems collapse. You cannot create a control system that works with that level of control. The required bureaucratic overhead is too much for the productive ecomony to support and the whole thing implodes. The bad news is that usually many people die in that collapse until the “reset” is complete. Of course if one collectivist system is replaced by another, then you get the turmoil without the benefit and the same collapse will re-occur until a true “reset” is done and then the cycle starts again.
The light at the end of the tunnel is indeed an oncoming train …
50
I still believe that it was the US Cap’n Trade was the “Waterloo”. Cap’n Trade was the opportunity the that dastardly Kyoto dodger in lock and step. It failed. It not only failed, but the US (with all manufacturing shifted to China) managed to make the most CO2 reductions in the industrialized world, without that UN “guidance”.
The problem that remains for governments is the pension plans. Australia, UK, California, New York and any of the other vocal governments or archdioceses have their public employees heavily invested in the green schemes. All of these pensions depend on a carbon market and the baby-boomers are retiring now.
That is why climate adaptation/Nuclear/Fracking is not an option on the table.
90
Hmm. looks like the tide turned.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”
110
…or to look at his avatar, maybe the wind changed :-()
10
part of the story?
Thomson Reuters Point Carbon’s Carbon Project Database Still Largest in Industry
07 Jun 2011 11:00
Oslo – 3 June 2011
Thomson Reuters Point Carbon is pleased to announce that its database of carbon projects in the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation space (CDM/JI) is still the most comprehensive in the industry…
The database is contained in the Carbon Project Manager product which recently received a data enhancement to reflect changes in the European Union’s Emission Trading System (EU ETS) qualitative restrictions.
“Due to EU ETS qualitative restrictions, projects registered after 2012 need to be in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in order to generate Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) eligible for participation in the scheme.” said Carina Heimdal, Regional Editor for Carbon Markets at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon. “To reflect this, we have added a new country profile on LDCS in our online tool Carbon Project Manager. It provides key indicators on LDCs as CDM host countries.”…
Thomson Reuters Point Carbon is looking to further enhance its product offerings by adding even more market elements to its Carbon Project Manager Database by the end of the year.
“To cover the emerging market for new crediting mechanisms beyond CDM and JI, we are looking to include Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradations (REDD) projects, bilateral offsets and voluntary projects in our database.” said Arne Eik Head of Emerging Carbon Markets at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/aboutus/pressroom/pressreleases/1.1547564
20
Jo, Around July 2011 there was a photo of a solar energy field with weeds growing between solar panels (taken by Prof. Knut Loeschke on June 26, 2011) and posted on http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/. I am sure it was also posted by Pierre Gosselin at http://notrickszone.com/ I would suggest that was the beginning of realisation that not all was well with renewable energy and climate predictions. Pierre has indicated that the publication of “Die Kalte Sonne” (soon to be published in English) early 2012 by Prof Vahrenholt & Dr Luning see http://www.kaltesonne.de/ had a huge effect on German and European people and media.
90
Interesting site. With the aid of Google translate
“New peer-reviewed study: Only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW
James Taylor, Forbes:
Perhaps there is finally a scientific consensus on global warming. An overview of the peer-reviewed Organization Studies According believe only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers to a crisis caused by global warming. On the contrary, a strong majority of respondents in 1077 believed that the nature of the main drivers of the recent global warming and / or that global warming is not a serious problem.”
“The survey also shows that 24 percent of the responding scientists model the “nature outweighs by far!” Attach. According to their diagnosis, the changes in climate are natural, normal cycles of the earth. More than that, “they strongly deny that climate change is some public risk, and they see no impact on their personal lives.””
110
There is a variety of Engineer called an “Enivronmental” Engineeer. Their course work involves a considerable amount of CAGW content. These types have even captured the management committee of Engineers Australia.(Australian Institute of Engineers). That is where the 36% of the engineers who are AGW alarmists come from.
70
Agree Len, Most of those calling themselves Environmental Engineers have come through courses attached to Civil Engineering and do not have a clue about thermodynamics, heat transfer or chemistry. Very few Universities have Environmental Engineering as a sub-discipline of chemical Engineering where it should belong if one wants to make some assessment of climate and real pollution (ie waste, chemicals,particle emissions, noise, health matters, invasive plants, contamination etc) and ways to minimise or eliminate problems with cost benefit determinations. Only engineers understand costs and only chemical and process engineers with experience understand operating and process costs.
80
“Copenhagen (aka Hopenhagen)”
Hopencarbon, surely?
70
intrepid_wanders –
u haven’t noticed nuclear is in all the CAGW solutions? or that Obama is not only the first US President in 3 decades to approve (& subsidise) the building of new nuclear reactors, but he’s still handing out subsidies for unproven mini-nukes?
also, haven’t u noticed that fracking is in the UK’s Dept of Climate Change? C of E gets two UK Tele articles on the same day, following up on last week’s report:
16 Aug: UK Telegraph: Fracking protesters like MMR scaremongers, says Church of England
The Church of England has likened vocal opponents of fracking to scaremongers who spread misinformation about the MMR vaccine, leaving children at risk of a measles epidemic.
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
Fracking, which involves fracturing underground rocks to extract gas and oil, might be “less than ideal” in terms of cutting carbon dioxide emissions, it argued, but is still less harmful to the planet than burning coal…
Describing experimental drilling as a “proper contribution to a proper debate” he also refused to rule out tests taking place on church land…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10248468/Fracking-protesters-like-MMR-scaremongers-says-Church-of-England.html
16 Aug: UK Telegraph: Church of England: fracking opponents are ignoring the poor
The Church of England has publicly criticised anti-fracking campaigners insisting that “blanket opposition” to the controversial technique ignores the interests of the poor.
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
“Clearly all carbon based fuels contribute to global warming and are less than ideal in terms of climate change.
“However, it should also be recognised that gas is less damaging than coal and to preclude properly managed technical development is to risk denying ourselves more important, less polluting and less costly options than the energy sources on which we currently rely.” …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10247524/Church-of-England-fracking-opponents-are-ignoring-the-poor.html
all in the name of CAGW…LOL.
20
Here is a good story from the Australian alp federal election campaign.
The bloke is a nutjob !
Mad Mike Kelly: vote Labor or you’ll turn “Snowy Mountains into the Sandy Mountains”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mad_mike_kelly_vote_labor_or_youll_turn_snowy_mountains_into_the_sandy_moun/
71
Feb 2012: Politifact: Obama says he supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades
Second, Congress has abandoned plans to address global warming through a cap-and-trade system or other attempts to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired electricity generation. Both those things work against the business case for building new reactors. (Exelon executives, by the way, donated to Obama’s 2008 campaign, as we noted in this fact-check.)
The administration’s support
Obama said in his speech that his administration “supported” the new nuclear plants. Again, experts agreed this was so, particularly since the administration is in final negotiations to support the Southern Co.’s construction with $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees.
Back in February 2010, when the project received conditional approval, Obama himself praised the deal, connecting it to the need for climate change legislation.
“To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we need to increase our supply of nuclear power, and today’s announcement helps to move us down that path,” he said…
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/02/barack-obama/obama-says-he-supported-first-nuclear-power-plant-/
20
Speaking of obama………
Confirmed: Obama’s Brother In Bed With Terrorists
http://shoebat.com/2013/05/28/confirmed-barack-obamas-brother-in-bed-with-man-wanted-by-international-criminal-court-icc-for-crimes-against-humanity/
Obama’s Secret $8 Billion Bribe To The Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-secret-8-billion-bribe-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
20
Hey, I know this looks a little rude of me, linking (yet again) into one of my own Posts, but it is still almost on topic and deals with Solar Power, and how the money is still flowing for that.
Some of you may have noticed that yesterday, they had an auction in the ACT for the construction of 2 new solar plants.
An auction, you say. How?
Well the bids were calculated by cost per MWH. There were two plants and 15 bidders. The first was won by a Chinese Company Zhenfa Solar, and the second by an Australian Company Elementus Energy. The winning bids were $176/MWH and $186/MWH, considering coal fired power can generate power at around $30/MW.
However, these 2 plants are only 13MW and 7 MW respectively, pitifully small amounts of power.
The ABC had a press release that again quoted all the usual misleading information.
Now, I was going to wait for the weekend and the next Unthreaded post from Joanne to mention this, but I ran up a Post of my own so I can have the information readily available at my own site.
In that Post, I exploded the way that these proposals are worded in a misleading manner to make these plants something that they are not.
Rather than repeat it all here, I’ll let those of you who wish take the link, but just one point here.
Here we have two new solar plants. Using their own (inflated) data, the power that they supply in one year is the same as supplied by Bayswater in 15 hours.
Again, sorry for adding a link to my own Post here.
Australian Solar Power Plants – Two More Failed Experiments To Add To The Growing List
Tony.
220
partisan politics is soooo boring.
it’s crony capitalism whoever is in power:
Aug 2012: NYT: Eric Lipton: Ties to Obama Aided in Access for Big Utility
Early in the Obama administration, a lobbyist for the Illinois-based energy producer Exelon Corporation proudly called it “the president’s utility.” And it was not just because it delivers power to Barack Obama’s Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago…
John W. Rogers Jr., a friend of the president’s and one of his top fund-raisers, is an Exelon board member. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s longtime political strategist, once worked as an Exelon consultant, and Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayor and Mr. Obama’s former chief of staff, helped create the company through a corporate merger in 2000 while working as an investment banker…
White House records show that Exelon executives were able to secure an unusually large number of meetings with top administration officials at key moments in the consideration of environmental regulations that have been drafted in a way that hurt Exelon’s competitors, but curb the high cost of compliance for Exelon and its industry allies.
In addition, Exelon, which provides power to more than 6.6 million customers in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia, was chosen as one of only six electric utilities nationwide for the maximum $200 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department. And when the Treasury Department granted loans for renewable energy projects, Exelon landed a commitment for up to $646 million allowing it, on extremely generous financial terms, to finance one of the world’s largest photovoltaic solar projects.
Exelon’s seemingly easy access to top administration officials has hardly gone unnoticed among competitors…
The administration’s tightening of clean air rules was a particular boon, since it took aim at Exelon’s main competitors — coal-burning power plants in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic regions. In 2010, Exelon estimated it would earn an extra $400 million annually because the regulations would force dozens of coal-burning plants to close.
“We were the hyena looking for the dead stuff on the road,” John W. Rowe, Exelon’s recently departed chief executive, told Wall Street analysts this year.
While other nuclear and natural-gas-focused energy producers also stood to benefit, Exelon stands out for its size…
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/us/politics/ties-to-obama-aided-in-access-for-exelon-corporation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
40
It’s hard to tell exactly the turning point for CAGWism. I’d say ClimateGate and Jokenhagen had a profound effect and got many listening if not acknowledging the elephant in the room.
Since then, the endless scare stories dreamed up by those in power and parrotted breathlessly by the lamestream media, including the BBC (and others such as our own ABC) in documentaries (even if completely unrelated) at every opportunity deafened and irritated those most intended to be brainwashed by it to such an extent they started to look elsewhere for their news and found more credible sources.
All the scary scenarios never added up. I’ve somehow managed to live through at least a dozen doomsday Erlich-scenarios and the public at large know this and are sick of it. It’s no wonder they had to get to our kids in their schools before they gained some knowledge.
Although the CAGWists have been trying desperately to rewrite the temperature record, it doesn’t add up with models failing their predictions spectacularly and that the original properly measured records remain for all to see. They’re going to look such fools when it comes to explaining this.
-We know that it was cold in the 1960s and 1970s, and temperatures rose after the 1976 PDO shift
-We know that UHI has caused nighttime temperatures to increase
-We know that it was warm in the 1930s and 1940s, despite Hansen’s desperate attempts to conceal it
-We know that temperatures have been declining over the the last decade
Their dire predictions for 2013, although even shriller because they know their dogma is in collapse, is yet another epitaph of failure:
-Coldest summer on record at the North Pole
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
–Record high August Antarctic ice extent
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
–No major (category 3-5) hurricane strikes for eight years
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
–Slowest tornado season on record
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torngraph.png
–Second slowest fire season on record
http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm
–Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
–Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2008
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.gif
-No global warming for 17 years
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
-2012 among warmest years in last decade – JUST
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest
-July 2012 not the warmest on record
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest
None of this can be refuted. The only way the Michaels, bedwetterthe4th et al can possibly look any more stupid is to open their mouths again over a subject they know nothing about – and we know they’ll try their darndest to do just that.
271
Great work there, Olaf.
I can anticipate Michael’s response to the stats on fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes: “Umm, reality check, the USA is not the globe“.
The last time Michael the Reforming Warmist claimed “Reality Check – Extreme weather is increasing”, we had to hit him with the love bomb – and by that I mean cold-hearted facts [1,2,3].
After this latest lozenge of linky-love he should be cool as a cucumber on climate.
LOL
This entire “extreme weather” tactic is actually a double-fail. Not only does it rely on statements about the weather that are counterfactual, but even if they were true the argument is a logical fallacy because extreme weather can be (and is) natural in origin. Failure of diligence and failure of logic.
90
What a lot of people don’t correlate together is that one of the major causes of the failure at Copenhagen, and the subsequent COP’s was because of the original wording of The Kyoto Protocol itself.
Right at the start, at COP 3 in 1997, when the Protocol was drafted, and it all seemed so good at the time, no one really had much of an idea what they were indeed agreeing to.
One small ten word phrase ended up becoming the major sticking point of the whole thing, and will probably end up with Kyoto never being replaced with anything similar.
That ten word phrase:
I wrote a Post about it just before Cancun at the following link.
The UN And Climate Change – Ten Fateful Words
Tony.
50
back to the topic at hand:
also part of the story, the post-March-2011-Fukushima announcement by Germany:
Wikipedia: Nuclear power in Germany
On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear energy completely within 11 years. The plan included the immediate permanent closure of six nuclear power plants that had been temporarily shut down for testing in March 2011, and two more that have been offline a few years with technical problems. The remaining nine plants will be shut down between now and 2022…
In September 2011, Siemens, which had been responsible for constructing all 17 of Germany’s existing nuclear power plants, announced that it would exit the nuclear sector following the Fukushima disaster and the subsequent changes to German energy policy…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
30 July: Financial Times: Hugh Carnegy: EDF to exit US nuclear power over impact of shale gas
EDF, majority owned by the French state, announced that it was pulling out of CENG, its joint venture in the US with Exelon which operates five nuclear plants…
EDF, which operates France’s 58 nuclear plants, had originally planned to build four new nuclear plants in the US. But Mr Proglio said the prospects for nuclear power in the US had been hit by “a true revolution” caused by the exploitation of shale deposits, which had “completely reshaped the landscape of electric power generation in favour of gas”.
Mr Proglio said EDF would switch its focus in the US to renewable energy sources…
EDF, also hit by the retreat from nuclear power in Japan and Germany, is keen to increase capacity in the UK where it already operates existing plants and is a major electricity distributor. But negotiations with the government to build two new reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset have been painstaking.
The two sides are wrangling over the capital cost of the project, which could be a €14bn investment, and the “strike price” – the guaranteed long-term price for electricity produced by the new reactors. A person familiar with the talks said in May that consensus had been reached that EDF should achieve a 10 per cent return on investment in the plant…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d4ee1214-f8e8-11e2-a6ef-00144feabdc0.html
more crony capitalism?
20
“The Conversation” hasn’t woken up yet!
10
And you raise that point with such impeccable timing Jo, to remind the Australian public should they need any reminding or be in any doubt. That’s what the media needs to be reminding them of now.
150
With the huge spike in the love of wind mills and sun collectors in 2009 onwards, the renewable energy scam was in full swing.
This caused fuel poverty across Europe through ridiculous increases in electricity prices in all regions. As a result in the UK and Germany alone, in 2011 some 600,000 wood stoves were purchased for heating and cooking. The ramifications of this Green Vandalism imposed fuel poverty is:
1. These people are now stripping forests of timber, stealing, and burning even treated product.
2. The pollution from each wood stove is the equivalent of 1,000 cars.
And now Scientists recommend taking measures, indicating that a colder winter will further worsen the problem. What, did I read that correctly?
The particles that are emitted from the burning of wood are just as dangerous to human health as the ones emitted from car exhausts and other sources of burning. Although there have been no epidemiological studies so far, scientists believe that the moment they enter the lungs, they cause serious damage especially to the heart.
So the Green Vandals that have instigated this wet dream of renewable energy sources of wind and sun, are responsible for over 2,000,000 Europeans struggling with fuel poverty and the result is the equivalent of 2 billion cars on the road each year.
No wonder the garbage sprouted by this CAGW clan, suddenly stopped in 2011. 2 million Europeans ended up in fuel poverty as a result. How many deaths do they have against their name.
How many of us, our children and future generations will suffer freezing winters or die because the GANG GREEN opposed cheap reliable energy sources like coal and nuclear?
170
Agreed Dave. I get annoyed when people like Michael The Realist think they have the right to make decisions for me and my family in the name of “future generations”,and my view is somehow inconsequential because I am being paid by “Big Oil” If that’s the case could you get them to send me my cheque?
10
As I’ve said up-thread Michael P, I wish Exxon would send me a cheque.
However, I think me winning the lottery has a better chance of happening….
10
Michael P…”annoyed”…”annoyed”…what sort of word is that mate:
I’ll tell you about THAT Michael:
August 21, 2013 at 10:48 am
…Hes a Line Nine…there you are, a new expression for you…a “Line Nine”
10
I think the data at the carbon capture site is just wrong.
If you select tweets only, they claim that the number of climate tweets fell to zero at the end of July 2011 and remained at exactly zero all through Aug and Sept!
Their news articles graph looks more credible, just showing a steady decline since 2009.
It will be interesting to see how much of an uptick there is when the new IPCC report comes out at the end of September. Will there be a media frenzy, or a yawn?
40
It’ll be nudge nudge wink wink for most I feel. A bit like an Arthur Daley monologue
20
Sorry Jo, but the Sydney Morning Herald says otherwise:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/revealed-80cm-sea-rise-warning-20130819-2s7dt.html
The world is on track to become up to five degrees hotter, and sea levels could rise more than 80 centimeters this century, according to a leaked draft of a landmark climate change report prepared for the UN.
95 per cent likelihood human greenhouse gas emissions are driving changes being observed globally, which in recent weeks have included extraordinary heatwaves in Asia and Alaska.
We’re doomed! DOOOOOMED!!!
But the article also says if I vote Labor we will be saved!
110
The SMH said that? I don’t believe you. . 😉
60
Jo,
I haven’t read all above yet, but you ask “October 15, 2011. When it comes, the use of “climate change” in blogs plummets about 70%. What happened?”
Did you consider the World Trade Centre attack on September 11th, 2001? That would have caused a displacement of reporting, perhaps with a lag of a month.
21
Geoff
A lag of one month and ten years, as well? Perhaps the media were obsessed with the 10th anniversary, but the journo’s who fantasize about global warming/change/disruption etc are less likely to report 911 – at least from a western, libertarian perspective.
Cheers,
Speedy
20
what is real is the “carbon” price crash, & there are a few reasons for that already posted.
cannot resist posting yet another bit of hilarity concerning the Church of England. it will mean more if u know about Wonga:
18 Aug: UK Mirror: Wonga shock: The Queen owns loan firm’s multi-million pound headquarters
Her Majesty takes thousands of pounds a year in rent from company that charges up to 5,853% interest on loans
Our revelation will be another blow for the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, whose very public war on the legal loan sharks hit the buffers when it emerged Church cash had been invested in the firm.
The Queen’s lucrative property deal will have him cringing again as she is also the head of the Church of England.
A source admitted: “The Queen is effectively Wonga’s landlord. And her role as head of the Church of England means yet another link between the Church and Wonga. This is likely to prove another embarrassing revelation for the Archbishop.”…
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wonga-shock-queen-owns-loan-2180608#ixzz2cNcRw7Bh
10
Errr… forget my post above, it was out by 10 years. Pity can be expressed by a donation to my eye specialist for continuing treatment.
80
lol. I thought it looked a little odd…
30
Wasn’t the imminent death of CAGW predicted after the Climategate fiasco and yet they’re still peddling this nonsense as belligerently as ever. Recent public pools have suggested that the majority of people now accept that CAGW is a real threat (probably thanks to the ‘97% of scientists agree’ mantra endlessly regurgitated by the media), and, notwithstanding carbon-markets, that’s what ultimately counts: public perception. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t want CAGW to suffer a fast death – we all would – but this thing has got so much momentum, I can’t see it dying anytime soon. I think one needs to be cognizant of why the CAGW-scam is being pushed on the public in the first place, and I think the carbon-credit market actually has nothing to do with it. Rosa Koire, the author of ‘Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21’ has argued that the CAGW-scam is a Trojan-horse for the world-wide implementation of Agenda 21, indoctrinating the public with an almost Deep Ecologist outlook and giving the environment more rights than humans. The CAGW-scam may seem to be dying on its feet as far as carbon-credits goes, but I think it has more nefarious goals than making money – they want to completely strip us of our freedoms. Their long-term objective is to supplant our experience of natural reality with an all-encompassing illusion of their own construction. They want to dictate reality to us wholesale and they have shown that they are willing to do whatever it takes to get the power that they need to do that. If public acceptance in CAGW is growing, as recent pools would appear to suggest, I fear that the CAGW-scam probably isn’t dying, at least not as far as public belief goes.
81
Sorry, polls.
10
Hmm, interesting, may be some Google tweak?
http://moz.com/google-algorithm-change#2011
The Revenge of the Panda Update… coming to a website near you..
Not so easy anymore to ‘game’ Google and own phrases outright, plus you will get forever punished if you go to the dark side of the SEO force… Don’t pay for links Luke! 😉
I wonder if it could be a reverse effect of Google going after all the ‘rent a link on a made up site’ mob and their social link building monkeys? That combined with the future not looking so rosy anymore could turn off a whole load of machine generated content, erm garbage.
60
I published this article on July 26th,2011
http://m4gw.com/96_of_scientists_dont_believe_in_global_warming/
Where I talk about how 96% of Scientists DON’T believe in Global Warming.
It came at a time when they were really pushing the whole 97% thing.
The funny thing is it did really well in the search engines, if you searched “97% of scientists believe in global warming” my article was one of the first ones to show up. That has since changed especially after Google hired their own propagandists.
60
How Australia’s big wet befuddled Australian scientists
Higher carbon (sic) levels cause sea levels to shrink:
“New research from the US shows the normally dry outback regions of Australia acted like a gigantic sponge, sending sea levels sinking
While natural variations were dominant factors in creating the abnormal weather over Australia, carbon emissions related to human activities also played a role.
“Global greenhouse (gas) was a contributing factor, making conditions worse than they would have been,” Professor Karoly said.
But the halt to rising sea levels was only temporary.
An Australian leading climate scientist says, “Slowdown in global temperature increases in recent years – could be expected, except when they are un-expected surprises.”
.
The death spiral continues.
50
handjive,
Should be:
Oh! But they still get paid (Timmy on $180,000 per year for 3 days a week).
20
Soon after Climate Gate and Copenhagen back in late 2009 there was a comment from a poster on one of the blogs, possibly WUWT, that I mentally noted at the time but to my present regret failed to keep a copy of.
The commenter posted on how he had come across a research study [ peer reviewed I take it ] of the media in which it was suggested that the media as a whole takes about 7 years to switch from one very entrenched position on a subject to a different position and attitude and even an opposite position on the same subject.
I remember this comment very well from that time as I promptly worked out that if this study was valid, it would be around late 2015 or well into 2016 before there was a major change in the media’s attitudes and reporting on the then Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change meme that was then filling all available media space in the latter half of 2009 with lurid scenarios of catastrophes due to fall upon the race of men in the few years remaining of our time as a species on this earth.
At that time another 7 years of media bashing of the CAGW meme was definitely not something to look forward to.
But the compensatory factor was the prospects of a major shift taking place in media attitudes to the whole climate warming debacle in my own lifetime or what’s left of it, which was at least a possibility if this report was correct.
It was only a small ray of hope at the time in a sea of grossly negative, chicken little, the sky is falling, breast beating mea-culpa’s on the sinfulness of man and how our species was going to pay the extreme price for our sinning against Gaia and burning, drowning, tornadoing, cycloning, and etc the planet within the couple of decades that was left to us,.
Or so they wanted the great unwashed to believe while the climate warmist elite once again smoothly extracted even more of our hard earned from our pockets to slake their ever increasing nefarious, greedy, grasping, amoral demands.
This biblical like 7 years rings true as over a period of that length, editors, sub editors, reporters and opinion writers as well as the usual TV and radio rabble rousers and assorted bimbos will change, get old, retire and / or move on to other pastures. The new arrivals / replacements will be keen to differentiate themselves in as many ways as possible from the passing generation and will therefore adopt new paradigms and new attitudes to what was seemingly very entrenched beliefs and attitudes in the media on some given subject, in this case the CAGW meme or whatever title it happens to go under this afternoon.
The Climate Gate mails insider who obviously put a great deal on the line personally to release those Climate Gate mails just before Copenhagen, blew a crater a mile wide in the credibility of the whole CAGW meme. A crater that has led to a now fast widening credibility gap in the whole CAGW ideology that has never been filled since in the inner recesses of many of the public’s mind.
This despite immense resources from the ideologists of the radical left and the rabid green faith being devoted to maintaining the belief in the CAGW ideology and increasingly as the science moves on and leaves the old mores behind, the remaining green and leftist dregs in what is becoming a CAGW cult.
Climate Gate and the subsequent debacle that is known as Copenhagen when the CAGW ideologists had it all stitched up ready for the signing of nations who for many such nations, would have only discovered later that they had abrogated much of their own national polity and handed it over to a totally corrupt, un-elected ideologically strait jacketed bunch of bureaucratically incompetent, power grabbing nonentities in the UN was the great divide that started and is now steadily rotting away the scientific, moral and political support structure of CAGW ideology. And in doing so is spelling the end of the whole debacle, an end that will leave a lot of scientific and green corpses washed up on the beach of psuedo science.
And there is no doubt that in my mind, reinforced at the time by the horror displayed in so many media outlets at the shenanigans in the global warming science establishment, that threw doubt, enough doubt into the minds in many in the media executive ranks.
It has taken time for the media which is a bit like a ship, it takes time to get it’s great mass and bulk to change course as there are so many elements, so much mass to change and shift so a lot of energy is required for the course change let alone a course reversal.
And that is arguably the reason for the time taken for these editors and executives and their human resources who are also in many cases quite fixated in their beliefs to come to terms with the idea that it might all just be a great big scam and one in which they eventually might be dragged into the back wash as a culpable party if it all came unstuck.
Something the whole CAGW movement seems to be starting to do right now and no doubt noted by the media executives, with many former climate warming scientists now expressing serious reservations over much of what has passed previously as “climate science”.
The media’s only two alternatives now are to stick with the CAGW meme until the bitter end and go down with the wreck. Or bite the bullet and try and scramble into any sort of available life boat to get away from the disintegrating CAGW wreck and hope like hell that nobody notices you are abandoning that ship wreck and hope to live to see another day
Or as a JoNova poster put it the other day, the media now knows and doesn’t want a situation where in this case of a media supported corrupted science, it fulfills another one of those Chinese curses.
“May you come to the attention of the authorities”.
140
Just a thought. Much of what comprises human behaviour follows unconcious herd behaviour. Perhaps the charts above could be analysed in retrospect up to now by a practitioner of Elliot Wave Theory, which is applied somewhat successfully to market dynamics as a forecasting tool to see which way the stock market is trending and get ahead of the game. Analysis by EWT might provide a few clues Jo is looking for in the data. Nothing to lose. Just a different way of skinning the cat (analysing data).
30
The problem is that the scare is dying down, but in the EU particularly, we have a mass of legislation which will take far longer to dismantle.
40
That is a key point, RCS.
If the climate scare was real, as demonstrated with real science, rather than through statistical manipulation, then the mass of legislation would not be required, because the scientific solution would be clearly indicated.
Since the scare is not real, there can be no scientific solution, so a large amount of legislation is required to obfuscate matters, and camouflage the legislation that is actually being used to achieve the desired societal changes.
40
Jo,
The “turning point” event you are looking for is the Japanese tsunami of March, 2011.
That is the day that marks the beginning of the drying up of private funds for the so-called “environmental movement”. This day was long foreseen, but it was always accepted that by that point government investment would have taken over.
Unfortunately the GFC had ensured (in most countries) that governments could not fulfill the financial role set out for them in promoting the CAGW scam.
The day the last source of private funding and backing for the CAGW promoters dried up – the nuclear industry – is the day the entire CAGW scam started to die. The rest is history.
You can study it to death and get as much feedback from readers as you like. The simple and blunt truth is that the entire CAGW scam was funded and nurtured by vested financial interests. Just which “interests” changed many times over 30 years. And the environmental movement eventually turned on each and every one of them.
.
Now that they have made enemies of all their previous backers, and government can longer support them, they are a spent force,prepared to do anything for survival. The Greens preference swap with Clive Palmer should be evidence of that, for even the most ardent of greenies.
160
WHAAAAAAT?!! No way! No. Way. They wouldn’t!
Yes way, They did. O.M.G.
Nothing’s as precious as a hole in the ground…except for a seat in the Senate!
ROFLcopter.
40
Interesting . So maybe Farmer Braun wasn’t too far off the money here at comment #17.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”
So what price a Wobbalies win in the rugby this coming Saturday?
10
Ya dreamin!
00
MV, I believe I have further evidence to back your date:
JUNE 24, 2011
Man fined for dud doomsday warning
Wang Chao-hung, better known as “Teacher Wang”, stirred up a media frenzy after he “predicted” a giant quake and tsunami would hit Taiwan on May 11
Of course I jest in all seriousness.
Fraud is no laughing matter.
10
Dammit, MV! How come you spotted that, and I didn’t?
I shall go away and sulk.
20
I may have to sulk concurrently – but in the other corner obviously.
We already knew the main reason that Thatcher had promoted the CAGW scare in the early 1980s (and made a big speech about it in the UN in 1988) was because she wanted to use CAGW as an excuse to break up the coal miner unions and adopt nuclear power in the UK.
I figure I missed the significance of Fukushima for CAGW because I interpreted that event as the best free advertising for new nuclear power designs that the industry could possibly get. It’s like a neon sign saying “this is what happens if you leave these old designs running for too long.”
Possibly it cuts both ways. If the industry can spin it like a warning for old designs rather than all nuclear power, they can drum up new construction deals without needing the CAGW scare. A clear and present danger to the living is a much better sales motivator than a vague mild threat to future generations.
10
MV.
Go on. I’m intrigued. Why did environmental organisation funds dry up because of the Japanese Tsunami?
10
I think it is probably a lot easier to explain the stock-markets than it is to explain what humans say, write, or read.
10
Maybe that’s the day they stopped calling it “Climate Change” and started calling it “Carbon Pollution” or “Global Weirding” or something.
10
O’Bummer is way ahead of you. He has already done it. Climate change was too vague. It is now a “War on Carbon”
20
Exactly, which is a war on everything and everybody because we are all carbon based units and everything we do produces carbon. Breathing, driving, cooking, heating our homes, cooling our homes and oh yeah surfing the internet.
30
So climate change is not happening because the media is reporting on it less? They were distracted by the royal baby. Unfortunately, the Arctic didn’t get the memo and has kept on thawing.
115
John, I am not sure how to put this as it may overturn your current beliefs, but babies are in the womb for 9 months before the birth (insert appear in the cabbage patch/stork arrives if that makes you more comfortable). So speculation about the royal baby could only have started late 2012.
How could that speculation affect newspaper reporters/editors in mid 2011?
70
I don’t think you got the memo John or you didn’t read it.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/51-growth-in-arctic-sea-ice-from-last-year/
40
No, you are confusing cause and effect. The media have lost interest because even the thickest journalist (and I know some with double digit IQ’s) have finally realised that global warming/climate change/climate disruption is either not happening at all, or when it does, it is not man-made. Geddit?
(Why do we have to keep on explaining this?)
40
“(Why do we have to keep on explaining this?)”
Their abject inability to think and learn for themselves, is my guess
10
I am just watching CNN here in North America as I read this blog(for the first time thank you, Small Dead Animals)They just showed a graph from the New York Times. It showed that the planet was warming at a horrendous rate in the last 10 years, human caused of course. People here in the main I think, know the Times is a failing Left wing Rag.The Times are also supporters of the failing Left Wing rag of the Obama Administration,which has just released some more anti global warming tactics . So this global warming screed is to be expected from a paper like this ,but it sure seems to come out of the blue, as it hasn’t been an active topic of late.
80
Every scientific organization worldwide is convinced in AGW and that it causes catastrophes. Now it’s 95% certainty, but still you will scoff.
The 110 million dollars spent on denier Stink Tanks shows its work in blogs such as these. Without conscience, without decency, they exude their half-truths.
It’s fun to play scientist, but please publish your work in Nature, or PNAS, journals with high standards, not to the general public which has no training. It’s easy to con them, isn’t it?
When your loved ones are seriously ill, I guess you will play doctor too. Hope not, they have enough trouble just being your relatives.
[This comment consists entirely of logical fallacies. It is a self-referential example of what you accuse this site of doing. Do you have some real science to share? -Fly]
111
Dear Jan, I’m sorry your religion is failing you. Namecalling won’t help.
I guess you need to believe I’m funded by big-oil (I’m not)
Don’t look at the $100 billion received by your favorite team. It’ll do your head in. – Jo
40
“Nature, or PNAS, journals with high standards”
omg… roflmao.. and you even sound half serious. !!!
They lost their standards years ago, dear.
20
“When your loved ones are seriously ill, I guess you will play doctor too.”
Since everyone else left it alone I will debase myself because my sense of humor compels me.
Im not a gynecologist Jan, but I will have a look at it for you.
10
I don’t often laugh at people’s comments. But I’ve just woken up my son from laughing too loudly at Safetyguy’s superb gynee joke.
(it’s 12:30am here in the UK and my wife isn’t pleased!)
20
The media was rooting for global warming to be real (a need for catastrophism, an excuse to grow government, etc.) but after 16 years of nothing much spectacular, it appears that even they’ve moved on. I would personally look for “biodiversity” to be the next big thing and for fellows like Hansen (as he was for global warming and global cooling before it) to be smack-dab in the middle of it.
20
OT, sorry but I have just seen this at Climate Depot:
Please can we have our water back?
20
If you look at WUWT archives for that month:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/
You see the drowned polar bear story falling apart, the Spencer -Brasswell paper, and the Solyndra scandal. I think it was a combination of all the stories in that week.
40
Likely it was more to do with there suddenly being no money in the game anymore.
Which implies it was in someone’s interest before that point to keep pushing stories to the media.
20
But but but…if a thing comes to be taken for granted, it comes to be discussed less. Moreover, a drop in discussion of thos topics mans a drop in discussion both by believers AND scptics.
i see nothing changing. On th contrary, I see the CAGW ideology having become so part of the fabric of our culture that its simply discussed less, promoted and challenged less, like HIV or AIDS. I bet you’;d see a gigantic plummet in discussion of HIV since the 80’s. But it aint gone away.
Unless sceptics actually DO something to change opinion, instead of just assuming its changing, it wont.
20
Once the mainstream has moved away from a topic, those that remain, banging the drum are just labeled as loonies.
There are plenty of other things to be skeptical about in science, because the western education systems have a) dumbed the population down so much, that they don’t understand it, and b) deified scientist to the point where their word is gospel, and may not be questioned.
A lot of the trolls we see here are already conditioned like that. They see an appeal to authority as being the final word, and do not recognise it as a logical fallacy. To them, the sun revolves around the earth because 97% of scientists say so, and heavier objects will fall to earth faster than lighter objects because it is obviously true.
In such an arena, some other disastrous meme will emerge. It is known as the Chicken Little effect.
Good sport though.
20
…its also known as The Human Condition.
00
The fall in Q2 2009 might have also to do with the release of the study in Spain that showed “green” energy jobs resulted in a net loss of overall jobs. That report was released in early spring of 2009.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
20
To those who think they can live ONLY on alternate energy, why not try it.
At night you must turn off ALL electrical appliances, and I mean ALL. no fridge, no heating, no lights.
Ok, if there is a slight breeze, you can have 1 or 2 lights on (but go and buy some of those flickering ones), but no kettle, no heaters, no computer (power fluctuates too much).
No candles, no wood-burning, no gas.. all of those release CO2 and some real pollutants, particulates etc.
No lead acid batteries either.. VERY bad for the Earth in their manufacture and disposal.
And not just for one night, do it for a month.
So come on guys.. show us what you can do.
Come back in a month and describe your experience.
70
Oh, and NO diesel generators. !!!
50
Not fair Andy. Diesel generators are actually the mainstay of the African (and South American) bush. Just put the restriction on, that the diesel must be carried by hand from the supply point, some twenty miles away, to the generator. That should do it.
30
“Diesel generators are actually the mainstay of the African (and South American)”
And the UK !
40
And in the morning, since mornings are usually pretty still, and the sun doesn’t do any work until at least 10am.. no power usage then either.
ps.. Its darn cold outside at the moment, and I have to go and teach surveying..brrrrrr !!
40
As usual, Andy is ignoring reality in order to persist with his luddite opinions:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/10/worlds-first-solar-plant-to-generate-electricity-even-at-night/
216
That looks like the sort of storage that every household can afford. Yeah right.
70
Can every household afford its own coal mine?
214
WTF? Coal IS stored energy. How ignorant are you?
60
Ah Margot, you great big f[self snip] moron.
Fancy quoting the much vaunted Gemasolar plant in Spain. It just proves that if you were a Flathead, you’d be sizzling on the hotplate before you even digested the bait.
It covers 200 Hectares (500 Acres) and has a nominal Nameplate Capacity (NP) of 19.9MW, but can only generate a maximum of 17MW, and has the added extra that it has Thermal Storage of 15 hours.
So, assuming we work just on that NP, then we’ll need 156 of them to replace just the ONE Bayswater plant, and at just on $500 Million each, there’s $78 Billion right there.
It generated its rated 17MW all through the night ….. ONCE. That’s ONE time Margot.
It actually delivers 110GWH of power over a full year, which gives this plant a Capacity Factor of 63%, which, when extrapolated out over a full year means it delivers its power on average for 15 hours and 7 minutes, and hey, note how it has 15 hours of Thermal Storage, so that means that during Winter that power delivery is down around 8 hours a day, if that.
So using actual power delivery for consumption then, and comparing that to Bayswater, you will now need even more of them again, but hey who cares. You still only get power for 15 hours a day.
So then, let’s see now.
The same amount of power this plant delivers over a full year is actually, right now being delivered by Bayswater, with all 4 units in operation in ….. 51 hours.
You call us Luddites.
Oh Margot, you really need to learn that when you open your mouth, it’s not just to change feet, you fool.
I’ll bet you won’t be replying to this.
Tony.
190
To all the readers here, let me apologise abjectly for an almost critical error in my comment at 55.3.2, where I said, and I’ve highlighted in bold the incorrect piece of information:
That figure of 51 hours is incorrect.
It should be 41 hours.
Bayswater has a capacity of 2640MW, so 4 units running all day generates 63.36GWH
The Gemasolar plant generates 110GWH in a full year, so dividing that 110GWH by Bayswater’s 63.36GWH gives a result of 1.74 days.
That 0.74 of a day comes in at 17 hours.
My simple and basic mistake was hurriedly adding 17 to 24 and coming up with 51, when it should have been 41 hours.
I need to take more time, and not respond in the flush of annoyance.
So, sorry people.
41 Hours.
Makes you want one right away, doesn’t it?
Tony.
70
Noooo, don’t take the green dream awayyyy. 🙂
Just to add insult to injury, I wondered what the cost of getting all that sunlight collection area would be.
You know what they say… Location,Location! It’s time to play the Real Estate game.
Now to give this monstrosity the best possible chance of working we should put it somewhere that is adjacent to a very green customer base, but also has a lot of sunshine hours for the year.
Canberra has been described in the past as having the most number of sunshine hours of any city. I figure anywhere in that area on the same latitude as Canberra would be good. Plus I will choose somewhere inland of the Snowy Mountains so that there is less rain and more sunshine. See I’m really giving it the best chance.
Scoping the area on google maps, it seems there’s a whole lotta nothing between Narrandera and Deniliquin. Plugging these locations into Realestate.com.au what do we find?
Here is a real steal, an absolute bargain. Nearly 600acres or 240ha for just $250,000. That’s just $1040/ha. Hard to find big blocks of land for cheaper than that in this area.
Except we need 156 / 0.63 x 200ha = 49500ha which is a square 22.2km wide. The towns of Albury-Wodonga easily fit inside that size.
At these prices you’d spend 52 million dollars just to buy the land.
Alright that’s a bit underwhelming, clearly the technology cost far exceeds the land cost and the land is cheaper the further out you go, but an interesting exercise.
50
And you can bet they would want to use the nice flat prime agricultural land. !
20
The challenge is there..
Accept it…………………………………………………… or not.
20
ps.. that’s what the word “pusillanimous” means, Maggot.
30
What? Speak up. I can’t hear you for the sound of crickets.
40
Nah, not one of them would dare live how they want 3rd world countries to live.
20
Ahhhh the Gemasolar plant.
It has provided 24 hour electricity once. Once.
And even then, it was a small fraction of the output available in full sunlight. Good luck providing base load with that.
30
I wonder where the builders of that thing are now.
How much to the solar plant, how much to the pocket.
20
Look how it went down after I met Jo Nova and Christopher Monckton in Perth, in the middle of 2011:)
A bit like the way that the Hawke government started serious deregulation in 1986, after my paper on the Austrian economists and the agenda of deregulation was published in the highly influential Age Monthly Review in 1985! You have to allow a bit of a lag for people to grasp the ideas. http://www.the-rathouse.com/hayaustriankey.html
30
I thought it failed because China, India, South Africa, and Brazil refused to sign the planned treaty. Only 4 countries. It still must be something wrong with the rest of the world, despite FOIA and Climategate.
12
,
00
2008 / 2009 was the year they realised the game was up, that the data faking was reaching breaking strain – that Copenhagen was their last chance to crush their opponents.
Climategate Email 1225026120.txt (October 2008)
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1225026120.txt
it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.
Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.
20
They need these undies
http://youtu.be/lBFK1UijugI
30
Well, seeing how we are now discussing climate appropriate apparel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSFCvG6curE
“The hot summer sun that went on and on”. And that was from the late 1960’s or early 1970’s.
Times change. Hot weather was seen as being a good thing, back in the old days.
30
[…] But Jo Nova has a fascinating collection of graphs suggesting the world-wide scare actually peaked a bit later. For instance: The Carbon Capture Report, based in Illinois, tallies up the media stories from the English speaking media on “climate change” daily. Thanks to the tip from Peter Lang, we can see the terminal trend below. The big peak in late 2009 was the double-whammy of Climategate and Copenhagen (aka Hopenhagen). It’s all been downhill since then… […]
00
Jo – Another example of death-by-green-tape…. The WeeklyTimes reports that in the final day prior to entering caretaker mode, the Labor govt has declared all of the Murry River downstream of Wentworth (hundreds of kms) as ‘critically endanged’. Nobody is sure of the rammifications, and as the govt is in caretaker mode – everyone is distracted by the election so those responsible are not being questioned… Is it a sneaky act of vengance, or just virtuoso managment incompentence?
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/08/21/580369_national-news.html
30
When Ministers are distracted by political infighting, and jockeying for position and status, and with one eye firmly on their constituencies, prior to an election; they have little bandwidth left for overseeing the actions or intents of the Departments for which they are responsible. At such times, it is possible for matters that would normally be closely scrutinised, to be covertly implemented as part of a wider package of measures.
I am not saying that is what happened in this case, but I have seen it happen elsewhere, when the public servants believe they are better judges of what is required, than the Minister. This is especially so, when the public service view the situation as being the last chance to get something accepted, prior to a change of Government.
10
Mods and Jo:
You are free to delete this post! I make the message only for those who are solidly in the CAGW camp, because I think they need to see what I propose:
Michael (you know which one), Black-add, KR, et al:
It might be instructive for you to spend about 50 minutes (give or take) and look at the top “sticky post” at Anthony’s site, Watts Up With That. It is an interesting video, not because of the content itself, but what Anthony tells about about his journey.
Before I watched the video, I assumed that Anthony had always been a “skeptic” (yes, I am in North America). In the early part of the video, Anthony tells about his “green” background — — tree hugger, etc, and what it was that caused him to re-think his beliefs. Mind you, he was as adamant as any of the posters/visitors here.
If memory serves, was not Jo herself once a true believer? Could you make a post about your conversion — — as far as I know, you have never explained what it was that led you to your current state of mind.
Anthony tells the tale very early in the video, so just a few minutes of your time might be worthwhile. At least find out how/why someone changes his/her mind on a subject.
Not trying to drive business away from you Jo, or drive it to Watt; I’m just expressing a sense of frustration with the trolls who act like mind-numbed robots endlessly parroting their favorite talking points.
I give my history on an “Unthreaded” several weekends ago, after Otter posed the question about Jo’s visitors and their political leanings/AGW beliefs.
I welcome your comments,
Mark H.
70
I did a book review of the book “Fallen Angels” on WUWT – their early 90s poke at climate alarmism opened my eyes when the real thing arrived.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/22/prescient-fallen-angels-a1991-satire-of-climate-alarmism/
We all found our own path to AGW skepticism.
30
Hi Mark,
You will only get an opinion change from honest people. The dishonest people refuse to say what data they need to change their mind – to my knowledge none of the persistant trolls on this or other sites have ever stated this important bit of information.
Then they reference out of date info, warmist sites, adjusted to death data, and models. The real raw data and normal history never enters their posts. I bet they would fail the simple temp data test on WUWT site at the moment.
50
Interesting story on LNL night before last.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/climate-change-reversal-is-possible/4890520
Im surprised Phillip didn’t kick him off about half way through when he postulated that soil outflow from rivers was contributing more to rising sea levels than ice melt. But Im getting the impression PA just doesn’t listen to his guests when they talk because he seemed blissfully unaware this guy is a skeptic for the entire interview.
Worth a listen anyway. The soil thing is one I havnt heard before, nice theory, seems to make good sense.
20
Safety guy re your proposed windmill; is it VAWT or HAWT?
00
Ce qui?
00
Ici. #12.2.4.1.4
00
Ainsi- Vertical/Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine.
00
The standard windmill looking type so HAWT. Right now Im busting my butt trying to get it installed and commissioned before August 30th (which doesn’t look like happening) because the Taz Gov. changes the FIT rates for installations after that date darn it. I guess they must be super concerned about reducing CO2 emissions if they are removing the incentives for home renewables.
http://www.solaronline.com.au/1500w-48v-exmork-wind-turbine.html
Thats the wee beasty
00
lengthy piece, worth a full read:
21 Aug: Bloomberg: Brian Wingfield: Coal Foe Named to FERC Is Latest Obama Pick Drawing Ire
The nomination of Ron Binz to be chairman of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has sparked enough opposition that environmentalists have hired a public-relations firm to aid his Senate confirmation. Binz has drawn the ire of coal-industry interests for advocating policies that mining companies said encouraged the conversion of power plants to natural gas when he served as Colorado’s top utility regulator…
The Green Tech Action Fund, a San Francisco-based non-profit that backs green energy technology, has hired VennSquared Communications LLC, a Washington-based political consultancy, to advocate on Binz’s behalf. The fund is affiliated with the Energy Foundation, which reported almost $100 million in revenue in 2011 and has connections to hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, an Obama fundraiser and opponent of TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline…
Hours after the White House announced its choice for the FERC chairman, VennSquared issued a statement with plaudits from the chairmen of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., Xcel Energy Inc. and Lola Spradley, a Republican former speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives…
If confirmed, Binz would succeed FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, who turned the agency from a sleepy regulator of the electric and natural gas network into an enforcement authority after Congress expanded its powers in 2005. FERC, an independent government agency, oversees the nation’s interstate transport of electricity and natural gas…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/coal-foe-named-to-ferc-is-latest-obama-pick-drawing-ire.html
so much cronyism to investigate on all sides, but always worthwhile reminding ourselves about Tom Steyer:
Wikipedia: Tom Steyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer
00
The fall in climate change media coverage would have been even greater, had our pro-AGW-biassed media icons, the ABC and the Fairfax Press, desisted from reporting every comment originating from the warmist camp.
50
CC chatter on the blogosphere dropped off around October 2011 probably because of the methane bomb in the Eastern Arctic. It was overkill by the alarmists and large numbers lost interest.
50
In Australia, it was almost certainly affected by Flannery’s “perpetual drought” comments followed by the normal Australia “flooding rains”.
A LOT of money was wasted because of that fool,
and he continues to be laughed at with basically every outlandish nonsense comment he makes,
as is anything put out by the moronic alarmist in the Climate Commission.
Both are treated as a total JOKE. Which is totally understandable.
41
what a tale! tho still not asking the obvious – why aren’t some of these bureaucrats in court as well?
21 Aug: Guardian: Robert Booth: UK government promoted fake bomb detectors
In the aftermath of Bolton’s sentencing, it can be revealed that the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the government’s trade arm, UKTI, gave promotional, diplomatic and financial backing to Bolton over several years even though a Home Office expert in bomb detection equipment found his device’s ability to detect explosives was no better than random…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/government-fake-bomb-detectors-bolton
10
You missed a graph.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
45
And this one.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
50
And don’t forget this one.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
33
The average over that period was 12.6Mkm^2, so the graph actually shows the summer ice extent minimum dropping by just 22% over that period.
That’s at the end of a grand maximum in solar magnetic activity. There is no sense in fitting a linear trend and extrapolating to 2100. The most likely driver of this ice reduction has stopped.
Climate cycles. Nothing to see here.
30
Yes, sure, just a natural cycle.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/climate-ice-seaice-extent-trend-sep12.png
Nothing to see here, if you choose not to.
33
Wallace, it’ll kill you I know, but any form of warming will melt the arctic. Global warming will also melt the Antarctic eh?
And even if that was happening, it still doesn’t tell us anything about the cause…
40
Dozens of scientists find that Antarctica is melting.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract
So what is causing it Joanne? What’s your theory and how does it explain away the theory of AGW? How does it make the IR absorption properties of CO2 disappear?
53
How does your question make for a sane conversation. You must know my basic position. Do you deny it, or are you “playing stupid”.
You know I have never once ever suggested that the IR physics is not correct. So apologize for wasting my time, and try with a sensible question.
63
I’m definitely ignorant of your basic position, unless your position is simply to confuse matters? I googled for “joanne nova science” and came across this summary of your “scientific position”.
http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/nova-science/nova-vs-nova/ [really? this is all you could find?] ED
It seems you hold many contrary views simultaneously. So I appologise for being confused, but with you presenting such a varied assortment of “what’s causing the warming”, without actually debunking the “CO2 causes warming” I come to only one conclusion.
(Try the REFERENCE PAGES or the INDEX links that are easily found on the blogs home page) CTS
31
Wally – 85 comments and you haven’t bothered to read the “New Here” page, or click on the link I’ve posted many times since you started commenting referring to “evidence”. See the menu top right. Or try The Skeptics Handbook eh?
Ha ha. You admire a commentator who believes “it’s warming” over the last 500 million years is a YES-NO question? Hysterical. He treats satirical posts as a science theory. You’ve got to feel sorry for him.
Jo
30
You are one blogger vs [SNIP boring, try harder! How many more of these self serving posts do you have before you are banned? ] ED
21
I am not Wally, sorry to interfere, I just would like to update that a little bit outdated information: a)”global warming” is an unproven claim, a fiction, the calculations have nothing to do with the real science and b)the “greenhouse effect” (warming by back radiation) is physically impossible.
By the way, I suggest you open 2 new threads like “Does “greenhouse effect” exist?” and “What have the calculations of “global warming” to do with real science?”, this will help you to update your very interesting “The Skeptics Handbook”.
11
I did reply to you Joanne.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/#comment-1310271
But “ED” ate it.
—–
REPLY, so if you had a gem there. just repeat. Looks like another boring call to consensus right? Jo
11
So let’s look at the first two points of your I’m new here post.
POINT 1
Scientists already know CO2 lags temp. The Milankovitch cycles initate the warming, CO2 is released from the warming ocean and it warms the planet more than usual. Your NUMBER ONE point is hardly something that dismisses AGW as I already pointed out.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/#comment-1281551
[The red-herring “old news” argument. Vacuous. A truth that is “old news” is no less true. And the strawman “OK it’s right, but it isn’t a 100% dismissal” as if any point can be mocked that doesn’t completely wipe out your ideology. As it happens, in 1992 when Rio was signed scientists were still asking “which factor leads” in the ice cores. You have nothing. Learn to reason. – Jo]
POINT 2
So you accept that the planet is warming, so what’s causing it Joanne? Milankovitch cycles operate on 21,000, 40,000 and 100,000 timeframes and cannot explain the recent warming.
So what is it Joanne, if not the 220 ppm increase in CO2. You seem to accept that CO2 has a warming ability, you seem to accept that CO2 levels have increased, but you can’t accept that an increase in a gas that has the ability to trap heat is causing additional heat. Brilliant!
[Your ignorant mocking tone is a bore. Can you read one whole page? Your question is a false flag and you have not even discovered the main point I argued from my first blog post. – Jo]
13
Yeah, maybe – with a capacity commensurate with its quantity. Even at 400 ppm that capacity is about half of SFA. Think 400 drops of hot water, mixed with four million drops of ice water. Get the picture?
Gee, couldn’t have anything to do with the Grand Solar Maximum that started around 1900 (coincidentally at the same time as alleged CAGW warming), and ended around 2000 (coincidentally the same time as alleged CAGW warming stopped?
I mean, it couldn’t be that simple, could it, Wee Willy? That the earth got warmer during a period of a more active sun, and the earth stopped getting warmer when the sun settled down.
I mean, if that had really been the cause then we could have expected the other planets to have warmed too.
.
Oh, wait . . . .
31
I read the whole page Joanne. It doesn’t state what was causing the warming. I read your first handbook too. It doesn’t state what was causing the warming. This is a pretty simple question to answer if you had one. But you don’t, do you Joanne?
12
Wally, I don’t have to “know the cause”. I don’t want your money, but you want mine. What a double standard — You can’t find evidence to support your case so you fume and wail that the skeptics with no funds can’t disprove you, as if that makes your burdensome requests “OK”. $100 billion in funding for Team Alarm, and they still can’t find one paper to support their assumptions about relative humidity in the upper Troposphere which half their warming projection depends upon.
I’ve never questioned the IR physics and your ignorant repetition of a strawman is a bore. Raise the game Wally. Hanson 1984, and Bony 2006 and the IPCC 2007 all agree with me that the direct effect of CO2 is no more than 1.2C. You are in denial about feedbacks.
41
Jesus Wally just how bored are you,
Point 1
I had to educate one of your fellow trolls the other day about Milankovitch cycles he never learnt a thing of course because when you are stupid, you are stupid and stupid people cannot learn. What i attempted to teach them was that the “M” cycles do not correlate with ice ages etc this has been shown in a peer reviewed and published study (more then one actually. In actuality the earth as it soars around the sun rises and falls so does the solar system and it just so happens that for 100Kys we sit in an area which puts a lot of crap in the ATM (particulates) and the sun dims a little. So there you go Wally armed with this new found knowledge you too can do a google search and be educated.
So lets say the Earth warms (temp goes up) Co2 then follows, when the earth cools (temp goes down) Co2 then follows…………..ring any bells Wally?
If as you say when co2 goes up the temp is then driven up is correct then do you think there would be some geological evidence in support? But hey why listen to me so far you have shown me you are one of the stupid ones and remember stupid people cannot learn, so are you stupid Wally? Can you learn?
Point 2,
Oh i am glad to see that in point one you claim M cycles can cause warming and in point 2 you claim M cycles cannot cause “this” warming.
The IPCC claim the PPM levels in 1750 were 280ppm which of course means an increase of 120ppm (400-280) was this a typo or are you saying that at one point in history the co2 levels were only 180ppm? Remember at 150ppm all plant life would cease to exist at 180ppm plants will survive only so think about your response.
Nothing can trap heat……..imagine if CO2 could trap heat we would stuff our roof spaces with the it, turn on our heaters once on the first day of winter, warm the house and then turn them off and never turn then back on again until the first day of next winter….how wonderful.
Heres a thought we could make a thermos flask based on your idea that would keep coffee hot for eternity if we lined it with co2 quick patent the idea before someone else does.
I hope now you see just how stupid you are Wally, you cannot even get the terminology correct let alone grasp the fundemental basics of the science you talk about.
Now prove me wrong show me you are not stupid and have the ability to LEARN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
41
What the heck are you on about. I’m not asking for your money. where the heck do you get that idea from?
Ah, so why then do you contradict yourself here?
11
Really? You think the $10b clean energy fund, climate scare institutes and commissions, carbon price and renewables subsidies should be stopped? Why didn’t you say so?
Who pays for these schemes Wally?
And Golly, but it’s hard arguing with someone who has trouble with basic concepts. There is no contradiction. The log curve is flat basic chemistry and Hansen, Bony and the IPCC would agree with that post too. To get 1.2C of warming we need to raise CO2 from 280ppm to 560 ppm. The IPCC raise this 1.2C up to 3.3C via the action of speculative feedback loops (mostly with changes in clouds and humidity) for which they have no observations. I think the feedbacks are negative (as they are in most natural systems) which dampens the effect (ie we get less than 1.2C). Observations support my position.
31
You’re amusing Joanne, if only to twirl you into logical knots, but you have little substance.
If it’s negative, then you’d be able to cite paleoclimate studies suggesting that the past warming caused by Milankovitch cycles have negative feedbacks, but as we’ve already seen, additional CO2 was released and you agree on its IR properties already.
Want to rephrase that? Guessing again Joanne?
The chance of it being low is, according to those that perform the science, vew low. But hey, you’re a blogger that knows better than the experts right. 😉
•Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
•Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
•Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
•Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
•Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
•Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
•Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.
12
The anonymous commenter says I have little substance. Shucks.
What observations support your position? This is the type of evidence modelers need to support their projections. I posted that question in Jan 2010. You may be the first to answer it. Good luck. The IPCC will love you if you can.
I see you’ve cut and pasted the text without attribution from SKS.
As for Lorius, Hoffert and Hansen: it’s no accident estimates of climate sensitivity from ice cores come from old low resolution ice core data (pre 1999). The new better data mucked up that theory.
Likewise Gregory 2002 uses inadequate highly uncertain ocean heat data from the pre ARGO era. Useless.
Chylek 2008 found a range far below the IPCC (1.3–2.3C) which rather support the skeptics case that the IPCC is exaggerating. Ganapoloski et al GRL 2008 point out “the low CS and high aerosol forcing estimated by CL08 crucially depend on the authors’ choice of uncertainty ranges for several key characteristics, as well as a number of assumptions which are hard to justify”. CL08 use an aerosol forcing of 3.3 ± 0.8 W/m2 much higher than the IPCC and other estimates use (≤1 W/m2 ). Hargreaves and Annan 2008 say: “The analysis of CL08 is based on the selection of local extrema in time series which
show high temporal variability, and moreover the data points they used are not even temporally coincident” and … “although their model estimate for dust forcing seems broadly reasonable in the tropical region, it is substantially too high for latitudes poleward of 45 (Claquin et al., 2003) and therefore also globally…”
Tung and Camp 2007 relies on the small changes in TSI so uncertainty in temperature measurements will dominate. Their figure of 0.2K as a solar signature is twice as high as most other estimates like Lean and Rind. But if climate sensitivity is so high to solar, and it’s not included in the models, that doesn’t leave as much room for CO2 to work its magic with whats left. TSI is also only one solar factor, and the paper does not consider other factors like cosmic rays and UV light. I think there are quite a few reasons why alarmists have not mentioned this paper a lot since 2007.
Bender 2010 appears to be model based assessment. The title is “Response to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in relation to climate sensitivity in the CMIP3 models” The paper has two mentions of “empirical” and about 150 of models. Maybe you can explain where the empirical evidence is?
You may want to tone down the triumphal celebrations.
The evidence I refer too.
51
This is the page I used for climate sentitivty.
Your “rebuttal” would have greater impact if it cited real science rather than just an exploration of your own “feelings”. The only science you try to cite is incorrectly spelt. Google Ganapoloski and you draw ablank. Next time use a URL – it’s not hard. For the rest, to impress me you’ll need to provide science not just your blogger feelings.
As for what caused the warming, the science says it is us. Eight different studies all arriving at the same general conclusion. Its greenhouse gases.
http://skepticalscience.com/jones-2013-attribution.html
You’ve yet to provide science to rebut this.
32
Ahh Wally, so you don’t know real science when you see it, and you have nothing, just links from the site that does your thinking for you?
He who had no links at all looks like a hypocrite for complaining about what he didn’t do himself. See, if you’d looked up Chylek (don’t tell me you didn’t read it?) you’d know Ganopolski is one of the few who cited Chylek.
Andrey Ganopolski, Thomas Schneider von Deimling, Comment on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition” by Petr Chylek and Ulrike Lohmann, Geophysical Research Letters, 2008, 35, 23
And we all know why you won’t comment under your real name don’t we?
Thanks for confirming my assessment of the Cook list. Seven different studies called “empirical” evidence – one is not – it’s a model study, four are 10 – 20 years old based on out of date low resolution data, uncertainties make Tungs conclusions questionable, and if Tung is right, it means solar was more important last century and CO2 is therefore less. Then there’s Chylek, using assumptions derived from models… And you defend your “empirical” list by tossing Jones’ latest model study up? You are kidding, right? We know those models are broken. No wonder there’s no empirical evidence that fits their “results”.
Thank you Wally. This has been very useful.
61
Don’t tell me you didn’t read Chylek’s reply to Ganopolski?
Less “feelings” of yours and more science please. Oh, that’s right, the blogger world doesn’t need to support their theories with peer-reviewed science, they have “opinions” and “conspiracies” that “explain” everything.
25
Classic comment Wally. There’s no sign you had read Chylek and after five days of silence, no sign you’ve read that reply of his either.
I explained why those papers were weak, you accuse me of using “feelings” when the sum total of your content is effectively name-dropping. I talk science and you invent strawman “conspiracy” accusations.
Rather devastatingly you have no response at all for 6 of the 7 papers which supposedly formed the “basis” for your belief in the power of man-made human emissions, yet that doesn’t bother you at all (it was never about the evidence for you was it?). I refer to dozens of papers in my list of evidence, and you ignore all of them (it’s too hard isn’t it?)
So your only empirical evidence ends up being a paper cited by only one other paper and Chyleks reply has a climate sensitivity of 1.3C – 2.3C which is much much lower than the IPCC estimates. Have you become a skeptic? After 100 billion dollars of research. That’s all you have?
Here are some quotes from Chyleks reply:
Where is Chyleks uncertainty range in the Vostok Ice Core? He still doesn’t provide one, but he does say that “the 10.2 K for the Vostok site seems
to be reasonable” because the EPICA Core shows “10 K”.
So the entire evidence you rely on boils down to one study of one spot on the globe starting 40K years ago and not extending into the warmer holocene era we live in. CL08 estimates the global temperature changes from one site, assumes that climate sensitivity is the same during these colder conditions as it is today, and assumes aerosol forcing is much higher than those from the “consensus” you so believe in. There is no mention of “solar” effects in his calculation at all. So if the sun, cosmic rays, or changes in clouds or UV matters, Chyleks estimate will be too high.
Does Antarctic warming represent global warming? Maybe — Chylek replies that the warming also occurred in Greenland
So give or take 300 years, yes, things line up…
Don’t you think that it’s a tad odd that the IPCC is 90% certain (or 95%!) and the only observation that supports their estimates comes from data with 300 year resolution from a time colder than now, with assumptions and estimates that few seem to agree with, no consideration of solar effects, and after all that, only “finds” a climate sensitivity of half what the IPCC does?
Keep going Wally. Please, keep going.
51
No, you gave us you blogger opinion. One that is not supported by any scientific research.
Less “feelings” of yours and more science please.
22
Wally, you ask for “science” but ignore the evidence.
In denial? I think so. :- )
21
Why are you always so vague Joanne? Yet another spurious link. Be specific! What science do you have to counter the papers I listed earlier.
13
Wally, it’s like teasing a kitten. It seems mean. I specifically list 40 papers with links and reasons.
You will have to actually click the link.
41
Oh, and since you brought it up, on the topic of denial Jo, what do you have that rebuts the papers listed here http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/fingers-in-ears/
You are remarkably selective about what science you present to your readers Jo, why is that?
12
Oh right, my posts are just blogger opinions, but you cite another blogger to “rebut me”?
Can you spell the word “Hypocrite”?
There is a reason Brendan has no traffic. It’s a random grab-bag of model induced headlines in a logical vacuum. I can rebut most just from their headlines. Grow up Wally, any cause of warming will cause crops to shift, oceans to warm, microbes to change, heatwaves to worsen. Any failed model can predict anything you want.
You have nothing.
41
WW, a large number of those papers cited on INN are not about evidence for the causes or nature of climate change. They are about how things (mostly living creatures and ecosystems) respond to it or are observational/ data reportage without analysis linking to causes or adding to theoretical knowledge.
Maybe you need to pick out which ones cannot be easily refuted using the simple argument of their irrelevance?
10
So which of your 40 papers refutes the science I listed? Surely you know the papers you listed well enough to
And Joanne, you say you can rebut the science that INN listed, but would that be with more of your feelings, or actual science as peer-reviewed and published in a journal.
[SNIP cut and paste copy of list in comment already answered here]
Perhaps Gee Aye can help, but judging by the lack of content in their words, I don’t like your chances.
14
Wally, honestly you’ll have to stop or people will think I pay you.
It is as if I haven’t already explained why your papers are either old, out of date, superseded, not empirical, or at best…. use questionable assumptions from models and only produce half the warming the IPCC predicts? You have no reply to my detailed response to your list, so all you can do is cut and paste that list again?
And I realize your religion forbids you from looking at papers skeptics recommend, so you can’t click my link to The Evidence. Apologies, is that the 4th time I’ve posted it? It’s killing you isn’t it?
Do tell why I ought bother taking the time to describe them to you personally when I have already described them in carefully laid out posts that you can’t look at? Sorry I can’t run therapy groups for the climate-crisis-obsessed.
51
Here is an update for you. You seem to be falling behind. Science moves on , particularly in new fields:-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/3/
20
WW,
Your AGW “theory” was never a theory because it never demonstrated any credible predictive capacity. We don’t need no stinkin’ alternative theory while ever the null hypothesis holds up. Which it has done. In spades!
Please produce the pre-1998 paper which predicts the current 16 year temperature stasis and when it will end. Stating “real soon now” doesn’t count.
You need to understand that hardly anyone here would have any objections to proper research of the world’s climatic system. What we do object to are the hidden socialist agendas and the associated crony capitalism that has wrecked countries.
All this on the basis of…”We don’t know what else it could be so it must be CO2″.
Argumentum ad ignorantium if ever there was one.
20
Never stopped. Let me reprint what I posted above.
Look at the following graph.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Notice the predominantly strong el ninos of the 1991 to 2000 decade, especially your utterly predictable and non scientific selection of the cherry picked year of 1998.
Now look at the 2001 to 2010 decade of predominantly neutral to weak el nino and strong la ninas. Now the global data set GISS has 2005 and 2010 as equal hottest years, can you see how much lower 2010 el nino is to your cherry picked year. Now have a try at some common sense and logic and think about that for a bit.
Now look at the entire record of instrumental temperature data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Do you see the strong upward trend in the data for about the last 100 years, despite numerous ups and downs and pauses due to natural variations and cycles. That is real science, not cherry picking to suit your confirmation bias and then basing your whole conclusion on that cherry picked piece of a graph without any science or context and without looking at all the data, or basing your whole rejection around model projections, which are only there to get an idea of the likely direction. Due to the strong natural cooling influences it is likely that the temps will go through another spurt as it always has in the last 100 years and catch up to the model. It has been there before.
This is basing the whole lot on atmospheric temperature alone and has destroyed your whole story, not counting all the other signs of a warming climate by AGW such as ocean warming, melting arctic, global ice volume falling etc.
A climate is not based on cherry picking years, it is complicated with many natural and anthropogenic forcings in both directions, generally you should make comparisons on at least decadel time scales.
“The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.
Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
34
Much huffing and puffing Michael but you still didn’t address the point.
Incidentally, one of your graphs shows the current temperature stasis in spite of the time scale used and you might care to explain the previous warming spurt 1910-1940 when CO2 emissions were nowhere near today’s levels. That, in turn leads to another problem for you lot. Those emissions (from whatever source) have grown by 8% and yet we have no increase in temperatures and a sullen admission from certain quarters that there ain’t gunna be any for a few more years.
Your chief sham merchant Pachauri has admitted that the current pause is a problem for the rest of the IPCC sham merchants. The British MetOffice has similarly revised their future ‘scenarios’ to no more warming for a few more years.
Remember the barbeque summer forecasts Michael. Remember the snowless winter forecasts Michael. No, of course you don’t. You’ve airbrushed them out of your memory.
Until you are prepared to unequivocally and unambiguously state what would cause you to abandon this AGW creed, you should cease and desist with your dopey little videos. Nobody is going to waste their time or download allowance watching them.
30
I worry if it is a comprehension problem or you just do not know how to read a graph. Again look at the following graph.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Now let me explain it to the nth degree.
# The long term trend over the whole period is obviously up.
# The top of the initial warming trend you mention (1940) is .5 degree colder than now. So where you get ‘no increase in temperatures’ from I do not know.
# The long term trend has pauses and dips due to natural variations but the trend is unchanged.
# The current period is at the top of the trend.
# 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on the record despite a preponderance of natural cooling trends. (globally, ocean, land and both hemispheres)
# Hotter than the previous decade of 1991 to 2000 with its preponderence of natural warming events.
# Every decade bar one has been hotter than the previous decade since 1901.
Please explain why the above is true if not AGW with proof.
To answer your other question, I would only question AGW at this point if the 2011 to 2020 decade is colder than the previous one. With the first 2 years of this decade being the hottest la nina affected years on record I would expect that to be unlikely.
lastly, I haven’t put up any videos, so not sure what you are talking about there.
State of the climate 2012
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2012-highlights
43
Ms Nova, you are getting nowhere …
Time to provide the answer to Where’s Wallace? with “he was flushed down the toilet”
11
There is plenty of evidence that the Arctic has been reasonably free of ice MANY times in the past. Sure its dropping a bit in the very slight warming since the 1970’s low temps, but so what !!
To quote Crowded House… “It’s only natural”
It comes and it goes, in very rough cycles.
20
What’s causing it this time? Milankovitch cycles occur too slowly to explain the current warming.
27
Modern alarmism:
Historic record:
No documented natural precedent here, if you choose not to see it.
Reality Check: Why do skeptics say the ice reduction is natural?
Hypothesis: Mainly due to a natural ~62 year period cycle of warming and cooling which has existed since at least 1700AD. The cycle shows up clearly in monsoon data periodograms. The cycle was at its coolest in ~1972 and reached its peak in ~2004.
Prediction:
2004 − 62×3 = 1818.Result: That’s the year after the events described in this letter. In their paper Mazzarella and Scafetta show that according to the proxy reconstructions of the North Atlantic Oscillation Index the 1789-1820 warming phase actually proceeded slightly quicker than the long term average.
Which means it all fits. Are you getting it yet?
It’s natural climate change.
40
Reason: Because they ignore all evidence that does not fit their confirmation bias.
Truth: Arctic ice loss is bigger than has happened for a time longer than your cycle. As is the warming.
“Over most of the last 1,400 years, the volume of ice remaining each September has stayed pretty constant. But since 1980, we have lost 80 per cent of that ice.”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/27/3640992.htm
“The Arctic has seen warmer summers over the past two decades than at any time in the past 600 years, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature. The study uses a sophisticated statistical approach, known as Bayesian modeling, to show that the extremely warm summers in high northern latitudes are evidence of an overall warming trend, rather than just a temporary fluctuation in an otherwise unchanging climate.”
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-arctic-summers-warmest-in-600-years-15873?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+climatecentral/djOO+Climate+Central+-+Full+Feed
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7444/full/nature11969.html
27
More pre prepared comments from Michael the Activist.
I wonder if the dipshit has worked out that nobody gives a shit what he links too.
40
.
Andrew McRae posts an Admiralty recorded historical account of melting arctic ice caps, and Michael “an alkaline is just a weak acid” Surrealist counters with computer model – and a statistical one at that – which “proves” the official, recorded history is wrong.
.
Pretty much says it all, really.
Pretty soon now he will be trotting out Mann’s hockey stick graph to “prove” the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age, were all figments of the imagination of the collective unconsciousness.
50
So tiresome.
You cite a broadcast by Dr Karl in which the transcript cites no scientific sources of his claims. It is scientifically unverifiable and may have been written by climate activists. Good enough for the IPCC perhaps, but not good enough for a realist. In any case Dr K has exaggerated by 130%, the sea ice minimum of 2012 was 45% of the 1979 min not 20%. Finally, I have already patiently explained why sea ice melt could be worse in the 1975-2005 period than back in 1817 for entirely natural reasons – we just had a solar activity Grand Maximum of a level not likely to be seen again for a few hundred years.
But having lost that argument you decided to change the topic from Arctic ice to global temperature proxies.
You cite a hockeystick paper which has already been partially debunked by McIntyre and found to use classic hockeystick manufacturing techniques:
1) One of the proxies used is a contaminated Lake Korttajarvi sample which was flagged as contaminated several years ago by the scientist who originally took the measurements, yet alarmist scientists still use it (with suspiciously useful results). No competent peer review process by skeptical paleoclimatologists would have passed this for publication without rework.
2) The vast majority (93%) of proxy samples used are tree-rings which suffer from the long-discussed “Divergence problem”. There is no reliable way to know if the old temperatures are true when the proxy doesn’t reconstruct the modern measured temperatures correctly. There could be more variance and warm periods in the past and you wouldn’t know it.
3) The blade of the hockeystick is manufactured by stitching the instrument record (with its own attendant problems) onto the end of the proxy record. Viewing the proxy reconstruction by itself without the thermometer readings yields a picture where 20th century temperatures have no consistent uptrend – which can’t be true. The tree rings are used simply to create the handle of the hockeystick; being unresponsive to temperature makes them perfect as a temperature proxy for propagandistic purposes.
4) One of their main claims is that the “summers in 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011 were warmer than those of all prior years back to 1400“, but none of the proxies used extend this far into the present, they finish in 2000. There is no single data series which can support such a claim. The only way to make this claim is to assume that the majority of proxies faithfully recreate temperature and that they can be matched to the thermometer record in the period of overlap, both of which are in doubt due to The Divergence Problem of tree rings.
There have been so many attempts to “discover” hockeysticks and they have all been shown to rely heavily on unsound statistical manipulation and sampling errors. The opinions of seasoned statisticians so far indicates this new paper does not appear to be any different.
40
Tell me why the Russians are building an entirely new fleet of even larger nuclear powered ice-breakers to add to the ones they already have and are not retiring…and why scandinavian nations are busily constructing entirely new types of extra-capable conventionally powered ice-breakers? Is all this multi-billion effort just window dressing?
20
It’s a “Show me the Money” moment. No money, no interest in playing.
40
And that is the point. Not ONE of the AGW flotsam that pollute this blog would dare put their own money into solar or wind and try to live just using those energy sources. No, they live and rely on the most solid and reliable of energy supplies, coal fired electricity or on gas. They dare not back up their pseudo-belief.
The WHOLE world needs reliable, cheap energy if it is to progress and prosper, but the “alternative energy” entrepreneurs have now taken the money and split.
And I bet very few of them is now reliant on just solar and wind.. probably not one of them.
ALL of them will still be connected to the coal powered electricity grid, because they need that RELIABILITY that they would deny to 3rd world countries.
We know for a fact that the main perpetrators live high on the hog, with a CO2 footprint MANY, MANY times that of normal people.
Rank hypocrisy, and those who still believe in this scam are truly and totally DELUDED.
92
What a disgusting, judgemental and irrelevent post. You do not have any idea who the people who write on these blogs are. Fyi I have a sister in law who lives off the grid on power and water, and I myself have only paid one electricity bill for over 3 years.
But that is irrelevent to whether climate change is occurring and our response to it. The whole point of carbon taxes and renewable support is to promote the use of and research into renewable industries towards the goal of all power being produced by large or small scale renewable technologies. The other point to make is that most of the people in developing countries do not have the infrastructure and the ability to connect to supposedly cheap fossil fuel power. You guys keep banging on about saving the developing world when nobody is even attempting to because their is not enough profit in it and the costs to put in the infrastructure is to high. You are talking a load of rubbish to try to hide the fact that you do not care 2 hoots about these people but only your own access to cheap power at the epense of the developing world and future generations.
So give up on multiple personalities and having monotonic discussions with yourself as you build yourself up into a lather creating an incorrect mental picture of other posters and their motives and get out and talk to some real people and have a look at what is actually going on in the larger world outside of your loungeroom.
015
Oh Michael, you just don’t get it do you?
They can never make renewable energy supply power on the scale required. In fact they can’t do it on any scale at all. If it wasn’t for the fact that they include Hydro in Renewable power totals, then the Renewables of choice, Wind and Solar would be so insignificantly tiny as to not even register, and it’s only cost trillions.
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever, and you wouldn’t even bother to find out. You just blindly believe they can actually work.
Please Michael, go and find out out.
You keep embarrassing yourself whenever you venture into electrical power generation because you really have no idea.
Tony.
100
Michael,
Of course climate change is occurring. It always has occurred, and it always WILL OCCUR. It is perfectly natural.
Our ONLY prudent and sensible response to this is adaptation, because the one thing that I can guarantee you with 100% certainty is that no matter what we do, the climate will ALWAYS keep changing.
This is simply the nature of a non-linear coupled chaotic system. Such systems are only meta-stable, and then only for relatively short (geologically speaking) periods of time.
You and your lot would prefer that if the conditions which prevailed during the Little Ice Age were to happen again, no one would have access to cheap and abundant energy???
Let’s see, during the Little Ice Age, most people did not have access to cheap, abundant energy, and what was the result???
Let’s see… the result was disease, famine, exposure, and… oh yeah, a whole bunch of people died miserably.
That seems to be your aim.
90
” I have a sister in law who lives off the grid on power and water”
Let me guess.. using WOOD for cooking.
Hence producing far more pollution than using coal fired energy would.
51
“using WOOD for cooking” and probably heating and back-up for hot water.
The point is that Africans wouldn’t have that option.
They would have a totally unreliable energy supply if from either solar or wind. They could not reliably use it for anything.
No fridges, cooking sometimes maybe. They would still be trapped in their current existence, which is PRECISELY what the green agenda prescribes.
21
“I myself have only paid one electricity bill for over 3 years.”
But you are STILL connected to the grid.. correct.
You make everyone else pay triple for the energy you feed back into the grid, that is why. But you rely on the grid to keep you going when your publically sponsored solar panels aren’t doing anything.
DISCONNECT YOURSELF, I dare you.
And no burning wood or gas.
41
You see , you are even totally ignorant as to how you yourself live and just how much you rely on having a nice solid reliable power supply.
You could not function using just wind and solar, without resorting to highly pollution wood burning for cooking and heating.
How long do you think the wood supply would last if everybody had to use wood, and how expensive would it get. Do you even know how difficult it is to live just burning wood, and having to constantly collect it. Look at Haiti, barely a tree left in the country, butt next door, where they have a decent regular commercial power supply, lush beautiful vegetation.
But this is again the desire of the CO2 hater, to strip the world of trees, to get rid of the trees’ food supply. To the detriment of all life on Earth
Your ignorance totally disgusts me. You are a destructive, pathetic little non-entity.
31
Just interested – what do you think about ITER? If it develops as hoped, do you consider mankind unfit to benefit from a potentially cheaper, plentiful source of power?
40
This would be the ideal. A cheap, plentiful and reliable energy supply for all.
At the moment this can only be supplied by coal and/or gas. Alternatives solar and wind have proved themselves severely wanting in the reliable and cheap stakes. They are neither by a long shot.
I’m all for development of any source that can help the 3rd world countries towards development and progress. Solar and wind cannot.
31
“cheap power at the expense of the developing world ”
On the contrary,
If the developed nations had not WASTED so much money on insignificant, unreliable alternate power sources…
If the world bank would get off its moronic anti-coal stance and actually do something productive…
Then many of the poorer countries could have had a decent reliable power supply ages ago.
Small coal fired power station cost a tiny pittance compared to the money wasted on the green agenda so far.. it is the green agenda that DOESN’T CARE about the 3rd world countries. In fact the green agenda WANTS to keeps them in the energy nothingness, they actively fight against the use of decent reliable energy sources in these countries.
If the regressive and repressive green agenda would get the f*** out the way, the whole world could have decent, cheap, reliable energy, and the future would be far brighter for everyone because of it.
41
Only because you are participating in government sponsored theft of other electricity users’ money.
51
“I … haven’t paid one electricity bill for over 3 years”
That’s because everyone else is paying for the subsidies that support your ‘power’ that’s produced from fairy dust and unicorn farts.
As many other people here have said – I dare you to live completely off-grid.
Oh, and you’ll need to stop using your computer, as I bet some of the plastics parts in it were made from oil.
(someone correct me if I’m wrong about the ‘plastic from oil’ thing)
51
Nah, let him keep using his computer.
Would be fun watching as it keeps rebooting because of intermittent power supply. 🙂
UPS might help a bit, for a while, what’s the usage life on those things?
20
And do read the WHOLE sentence, moron..
“and try to live just using those energy sources”
42
AndyG55, my question 70.1.1.6 was actually directed at Michael, which I didn’t make very clear. Apologies for any confusion.
I asked it because I have heard folk like him claim that were mankind to possess the keys of the kingdom as it were, in terms of cheap, plentiful power, they consider that we’re morally, intellectually, politically and socially unfit to benefit and utilise such a ‘gift’. My question was an effort to see just how deep Michael is immersed in sheeplethink.
40
No confusion Manfred 🙂 I was just adding my further comments.
I would luv to see a good cheap reliable energy supply for ALL humanity.
Very much the anti of what the green agenda wants, and as you say, Michael seems to be very much of that agenda.
I would also prefer the CO2 level rose to reasonable sustainable levels, say 700ppm at least.
Coal fired power generation has the ability to help with both these worthwhile aims.
41
At 700ppm, any idea what the implication for the magnitude of the increase in global biomass might be?
Why 700ppm in particular? Just interested.
Potentially adverse effect…Greens get Greener?
40
why 700? .. twice 350 of course 😉
and of course, more would be even better. let the Earth FLOURISH 🙂
41
Interesting – I see a thumb down. I wonder why? How could anyone put a thumb down in the face of the following?
January 1993, Volume 104-105, Issue 1, pp 65-75
Effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on vegetation. Kimball et al.
Abstract
The increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration probably will have significant direct effects on vegetation whether predicted changes in climate occur or not. Averaging over many prior greenhouse and growth chamber studies, plant growth and yield have typically increased more than 30% with a doubling of CO2 concentration. Such a doubling also causes stomatal conductance to decrease about 37%, which typically increases leaf temperatures more than 1 °C, and which may decrease evapotranspiration, although increases in leaf area counteract the latter effect. Interactions between CO2 and climate variables also appear important. In one study the growth increase from near-doubled CO2 ranged from minus 60% at 12 °C to 0% at 19 °C to plus 130% at 34 °C, suggesting that if the climate warms, the average growth response to doubled CO2 could be consistently higher than the 30% mentioned above. Even when growing in nutrient-poor soil, the growth response to elevated CO2 has been large, in contrast to nutrient solution studies which showed little response. Several studies have suggested that under water-stress, the CO2 growth stimulation is as large or large than under wellwatered conditions. Therefore, the direct CO2 effect will compensate somewhat, if not completely, for a hotter drier climate. And if any climate change is small, then plant growth and crop yields will probably be significantly higher in the future high-CO2 world.
And then there’s http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php for more published research on the matter of the benefit of increasing atmospheric CO2.
30
“Towards 700ppm” is the logical response to weepy Bill McKibbon’s ludicrous 350.org meme. 🙂
I first used it on a site he make his stupid comments at.
he was not amused….. but I was. 🙂
21
Maybe Jo its when the rains that would never come again actually rose above the long term average and people woke up to the billions wasted on desal plants being moth-balled.
Also note the reference to the Millennium drought as opposed to them referencing climate change.
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/images/water_storages/Annual_Inflow_Chart_Hi-Res.gif
31
[…] A fascinating article from JoNova that looks at trends in media reporting on global warming rather than at global temperatures themselves. She starts with “Let the historic dissection begin. Man-made global warming is a dying market and a zombie science” and then continues from there: The Carbon Capture Report, based in Illinois, tallies up the media stories from the English speaking media on “climate change” daily. Thanks to the tip from Peter Lang, we can see the terminal trend below. The big peak in late 2009 was the double-whammy of Climategate and Copenhagen (aka Hopenhagen). It’s all been downhill since then. […]
11
Shouldn’t the title of this article be “The day the Climate Change death spiral began”
61
Yes. You got me. 😐
70
You’d need to call it the Blankety Blank Death Spiral for this story to keep any currency.
60
Well for the title to keep with it anyway. The story relates to a point or period in time that will long be remembered, whatever it’s called.
50
How you guys in Australia doing? I hear you are all under water! 🙂
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/10090/global-sea-level-rise-dampened-australia-floods
10
Let me see – no water around my ankles? Nope? Good.
Hahaha. What an ignoramus. The Major drought he refers to finished years ago.
30
Here on the coast, hasn’t rained for maybe 2 weeks
actually, I can’t remember when it last rained… (not exactly)
.. must be a drought !
31
waaaaaaaaaaaaay OT,
so it turns out if you tell the world about a war crime and crimes against humanity you get 35 years but if you commit those crimes you get a gong!!!!!!!!!!!!
32
Actually, if you breach the conditions of your security clearance and therefore commit treason, than 35 years is deserved, regardless of whatever material you ‘leaked’.
It isn’t up to a low level employee to decide what can be shared and what can’t.
31
Well technically that is correct…..damn you Heywood no one else here would have come up with that LOL.
41
I would have Crakar.
Perhaps its all a big plot by the guy himself to get himself the free sex change therapy hes now seeking.
Meanwhile, in related news, Nidal Hassan has declined to offer a defence to murdering 13 of his US Army colleagues and it appears hes going for the claim that its not murder because it was an act of war. So the argument that signing a form to say whose side you are on when enrolling in an army really does have a substantive consequential basis. Otherwise, the man had been declaring himself a “soldier of Allah” for years whilst in uniform and his claim he was only acting on orders from “above”…but in the wrong uniform, might be hard to refute…technically.
Meanwhile, one of the 9/11 plotters accused of conspiring to murder over 2000 people has claimed that being denied olives and honey with his prison “food” is an act of psychological torture and…by implication, a “war crime”.
So be careful about legitimising the liberal (in all senses) use of that phrase: “war crime”.
10
And so would I.
20
Well of course you would have RW (sorry i forgot) you are the only person i know that has a HK416 under their desk 🙂
10
I’d be interested to hear from the ‘Red Thumb’ pusher as to why I am wrong… Out of curiosity more than anything.
20
They just dont like cats.
20
Especially when you are just PO’ed because the US of A hadn’t bent over to the whiny types and officially anointed same sex weddings. You think he was a whistleblower??? Nope, he was just a mentally disturbed individual striking out at the Powers that BE in the US for being homophobic meanies!!
20
From The Galileo Movement
‘This morning we released our third video in our ‘Global Warming Revisited’ series.
View here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfCPEQOamk
Our video, “Biomass Fuel and the new Environmentalism” takes a look at new environmentalism,
where businesses can profit from harming both the environment and humanity at the same time.
40
Dammit Andy I just came down here to post that same link 🙂
Good factual information though and gives people a counter view to the AGW propaganda.
I would like to see Jo or David do some skeptic videos, they came across well in “I can change your mind” uncut version.
20
Oops. Posted this in the wrong place the first time.
July 2010 is when the Chicago Climate Exchange was in the news. They had been acquired and shut down due to “inactivity in US carbon markets.” Apparently is was owned by the same outfit that started the EU market until the purchase and closure.
50
And you can bet there were a few pockets lined in both cases ! Green agenda people…. their pockets come first.
31
With apologies to Don McLean and in the spirit of the article… 🙂
Contributions of a 2nd verse are welcome.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Not so very long ago…
the Internet can still recall
CO2 was what I’d revile.
And I knew if I had my way
that I could make the people pay
and maybe, they’d be repentent for a while.
But February made me shiver
Despite every pal review I’d deliver.
More Antarctic sea ice extent.
The satellite trend was bent.
I can’t remember if I cried
when our emails Climategate spied.
Our carbon credits were mummified
the day the Global Warming scam died.
So bye-bye global warming lie.
Drove my Prius to NSF
but the funding was dry.
And my good old Team were bemoaning declines
Singin’ “why did my climate change die?”
“why did my climate change die?”
40
both urls show 21 Aug – same writer – different slant?
22 Aug: Bloomberg: Lynn Doan: California ‘Freebies’ Drive Carbon to 2013 Low: Energy Markets
California, the world’s 10th-largest economy, said July 18 that it will consider increasing by one-third the number of free allowances issued to refiners, metals producers and other companies facing higher costs and even job losses as they seek to comply with a program designed to cut emissions 15 percent by 2020…
“The market viewed the state’s plan as bearish and sold off,” Lenny Hochschild, head of global carbon trading for broker Evolution Markets in White Plains, New York, said by telephone…
The auction, the fourth since California’s program began, had been expected to attract the highest prices so far because of increased demand for emissions-intensive power generated by natural gas after the closing of the state’s largest nuclear plant…
Permits traded as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a U.S. Northeast cap-and-trade program, were selling at the lowest price allowed before a proposal was released in February to eliminate 45 percent of allowances…
The market’s failure to break through the $16-a-ton level may have contributed to the recent decline, Hochschild said.
“You had all of this bullish news, but the price still failed to break out on the upside of $14.50 to $14.60,” he said. “It got people thinking, ‘Well, if it’s not going to break out to the upside after being rangebound for so long with all this bullish news, then what is going to happen?’” …
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-21/california-freebies-drive-carbon-to-2013-low-energy-markets.html
21 Aug: Bloomberg Businessweek: Lynn Doan: California 2016 Carbon Trading Surges After Permits Sell Out
Futures contracts for a record 1.83 million 2016 allowances for December 2015 delivery cleared today on the IntercontinentalExchange Inc. (ICE:US), settling at $12.50 each, Brookly McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the exchange in Atlanta, said by e-mail. The previous high was 960,000 allowances on May 21.
“There is now conviction that this program will be here for a while,” Lenny Hochschild, managing director at the White Plains, New York-based environmental broker Evolution Markets, said by telephone.
California’s Air Resources Board sold all 9.56 million permits for 2016 at $11.10 each during an Aug. 16 auction, 39 cents above the clearing price of all previous sales, the agency said in a report on its website today…
The sellout for 2016 permits “really shows that these companies, probably the big oil companies, are preparing for the longevity of this market,” Emily Reyna, senior manager of partnerships and alliances for the Environmental Defense Fund, said by telephone from San Francisco…
The agency (Air Resources Board) doesn’t disclose the names of winning bidders…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-21/california-carbon-allowances-sell-at-a-dollar-below-forecasts
10
14 instances of “resilient”/”resiliance” in this single article! could some academic please do a study to find out when “robust” turned into “resilience”?
NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers all involved in this story (read it all) cos it will no doubt be coming soon to a coastal community near u!
20 Aug: CNS News: Susan Jones: Gov’t. Remapping of Sandy-Damaged Areas May Curb Coastal Development
If your seaside home or business washes away in a coastal storm, will you be allowed to rebuild? Or would sand dunes in place of buildings make the area more “resilient”?
The federal government announced on Monday that it is remapping storm-damaged areas of the East Coast, a move that will contribute to new “resilience standards” for the post-Hurricane Sandy rebuilding effort…
Resilience Institute
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell went to New York last week to announce the establishment of a new Science and Resilience Institute at Sandy-ravaged Jamaica Bay, in Queens. She also announced a $100 million competitive grant program to build “safer and more resilient communities.”…
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/govt-remapping-sandy-damaged-areas-may-curb-coastal-development
10
Totally off-thread but worth a wry smile at the least.
From ‘Money Morning’
Al Gore Won’t Like This
Thursday, 22nd August 2013 – Melbourne, Australia
By Kris Sayce
In 2010, Al Gore was looking for an office building in New York City. It was to house his firm, Generation Investment Management. The VP settled on the new Bank of America Tower in the Bryant Park area of Manhattan.
At the ceremonial opening of the building in 2010, VP Gore said:
‘Any serious effort to solve the climate crisis must start with recapturing the enormous amounts of energy wasted due to inefficiency. Roughly 30 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions here in the United States come from heating, cooling, and lighting buildings. I’m honored that my firm, Generation Investment Management, is based here and I applaud the leadership of the Mayor and all of those who helped make this possible.’
The Bank of America Tower was the standard for green buildings. But three years later, VP Gore may not be so enthusiastic about the Bank of America Tower…especially if he read a recent article in the New Republic…
Beware the ‘Toxic Tower’
Just three weeks ago, the New Republic reported:
‘Gore’s applause, however, was premature. According to data released by New York City last fall, the Bank of America Tower produces more greenhouse gases and uses more energy per square foot than any comparably sized office building in Manhattan. It uses more than twice as much energy per square foot as the 80-year-old Empire State Building.’
Oh dear.
That is a surprise. One of the world’s supposedly greenest and most environmentally friendly buildings turns out to be a ‘Toxic Tower’.
Interestingly, VP Gore’s investment firm still resides at the Bank of America Tower. We wonder if the ‘Veep’ is still honoured to be based there.
30
Manfred –
Tim Flannery’s always good for a laugh too:
5 Aug: BigPond: One in 10 Aussies now use solar power
‘A revolution that nobody expected has occurred over the last four years in solar,’ the head of the Climate Commission Professor Tim Flannery told AAP on Monday…
In a new report, The Climate Commission predicts solar could be providing a third of the Australia’s total energy needs by 2050…
Gone are the days when solar went to bed at night, with better grid management meaning energy can be called on day or night.
Prof Flannery said at the rate things are going, electricity bills could become an ‘ancient memory’.
‘I can see the day when you’ll buy a solar capacity on your house, no one will have to pay electricity bills anymore, it will just be part of your household furniture,’ he said…
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Environment/2013/08/05/One_in_10_Aussies_now_use_solar_power_893652.html
20
not so funny…watch your Super/Retirement Funds:
21 Aug: Bloomberg: Sally Bakewell: Green Bonds to Top $9 Billion on Buffett’s MidAmerican Boost
With $6.03 billion of bonds sold since January, the securities are on course to surpass $9 billion this year, beating the record $7.5 billion sold in 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Issues include $1 billion by MidAmerican Solar, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett-controlled Berkshire Hathaway (BRK/A)’s Mid-American Energy Holdings Co., to build and operate the Solar Star projects in California. The European Investment Bank has sold $1.3 billion of green bonds this year.
Investors are snapping up bonds to finance the global expansion of clean energy, promoted by governments from the U.S. to China to tackle climate change…
The debt, issued by development banks or by project sponsors themselves, offers investors an alternative to volatile equities while boosting funding prospects for developers as nations from Spain to Romania have reined in support for the industry.
“There is a rising demand on the part of U.S. insurance companies, money managers and pension funds for quality infrastructure and project finance projects,” Nasser Malik, head of global structured debt at Citigroup Inc., which underwrote 50 percent of the MidAmerican Solar bond, said by phone Aug. 19…
Green bonds analyzed in a survey by Bloomberg New Energy Finance include debt issued by development banks or international finance institutions where the issuer’s funds are used to repay interest…
The MidAmerican Solar bond, issued by Solar Star Funding LLC to finance the $2.75 billion, 579-megawatt project, has a 5.375 percent coupon. The notes mature in 2035. It was priced June 20, a day after U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled the central bank may start dialing down its unprecedented bond-buying program this year.
“It was literally priced the day after Bernanke’s now famous statement that began the roiling of the credit markets globally,” Malik said. “Investors will appreciate the merits of investing in this space based on relative value, the secured nature of many financings and duration.” …
Institutional investors such as insurance and pension funds are the largest buyers of project bonds, according to disclosed holdings surveyed by BNEF. American International Group Inc. is the top holder, with $308 million since 2011…
“We have now entered the age of bonds,” Sean Kidney, chief executive officer at the Climate Bonds Initiative, a non-profit organization promoting low-carbon investment, said by e-mail. “If we are to get real finance to get these industries at scale, we have to engage with capital markets.” …
“We’ve identified a $142 billion slice of the global clean-energy pipeline that we believe could be securitized into project bonds, and nearly $100 billion of that is from European offshore wind installations,” Salvatore said…
The World Bank Group unit plans to continue to issue $1 billion each year in green bonds, said Evelyn Hartwick, who leads the green bonds program.
“What the green bond is doing is providing a AAA asset to investors without the risk of the project, while also giving investors the opportunity to channel funds into the sectors that they want to develop,” she said by phone. “Investors are more interested in fixed income than in equity investments because there is less risk.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/green-bonds-to-top-9-billion-on-buffett-s-midamerican-boost.html
00
97% of those making a living off CAGW believe in CAGW; but what about the rest?
I have a question some statisticians may be able to answer. The trend in Jo’s first chart shows the media activity relating to climate change has about halved during the first 8 months of 2013. (You can see it better on the chart here and can change the time scale to focus in on 2013) If the trend continues, the media’s interest will have virtually ceased by mid next year.
But my question is about whether or not we could draw a conclusion about the proportion of people who are concerned about CAGW. Could we conclude that 97% of those people who do not have a financial interest in CAGW, are not overly concerned about CAGW?
30
Noticed all the same old lines coming out of the Green Group of warmists above – which is turning out to be the same old jargon, links, references etc. They are all linked financially to the CAGW propaganda.
On a much smaller scale, today I was with a small group of workers, truck drivers, concretors, backhoe drivers, labourers, steelies, tar (monkies) guys, and various other professions involved with development of land, that revealed the current acceptance of being able to talk about the CO2 and Global Warming scare. Normally this subject was just glossed over with a few jokes, anger on electricity bills, windmills etc, but now all are very anti the new renewable/ sustainable/ green/ targeted/ future growth/ codswallop energy junk being fed to them. They don’t want turbine farms and solar farms in Queensland, they know the electricity bills are increasing because of rebates to solar and the green grants. Some of these guys are using gas barbques for cooking, wood stoves for heat and financially feeling the pressure of increasing fuel and power prices as many rent and can’t get the rebates.
Also another big gripe was their bag limit on fishing trips has been reduced, where once they’d catch heaps, fillet and freeze the catch, then share with all their family and mates for months, now that’s all gone. Michael can taste test seafood in 32 countries and write a discourse on his preferred species compatibility to different low CO2 footprint wines internationally. Now these guys have to buy Ling for Vietnam, or Thailand. Work that out???
But the most noticeable factor is the majority are bagging the CO2 tax, the Greens and government openly now and they don’t care what other people think of it. The rebellion is close in these circles, and the punishment will be in Australia at the polls. These workers are all suffering in their wallet, they haven’t traveled to 32 countries in the last year, they can’t even afford to go to Bribie Island, and they hate being lied to. They are not on twitter, facebook or blogger – but I make sure they get all the info from this and other sites regularly now, they don’t believe the bullshLit that’s going on. (about 1/2 a ream of paper per month gets printed and distributed on all my truck driving visits). They love learning abut electricity, plate tectonics, ocean alkalinity facts, government, money etc, but mainly facts, and not the 97% of government propaganda being spread through the MSM.
The best question I start with is why do power station generators run at 3,000 rpm? Then it’s on, and I hand out you know who’s description. Then after this is more information that I glean from here. Don’t ask me about synchronizing solar with normal etc, I just print that stuff.
I can see this whole CAGW scam been close to shut down within the next year or so, especially after all the garbage that has been rammed down our necks. Most are Union blokes and they reckon even their Unions are on the band wagon with this.
But to finish off, they are asking questions all the time, and want answers, not hardship. They will put up with anything, but will not cop waste, pink bloody batts, wind mills, and increasing bills when times are tough, as the truth tends to get out there.
60
Dave,
Thanks for a very encouraging comment.
I hope you can find people to assist you to spread the word. Others who can communicate like you obviously can and who are constantly in contact with lots of people. We need people like you to build a network like the pyramid schemes (Amway, Tupperware, etc.).
But there’s only two weeks left so it will have to be done quick to be effective.
30
Peter,
Every day, every week, every person.
Most don’t know the facts. Like Tony below in his comment it takes time, but it WORKS.
And is still working. I won’t give up, or bloggers like Jo etc are wasting their time. The most valuable comments are by the warmists, with their condescending attitude, (I travel to 32 countries around the world – WTF), bloody repetition of 97% of scientists know everything, and WE are ignorant. I can tell you it’s not working with the “average” Australian. The gloss has gone, even in QLD, where some of my mates are getting photo’s of the last ALP PM, just to show people “Look – here’s the bloke I shafted!”
He even said if “WE don’t vote for the ALP we’re UN-AUSTRALIAN“, the bloody stuck up piece of POO that he is.
The CAGW people are parasites and will be sorted out very soon.
30
Thanks Dave.
Say, here’s something I really would like to know. I’ve had opinions from everyone I know personally, that range from puzzlement, disbelief, right up to being called an outright liar.
Don’t tell them.
Just ask this one question.
How much CO2 is given off from the burning of one ton of coal?
See if anyone gets even close.
The correct answer is (on average) 2.86 tons.
Watch the looks on their faces when you tell them.
I’m not going to go over it here again, but there’s a guide at the link below, if you want to print it out for them.
The quick reply is to reference the C for Carbon to the O2 for oxygen, so two atoms of Oxygen for one atom of Carbon, and if you know the early part of the Table of elements we all learned in year one at High School, and you only need to know the first 8 of them, you’ll know that Oxygen is just a bit heavier than Carbon so two Oxygen + one Carbon equals 3+, and as coal is basically all Carbon then that figure of 2.86 is the right answer.
It’s absolutely astounding the number of people I tell who call bulltish as their reply, until I explain it.
Try it out.
Here’s the link to the Post of mine from December of 2008, and I have links in that which are more definitive than just my saying it.
Why Does One Ton Of Coal Make 2.86 Tons Of Carbon Dioxide?
This one Post gave me cause for the most doubt I have ever had, because even though I chased it up from wherever I could find out, it still sounded so outrageous.
To this days, it is one of the most viewed Posts at that site, and every day is in the top three posts viewed.
Tony.
20
So what? It just shows you how unscientific most so called skeptics are and how easily led down the wrong path they can get. Most real science is amazing and extremely unintuitive. Take for example the silly skeptic argument that CO2 cannot have an effect in the atmosphere because it is only a small amount, again totally ignoring the fact that in science it is common for tiny amounts to have big substantial effects, the whole world is built upon the interactions of extremely small amounts. Did you know that we are 99% space? Yep, apparently going on fake skeptic logic we should just fall apart.
05
Did you know you are 99% tool?
10
So, D&^%khead, why is Tony wrong?
10
You speak for yourself , Mr. 99% space man
30
“… the whole world is built upon the interactions of extremely small amounts.”
Huge amounts of extremely small amounts!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
10
I think, KuhnKat thasts over his head, a million times one is as much as a million, probably still over his head, but feck, Im grappling with experimental statistics and Ive no idea where “sphericity” leads us, so who am I to preach?
10
No, most real science is amazingly intuitive. Science, especially the physical sciences have a wonderful simplicity and elegance. Almost everybody has heard of E=mc2. That simple and elegant formula describes the energy within each atom, and the energy within the entire cosmos. Look up Occams Razor, for what I mean by simplicity and elegance.
I have never seen that argument expressed anywhere else but some of the alarmist sites. The skeptical argument is that the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 is extremely small, when compared to all of the natural sources of CO2, including the oceans, plant exhalation, thermal and volcanic activity, etc. Obviously, every molecule of CO2 will have the same potential effect, therefore the anthropogenic portion will have a proportional effect. The real issue is that nobody has yet devised an empirical way of placing all of the relative proportions into perspective.
I would be interested to know which branch of science you are referring to, in that statement.
What do you mean by “space”? Do you mean a vacuum? Are you referring to intercellular gaps? Or perhaps the “space” between the nucleus of an atom and its electrons (assuming that you think of atoms as consisting of “particles” rather than vibrating energy “strings”)? And what mechanism would cause us to “just fall apart”?
20
I’ve made the argument here on Jo’s site for several reasons and Michael has never rebutted other than hand waiving:
1. the propaganda value of warmists stating “40% increase” instead of showing the assumed pre-industrial and present atmospheric quantity as a decimal (or even percentage overall) of the atmosphere. The change is roughly .00026 to .0004 and the amount attributed to humans is even less than the difference.
Why is this important?
2. Because warmists, including Michael, do not produce evidence of why water in all forms wouldn’t overwhelm and or counteract any effect CO2 would cause. Water vapor is assumed to be on average .04 in the atmosphere. The water cycling in the atmosphere moves massive amounts of energy around in a dynamic rapid response. It likely dwarfs any effect of warming that CO2 might cause and I’ve yet to see any proof otherwise.
3. It therefore is not “silly” to remind people about the extremely small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Warmists would like you to believe that water in all forms and the energy it transports is well measured, well understood, and even sillier; is imagined to be amplifying warming. They have no proof of the latter and absolutely no way to accomplish the former.
Water makes up 71% of the surface of the globe. It is the elephant in the room when discussing climate.
10
Still really silly and has nothing to do with science, the natural world is full of the long term and significant effects of small amounts. Iron in the body which by weight is about .006%, too little is bad for you and too much is bad for you. Or ozone which is .00006% of the atmosphere but it still protects us from UV and we were still destroying it with our puny emissions of CFC’s. In science it is the effect that counts. The atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen which is basically inert to outgoing infra red so, after water vapour (which we don’t control), CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas. Its effect in absorbing and re-radiating certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation is proven by the physics, proven experimentally and can be measured by satellites.
Also as you have said, the effect of water vapor is nearly instantaneous and short lived. It reacts and lasts about 1 to 2 weeks. CO2 has a long term sustaining effect of hundreds to thousands of years. So water vapor reacts to changes in CO2 and temperature and so its short term effect is not overwhelming anything. The atmosphere is not even close to being overwhelmed by anything, go to venus to see that.
So consider yourself now rebutted. You must have really missed me and desperate to get me back into the conversation to come to such an old post to bait me back in.
05
So to sum up what you say, you will get sick and die if you don’t get enough of certain substances (iron for instance) and there are all sorts of things in the natural world that can kill you if you have too much.
Carbon dioxide feeds the entire food chain. If we found that we could get rid of it tomorrow, and we did, to save the planet, then we would all die within a matter of weeks – or up to a year, at the outside, although the extended timeframe would not be pleasant, what with all the rioting, and all.
At the end of the day, we all die. Something will kill you Michael. It may be an insect bite, or it may be a Mac truck, or it may be a simple virus. Likewise, there is something out there that will kill your children, or even your grandchildren, if you have kids who survive that long. That is what life is about. Constant renewal, and infinite adaption.
And that is what frightens you, isn’t it? What if we can’t adapt? What if the world cannot adapt to us? Well, we know we can adapt, because we cycle generations very quickly, in comparison to the geological age of the planet, and we are, as we are today, because this is where our adaptions have ended up.
And there is evidence that the world adapts as well. The sun goes through cycles that can last for a decade, or for thousands of years, and you can see those changes in the geology, ice cores, and paleographic records. CO2 has been much higher than it is today, and the world had lush vegetation that eventually got laid down as sediment that turned into coal. But as the sun’s cycles change, the earth reacts, and the flora and fauna (including our ancestors) adapt as well. We come along, and dig up the coal, and burn it, releasing the carbon dioxide, and we go back to having lush vegetation, and the fauna will adapt to that as well.
But the idea of adaption is anathema, isn’t it? It is an option that the political considerations behind climate change refuses to acknowledge.
True science considers all options, and all timeframes, and that is why Climate “Science” is not actually a real science at all, because it discounts subject areas, and evidence, that doesn’t fit the current theory.
40
Sort of, and not quite. Basically you have not put forward any logical or scientific argument at all. You go on to say I want to get rid off all CO2, that is not what I said at all. Lets use the iron example. To much will kill you, but also TO LITTLE will also kill you. It is a question of balance. The natural CO2 carbon cycle was what I promote, we are ADDING TO THE NATURAL CYCLE with previously sequestered fossilised CO2. Hence the increase by 40% over a minuscule time frame geologically speaking.
Your other claims are just nonsense talk. Sea levels are rising, floods, droughts and heat waves are on the rise, the lowering of ph and oceean warming is causing strain on the ocean etc. All of these things will cause unnecessary pain and suffering to future generations, even in small amounts (already occurring). Depending on how bad it gets it can cause massive pain and suffering. So yes we are already trying to adapt, but already it isn’t enough. So unless you only care about yourself then it is something we need to take into account as a consequence of our greed and selfishness. If it doesn’t bother you then it doesn’t bother you, I can’t change that, but yes, it does bother me.
04
I’m sorry, sea levels were rising before industrialization right?
I’m sorry, your proof? What about hurricanes this year?
Again, please tell me the empirical global average ph AND the normal range of variation? (nice that you didn’t say acidification). Very nice of you.
30
I have given this proof repeatedly, in regards to heat waves, hot days over cold day records, rise in extreme precipitation and much more. As to hurricanes, the IPCC did not predict a rise in hurricanes. You are debunking something not expected, they do expect a rise in intensity and we have seen evidence for that.
Sea levels: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
They have risen and fallen many times in the past, why is the question, your assertion is irrelevant. Current science says that the increasing rise in sea levels is due to melting caused by AGW.
“Since the industrial revolution, ocean acidity has increased by 30%. Is increased CO2 to blame for this increased acidity?”
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/7a.html
04
Well if you call that lame example a rebuttal when it lacks peer reviewed references.
Silly! It is constantly replenishing itself! You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding with regard to water cycles. “Lasts one to two weeks”. Silly and absurd.
The rest is even sillier ranting I’ll ignore. What happened to the Michael of Science?
40
You do not understand what you are talking about. Also if you are going to demand peer reviewed references you are going to need to reply with them.
“Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide(CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperaturestructure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/330/6002/356/DC1
“CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not con-dense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that re-spond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precip-itating.”
“Furthermore, the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is exceed-ingly long, being measured in thousands of years.”
04
Lets start with clarifying what you are saying. You are saying that:
Firstly, this explanation could not be describing the global atmosphere. I invite you to explain if you disagree. There is nothing about the water cycle that is “short lived”. It is a constant relentless event. Evaporation is continuous from open water and sublimation from ice and snow. This process cannot be described as “short lived”. Then there are clouds and you should not limit the discussion to “vapor” as I have regularly said “water in all forms” ……..
Now on to the paper that you quote this from. It reads (as I expected) as biased opinion from confirmed believers. It is not unbiased science, it is reworking model inputs then claiming eureka! We have empirical evidence. Well it does not. The models are and always have been limited by their builders bias. The assumptions are still there, the modelers assume that vapor is a feedback not a forcing. The author is absolute in his statements. See: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/09/atmospheric-co2-the-greenhouse-thermostat/ for much more than I want to type.
It is you that apparently do not understand the unscientific bias of the authors you quote from.
20
I don’t find any evidence in your post that the paper is wrong. Please provide some peer reviewed rebuttal that shows with empirical evidence how it is wrong. Water vapor does have an almost instantaneous effect in the climate to changes in temperature. It goes up condenses and comes back down, the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor dependent on temperature. Yes it is a constant event but it does not cause the overall warming imbalance on its own, it more reacts to a forcing and amplifies it. CO2 on the other hand becomes part of the carbon cycle, as we continuously add more and more of previously sequestered fossil CO2 from millions of years ago it is causing a relentless increase of its concentration in the atmosphere. This extra amount will stay around producing a relentless continuous forcing effect for hundreds of years and is not quickly permanently removed from the cycle. Hence the 40% increase since industrialisation. You do not find this with water, it does not hang around to cause a long term forcing.
If my understanding expressed above from the paper is incorrect then please refer me to some actual science and an actual scientific description rather than just ad hom attacks on me, peer reviewed papers and actual publishing scientists.
02
OK, I don’t find anything compelling or new from the warmist Lacis either. Just because you link to it does not make their conclusions right. What is interesting is to compare your multiple admonishments for us “cherry picking because of confirmation bias” yet you don’t look skeptically at this paper? C’mon you can do better.
30
We’ve been through this “zero CO2 would make a snowball” idea before. I can’t fully fathom at the moment what the upshot or sticking point of it all was, and it is far too late at night for me to start now, but that link is there just to avoid rehashing old arguments (or if we do, at least make them more succinct).
Quite possibly it comes down to Michael believing that without CO2 all the water of the ocean and atmosphere would suddenly cease absorbing radiation across a wide range of frequencies. He seems to ignore the self-sustaining nature of water vapour in the presence of sufficient insolation.
10
Andrew as I understand the Earth has been in an icebound state in the past, a so called snowball earth. From what I have read we got out of this snowball earth due to CO2 from volcanos slowly creating a greenhouse effect and warming the earth. Obviously this is theory as it happened a very long time ago, but then everything about the earths long history is based on proxies and theories.
I always thought that the greenhouse effect was accepted here and everybody agrees it keeps our planet warmer than it would have been. I have looked at both skeptics handbook and I am sure i remember that it is accepted.
02
MTR,
This is brilliant stuff, not since the great Adam Smith has my inbox been so cluttered with spam.
I love the way you create your own little reality as if it was fact and then smoothly and seamlessly take that reality one step further to prove your point.
For example your comment above you state (with a straight face)
Exactly where did you read this Michael, SKS perhaps?
This is true but the proxies we do have show clearly when we come out of an ice age the temp rises then ice begins to melt releasing large amounts of WV which i shall remind you is the most powerful GHG then 800 odd years later the co2 begins to rise.
therefore CO2 plays no part in what causes the planet to warm……..then when we enter an ice age the temp begins to drop, more ice less WV temp drops more then 800 odd years later CO2 begins to fall so CO2 once again plays no part in causing the cooling.
But of course you read somewhere something different so facts be damned what *you* read is what really happened.
I dont think i have ever come across someone so stupid as you.
30
Actually I am surprised (or maybe I shouldn’t be) that you are not aware of this hypothesis. It is fairly well known and accepted. For a good book on the planet earth history I would point you to ‘the resilient earth’ by Hoffman and Simmons as an entertaining read. They are on your side to so you should have no objections. I find the history of Planet Earth fascinating as it shows that there is no natural state, that mass extinctions and disasters are common and occur easily and thereby that the balance that we have of a very habitable and sustaining planet for 7 billion humans is precious and fragile.
I notice that you still do not understand the ice ages and the orbital cycles that cause them and the role of CO2 in amplifying their effects. Also recent science tells us that the gap was not that big and was not consistent between hemispheres, where CO2 lagged in NH but it was CO2 that occurred first in the SH.
01
Yes Michael, I most certainly believe that about your cranium.
Why am I replying to such an old post? Well Michael, I am running through all of your posts here looking for the peer reviewed science. I have gotten this far and have yet to find any.
20
Thanks Tony,
I have had mixed responses, but overall most just love to learn. I myself 4 years ago posted on Jo’s site and said that each tonne of pure carbon when burnt yielded 3.66 recurring tonnes of CO2 (thought I did really well at the time working out atomic weights). You and a few others corrected me with facts on the average CO2 emissions per tonne of coal burnt was in reality 2.86 tonnes as an industry average. There was no rudeness, just fact and information, from that point on I realised I knew very little (nothing) about the production of electricity in Australia.
From that day on, thanks to this site, people like Michael, KR, et al have become just mouthpieces for their financial gain only. His reply above has already been printed and will do the smoko rooms tomorrow, where I can say they’ll get a good laugh. When ever I comment on him he just pronounces his superiority, knowledge, links and money that he ever actually answers any questions at all (especially yours). He has forgotten that the average DAVE and my little circle is growing angry at his disdain of our willingness to learn about this subject.
Silly little digs like “Did you know that we are 99% space?”.
Michael – where’s your peer reviewed paper on 99% space claim? You know you are wrong, don’t you. Amazing how accuracy by the 97% of smart Green people is unimportant in deriding the dumb ones (Australians). This is great, Michael, so much printing to do.
Do you know how much space there is actually in WE (or you or me (or is that I)?
P.S. I print of a lot of the comments here, some are better than the local newspaper. Too many to name, but becoming popular.
40
So, you don’t believe me? lol. I thought as much.
06
Still have know idea what benefit in temperature terms reducing CO2 emissions has in Australia?
lol. I thought as much.
50
Same question, same answer.
Not sure if you are having trouble reading or understanding. Like I said, the whole point is in reducing emissions. The whole point is the 160 million tonnes of CO2. Why? Because temps are rising, because sea levels are rising, because the Arctic, glaciers, greenland and Antarctica are melting, because heat records broken are beating cold records 3 to 1 during the day and 5 to 1 at night, because extreme precipitation events are up 7% per degree, because extreme weather like droughts and floods are occuring more often and at record levels, because ocean warming and acidification are putting our ocean health at risk, and much more.
You still don’t get it, do you. If you have a crystal ball or a climate control machine then please share, those of us based in reality do not know how fast and how bad it can get and since the predicted consequences are already occurring we want to mitigate how bad they will get.
“The world experienced [snip. thread bombing redundant filler] ED
08
Resorting to repeating your non-answer, cut and paste from your activist script?
I find it amusing that you advocate spending trillions of dollars to lower emissions but are completely oblivious to what effect that would have on temperatures. It really is reasonable to know the potential effect of the money spent. You might be happy to flush other people’s money down the toilet in the name of gaia but many of us here are not.
Your oft repeated comment is straight from the activist song sheet. You are really no different to Black[snip]the4th with your pre-prepared script and carpet bombing tactics.
60
I find it disgusting that you refuse to acknowledge the real reason why we need to reduce emissions. That you are so blind to the damage that your promotion of delay is causing. You play games with numbers and small amounts as if they mean something while displaying your lack of ethical and moral compass for doing something for the sake of [snipping] ED.
—–
REPLY: “Disgusting”? Not at all. And your “Real reason” — is a non-sequiteur — you have provided no real reason. MtR you are the one playing games. The question about Temp avoided was simple, and you’ve dodged it and tossed back righteous indignation. – Jo
04
I remember when I was 19 discussing the coming era of what we now call the internet….back in the Seventies. The phrase cut-n-paste didnt mean what it does now. He meant some granny preserving newspaper cuttings. But he more or less said we’d see people with cut-n-paste excuses for minds.
How prescient he was.
Mind you, a few years later I wrote a paper in which I pretty much predicted sites like Tumblr (no missing E that time) …so beat that !!!
40
Piss off idiot. I have acknowledged MANY TIMES that the purpose of the ETS and RETs is to reduce emissions. My question was to
will reducing emissions have?
Stop deflecting with your moralising and accusations of not caring.
Last chance D$%#khead. WHAT IS THE EFFECT ON WARMING BY REDUCING EMISSIONS. If there is no answer, then there is no point throwing money at a non-problem, and I will continue to argue against any policy that spends OUR MONEY for no apparent benefit.
Good. Be disgusted. I don’t care.
30
Heywood,
I believe Professor Roger Jones (a devout member of Team Warm) of Melbourne Uni did the sums. From memory the resultant temperature offset was about 1/4000 of 1 degree C. I’ll chase it up and post when I find it.
40
If it was about the effect on temperature then obviously who cares, if that was all it did. It is about the
that is the real issue, and what we can do to mitigate the problems future generations will have to face. Our moral and ethical responsibility is to do what we can for the sake of humanity. It is a global problem, it reaquires global solutions, and every solution starts with one step. What we do is added to what Norway is doing, what China is doing, what the US with Obama are doing etc etc. Your ‘not my problem I am only a wee little man (I agree)’ is the real problem for future generations.
06
FFS AAD.
Let’s talk causation.
What is the direct cause of the effects you mention; “because sea levels are rising, because the Arctic, glaciers, greenland and Antarctica are melting” etc etc. ?
Another way of looking at it,
CO2 Emissions causes ______(Blank)_______ which, in turn, causes sea level rise, melting of ice, fire and brimstone etc etc….
Fill in the blank.
40
Michael the Delusional,
you have finally made a statement that can be investigated. You say it is NOT about the temperature but about CO2’s effect on the Climate.
Please explain to all of us ignorant deniers how CO2 affects the climate and why it matters to us!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Heywood, you are being too scientifically rigorous for this buffoon!! Ya gotta keep it at more of a childlike level so he can comprehend.
50
Rastuz,
Yeah, I have that reference. I’m just waiting to see if AAD (That’s Arrogant Annoying D&^khead AKA Michael) acknowledges that himself.
21
Micheal Monkey
There is utterly no rational argument for “caring” about “future generations”. These hypothetical entities do not exist. They are something in your head.In other words, the basis for your ideation is not physics but metaphysical.
Put that another way, give me one good reason why I should give a shit?
20
Well I think the whole comment speaks for itself. You actually have to care further than yourself to see why we need to care. Future generations to me mean my kids, my grandson and granddaughter on the way. I have examined the science, the data, observations, travelled, looked and opened my eyes. After examining skeptic arguments and finding out that they are mostly bluster I have come to the conclusion that the scientific view as understood by 100% of internationally recognised scientific organisations, the 97% of qualified and practising scientists and the vast majority of the science is correct. In that respect my feelings as a human being and father kick in and I try to do as much as I can to get the truth out.
06
Michael has a monopoly on ‘the science’ because (non-scientist) Cook the Books conjured him a magic figure to bandy about. That makes him so right he misses the absurdity of his position.
50
It seems that Michael has no faith that future generations will adapt just as past ones have always done. It’s hard to imagine how he could have arrived at such a jaundiced view.
On the other hand , he may just be full of shit.
20
Can’t fill in the blank Michael the Activist [self snip]???
I get a feeling that the true temperature offset is so pitifully small, you are embarrassed to say.
20
“Is it the OMG generation that cannt cope with the idea of any real adaption ?”
Climate adaption will be nothing to the hardship coming as economies wake up go the profligate money supply practises in decadent western economies.
20
Looks like Michael the Delusional has NO EXPLANATION of his ludicrous assertion that CO2 affects the climate without temperature modification.
Michael the Delusional, when you start making bare assertions that you cannot support it is over.
10
Certainly KuhnKat.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It causes warming by absorbing the upwelling ir radiation emitted from the planet after it has been warmed by the suns uv radiation. It then re-emits that radiation in all directions, including down where it can be absorbed by another CO2 molecule or even the surface and reemitted again, the point being that it slows down its loss from the planet. This energy imbalance of energy coming in to its loss can be measured and has been shown that we are losing energy less than we are receiving it, hence energy increases.
Since the climate is based on ocean currents, atmospheric circulations and the like which are all affected by temperature differences between the land, atmosphere and the ocean, and because all three heat at different rates (land fastest, then atmosphere, ocean very slowly) then those currents and circulations and hence the weather and then in the long term the climate will change. The atmosphere will hold more moisture due to the increase in temperature and so this provides more moisture for extreme precipitation events (rain, snow and hail and has been shown to be increasing by 7% per degree). It also provides more moisture and energy for storms as well. Because the atmosphere is warmer this also means areas drought and heat wave prone before will get them more often and more extreme etc.
Hows that for a start? It affects you because you are a human being on this planet. For starters it will affect you directly with increased floods and heat waves already occurring, also increasing food prices due to the amount of crops destroyed due to extreme weather events in the last several years, and then further will be the increasing extreme weather, food prices and the like affecting future generations. Of course that depends on whether you care about family or future generations.
03
Michael @ #85.2.1.1.16:
The sun radiates a broad band of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum including radio frequencies, light frequencies, and x-ray frequencies. Basically, the sun outputs electromagnetic noise.
Objects on the surface of the earth will resonate to various portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Some will resonate to the part of the spectrum that we name ultraviolet light (above violet in the visible spectrum). Resonation at this frequency is not heat, as I will presently explain. Each object has a resonant frequency where it will absorb energy efficiently. Energy at non-resonant frequencies are only absorbed in square law proportion to how close they are to the resonant frequency. Energy at the resonant frequency can, and will be reradiated, but only within the resonant frequency band of the object. Thus the amount of energy reradiated at the resonant frequency, is always less that the total energy initially received. It is not possible for an object to have multiple resonant frequencies unless they are harmonics or sub-harmonics of each other. Such is not the case with Infrared and Ultraviolet light.
Now to the question of “heat”. Humans (and other animals) have organic sensors that register certain electromagnetic frequencies as heat (on the skin) light (through the eyes). and sound (via the ears). Heat, as a concept has no relevance to molecules. A molecule has a resonant frequency, that it will react to, as explained above.
The energy at the resonant frequency of a CO2 molicule can be shared with another CO2 molecule, but the law of conservation of energy, means that no extra energy can be created in that process.
As it always has, over multiple time frames. However, you fail to explain how you extrapolate this to mean, “in the long term the climate will change”. You describe well known phenomena, but fail to show the anthropogenic cause and effect for changes that do not follow the laws of physics.
30
Miss me, did you? I have left you guys alone for weeks and you come looking for me.
I think your whole argument can be boiled down to a logical fallacy. No scientist on the realist side (my side) has ever said energy is or can be created in that manner. This either displays on your part a deliberate attempt to mislead or shows that you do not understand the greenhouse effect. The planet receives most of its energy from the sun, it is not a closed system. It loses energy in the form of radiation from the top of the atmosphere. The temperature of the earth will be in balance when it is gaining energy at the same rate it is losing it. This has been measured to be not the case, it is losing energy at a slower rate than it is gaining it, with the drop in the same radiation bands as that absorbed by Co2. Hence the planet must be gaining in energy as more is coming in than going out. I cannot say it any simpler than that. Further information can be obtained by a good tutorial on the greenhouse effect. Please educate yourself.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
04
I didn’t think it was that hard to comprehend the question.
41
Heywood,
You may not have, but, that is because you are polite and not demeaning his lack of intelligence. 8>)
20
We already need to adapt to the changes we have already forced on current and future generations. The point is to mitigate any further damage to make sure that adaptation is not to expensive, destructive, painful or beyond what we can adapt to. Obviously if an area gets flooded so often it does not have a chance to rebuild, they will have to move. If to many areas get flooded or islands end up inundated mass migrations will take place. Droughts and heat waves affect the ability to grow crops consistently. Mass migrations and food security will cause issues with other countries and military have alreasy produced documents warning of these kinds of problems. As things get worse, for instance ocean health due to falling ph and warming then major food problems occur, as glaciers melt massive water problems occur as a large part of the world gets its fresh water from them etc etc. Your comment is a copout, its a ‘not my problem, let them deal with it’ answer. So typical in these forums. We cannot even deal with a tiny carbon tax and you want to foist the above on the world. We do not know how bad or how fast it will deteriorate, to just make the assumption ‘they will cope’ is not scientific, moral or ethical.
03
I said that adaptation is what current generations do. As a farmer , I accept that it is part of having a sustainable business.
Why will future generations not do likewise? Well , if they are like you , just a loser, then they will succumb : only the capable will survive. You have a problem with that?
20
Why on earth would we attempt to adapt to conditions that might prevail in an unknown future? You really are full of it.
20
As a human being, yes I do. So you are going with the prevailing ‘I’m alright Jack, everyone else can look after themselves’ response to the habitability of the planet for future generations.
Its not the future. Low lying islands are already in trouble, floods, droughts and heat waves are on the rise, crops are already failing, the US last year due to heat waves, Russia in 2010 lost so many crops they stopped exporting some goods etc. Open your eyes.
04
No Michael, he is not saying, “I’m all right Jack”. Please read what he typed again.
He points out that farmers have always had to adapt to changes in climate. Animals, over generations, also adapt to changes in their environment. It is one of the wonders of nature, that it is always and infinitely variable.
Sudden change – change that occurs in less than a generation, is problematic, but people will and do adapt, even to those changes. If the weather gets dryer, farmers will sow a different type of grass seed – one that is drought tolerant. It is what they have always done, and it is only people who live in urban boxes, who assume that the “countryside” is never changing.
10
Michael the Delusional,
In frustration you claimed
“HOW MUCH OF AN AFFECT ON TEMPERATURES
If it was about the effect on temperature then obviously who cares, if that was all it did. It is about the…”
So, first you said if it was just about the temps who cares. Yeah except a temp of 150c we would all care. You really are a moron doncha know.
So, I asked you how CO2 affected the climate and you come back with a book that starts:
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It causes warming by absorbing the upwelling ir radiation emitted from the planet after it has been warmed by the suns uv radiation. It then re-emits that radiation in all directions, including down where it can be absorbed by another CO2 molecule or even the surface and reemitted again, the point being that it slows down its loss from the planet. This energy imbalance of energy coming in to its loss can be measured and has been shown that we are losing energy less than we are receiving it, hence energy increases.”
Now, I will admit that the earth system can gain energy without increasing its temps BUT, you just explained the Classic Gorebull Warmers explanation for increasing temperatures, BUT, not the tipping point flopspot. Have you forgotten the flopspot flipper?? Without the flopspot you aren’t going to get dangerous temp increases.
I am waiting for you to run over to Real Climate where you can search and find their very excellent explanation of how the flopspot works!!!
Don’t take too long now y’hear??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
30
I try to explain things slowly for you and in depth, but you just don’t seem to be able to get it. As to temps, well obviously I was talking about the temp rises we have seen which regionally and on paper look small, but in reality and on a global basis are quite large, can cause massive changes regionally and have a huge effect on climate, as I explained.
Now I suppose that you have tired of misrepresenting the peer reviewed science and switched to misprepresenting me instead, but I thought that most people with English as their first langauge would have understood what I meant when I said.
“If it was about the effect on temperature then obviously who cares, if that was all it did. It is about the…”
But with little else you have resorted to childish word games. Well if that makes you happy…
04
This has been answered multiple times. If the moderator is deleting comments because of pointless repetition then it should apply to all posters not just those supporting the science.
Again, as I think you pointed out, you, the scientists, an opinion blogger, the IPCC and me all agree that it is not a unique fingerprint of AGW. So basically unless you have something new to add…
03
Michael, anytime you want to show how you are here for an honest conversation you can look through the personal emails I took the time to send you. You’ll find this link I suggested below. Perhaps you might read it before you prove again how little you’ve read on the site you spend so much time attacking. I hate to say it, but your heroes at sks forgot to tell you all the things that matter.
So is the hotspot a “fingerprint” or signature? Is it unique?
These people tell us it is a fingerprint:
CCSP Chapter Five Convening Lead Author: Benjamin D. Santer, DOE LLNL
Lead Authors: J.E. Penner, Univ. of MI; P.W. Thorne, U.K. Met. Office
Contributing Authors: W. Collins, NSF NCAR; K. Dixon, NOAA;
T.L. Delworth, NOAA; C. Doutriaux, DOE LLNL; C.K. Folland,
U.K. Met. Office; C.E. Forest, MIT; J.E. Hansen, NASA; J.R. Lanzante,
NOAA; G.A. Meehl, NSF NCAR; V. Ramaswamy, NOAA; D.J. Seidel,
NOAA; M.F. Wehner, DOE LBNL; T.M.L. Wigley, NSF NCAR
If you are concerned about misinformation, these are the people to write too.
10
” apart from believing action to be the best response for the future of my children.”
Action as opposed to doing nothing? Nobody would disagree.
But what form should that action take?
Arguably the best thing that one can do for one’s children is to arm them with knowledge, confidence in their own judgement , and a healthy skepticism.
Clearly it is impossible to know what specific challenges one’s children will face, just as it seems futile to try to engineer the world into a condition that one fondly imagines they will find conducive to happiness.
FB confesses to being deeply suspicious of those who claim to be promoting certain policies in the present “for the children and grandchildren” (and so on and on ) , over and above the general policy of “treading lightly” on the earth. There is just the faint whiff of neurosis about it.
Let the children grow.
00
Michael the delusional,
I guess my worst thoughts about you were correct. You STILL have not told us why ANY warming causes the Hot Spot and why we do not see one. instead you come back with a pile of horse manure like this:
“Nevertheless other measurements using weather balloons and correcting for winds have found it.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/full/ngeo208.html”
If you had actually read the paper and understood it you would KNOW that they only claim that their reanalysis cannot EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF A HOTSPOT!!
They did NOT find a Hot Spot caused by ANYTHING you MORON!!! They are claiming the POSSIBILITY is NOT EXCLUDED. What is the probability that there IS a Hot Spot based on this trash?? Oh, they didn’t tell you that??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You really don’t understand how impossible the AGW hypothesis is at this point do you.
20
I note Michael made no reply or acknowledgement that I was right on the fingerprint of the hot spot. Is he interested in the truth, or just in scoring points?
Does it bother him that the sites he reads that he assumes are true have been feeding him half-truths, or outright misinformation?
10
No, I didn’t miss you at all, but since you are now back, I do not want to leave your propaganda unchallenged.
(followed by an Ad Hom statement which demonstrates that you know that you don’t understand my thesis, but are unsure why).
And I didn’t say that you did. You really need to read, and understand, what people are trying to convey, before jumping into print.
You state that the planet is warmed by UV radiation from the sun. Since the sun outputs energy in a broad range of frequencies, that is a reasonable statement, but totally irrelevant to the rest of the conversation that follows.
Your assertion that UV could somehow be magically converted to IR, without loss, is just not feasible. They are different electromagnetic frequencies. The problem is that you do not understand the practical physics involved.
All you have is theory, isn’t it Michael. Where are the papers based on empirical experimentation and observation? Jo has been asking for these for nearly ten years now, and she has been given nothing, zilch, nada.
When you talk of the temperature balance, what does that include? And more to the point, what does it exclude? Temperature is a measurement of heat energy. That is a frequency band. It is a range of frequencies that we detect as heat, but they are no different to any other frequencies in the EM spectrum. How is the balance in those frequency bands, this week?
Are we pumping out more radio frequencies than we are receiving light frequencies? Perhaps we are measuring the wrong things? Or perhaps we are just modeling what we think might happen, and not measuring at all?
You state that the earth is losing energy at a slower rate than it is gaining it. Fine, but from your argument, it would appear that you believe that, at some idilic period, the energy inputs were actually in a steady state of balance, and remained so until the start of the industrial revolution! Do you have empirical evidence that demonstrates that?
We (real scientists) know that the sun is never stable. In fact, it is remarkably unstable in the electromagnetic energy it spews around. How can you achieve “a balance” when the primary (if not only) source of energy fluctuates wildly?
Unless, of course, you rely on that kiddy-teaching resource site as a definitive reference.
30
No. heat is not a particular ‘band’ or special type of ‘heat energy’. Every particle (unless it is at absolute zero) has kinetic energy, temperature is just a way that we quantify or measure it.
“These motions give the particles kinetic energy. Temperature is a measure of the average amount of kinetic energy possessed by the particles in a sample of matter. The more the particles vibrate, translate and rotate, the greater the temperature of the object.”
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/u18l1e.cfm
Yes you did. “The energy at the resonant frequency of a CO2 molicule can be shared with another CO2 molecule, but the law of conservation of energy, means that no extra energy can be created in that process.”
I wasn’t ‘back’, that post was a week and a half ago.
No magic involved, energy is constantly being transferred from one form to another and energy is not lost, just converted. Please provide peer reviewed proof that energy is lost from the system and where it goes and how. It is you misunderstanding the physics.
If it was that unstable and fluctuating wildly then we would not be here. Have a look at a tsi graph.
And a very strong one of over a hundred years, just like evolution, quantum physics, theory of relativity, plate tectonics… You reallllly don’t understand science.
“The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
01
Woops, must have left an extra blockquote in somewhere. I hope you will be able to understand which bit goes with what.
00
So, pure liquid water at 0 deg C is at “a greater temperature” than solid water at 0 deg C?
.
Way to go Michael. Last time we crossed swords I made a forlorn attempt to explain latent versus sensible heat to you (amongst other things). That’s before I gave up on you, and consigned you to Village Idiot status.
It’s somewhat comforting to have my original assessment confirmed – again.
10
Wow that is really scary, I have to stop posting on these sites, the lack of scientific understanding is depressing. You do realise that at the quantum level there is no such thing as solid, particles are always vibrating and moving. The wall I am banging my head against has particles moving inside with kinetic energy. Otherwise a metal would not be a conductor if the particles it was made of were actually solid, or have a temperature. I really don’t know where to go from here.
Totally unnecessary, Jo thought you guys might be less nasty if I say some more about myself but I am not convinced it will make any difference. I am a teacher in a care school for disengaged teenagers. I am not paid and get no benefit out of the climate change debate apart from believing action to be the best response for the future of my children. How about just keeping a discussion to the science or friendly, there is no benefit to continuous insults, it never progresses a discussion.
02
Well well, Michael,
I respect you for sharing that. You must have been playing dumb. Not that I am one to judge, I do it all the time.
I am an analyst, who works at the intersection of science and politics, with a specific interest in international security. I hold qualifications in Military Science, GeoPolitics, and Electrical Engineering.
Like you, I am not paid and get no benefit out of the climate change debate apart from believing that we need to look at the long term implications of decisions, rather than short-term fixes.
So, I start from the position that climate has always varied, and so the current changes may, or may not, be due to anthropogenic causes. If they are not, and we are still worried about the impacts, then all we can do is plan to adjust society to better cope with a warmer or colder world. That is my option 1.
If the changes are man-made, then we have two choices: we can attempt to change human behaviours, and human society, to decrease or stop the changes. That is my option 2. Or or we can plan to adjust society to better cope with a warmer or colder world, even if the changes are anthropogenic – i.e. the same actions as option 1.
Since we are still arguing over whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, it seems to me that actively focusing resources on option 1, right now, would be the most prudent thing to do. At least we would be pursuing something useful. Why waste time trying to prove the causation?
Anyway …
Yes. But let us not get into a discussion about whether they are really particles or vibrating strings of energy. We will be here for weeks.
Now, before we can meaningfully engage, we need to establish if we are we talking at the subatomic level – movements of electrons in a conductor – as you were with MV? Or are we working at the atomic and molecular level?
In the exchanges to date, I think you have been using “particle” at the subatomic level. I on the other hand have been using the word (probably incorrectly) to imply a hypothetical generic atom or molecule. Since we are talking about Carbon Dioxide, working at the molecular level seems more appropriate. Can we agree on that, and perhaps continue a friendly discussion on this thread?
10
Michael, thanks for sharing some personal info. I think it does help take the sting out of things — we are all real people.
Can I suggest with respect that that condescending tones are not helpful. Obviously this is going both ways. But if you are more careful with your reasoning before you turn on the scorn, you’ll earn more respect.
The term “solid” — as in solid-liquid-gas is something schools teach year 8s. In the context of this non-quantum discussion I do think “banging your head” about a quantum level interpretation of a standard accepted term is missing the point.
Nothing generates more angst that misplaced condescension.
10
Whoops! Misplaced this response to Michael.
” apart from believing action to be the best response for the future of my children.”
Action as opposed to doing nothing? Nobody would disagree.
But what form should that action take?
Arguably the best thing that one can do for one’s children is to arm them with knowledge, confidence in their own judgement , and a healthy skepticism.
Clearly it is impossible to know what specific challenges one’s children will face, just as it seems futile to try to engineer the world into a condition that one fondly imagines they will find conducive to happiness.
FB confesses to being deeply suspicious of those who claim to be promoting certain policies in the present “for the children and grandchildren” (and so on and on ) , over and above the general policy of “treading lightly” on the earth. There is just the faint whiff of neurosis about it.
Let the children grow.
10
If we now want to have a friendly scientific discussion, then a good place to start is a 4 (?) year old post on this site called “Is there any evidence?’
Here is the latest comment on that thread;-
Barry
September 6, 2013 at 4:33 pm · Reply
The evidence that the IPCC has always used to ‘attribute’ global warming to human activity is that their programmed models (CMIP3, I assume) could not accurately hindcast the warming of the last 50 years unless external forcing of Xw/m2 is assumed.
As the IPCC only knows of three potential sources for this forcing, and it didn’t come from variations in volcanoes or solar irradiance, it must have come from variations in greenhouse gases.
Many have pointed out that this says a lot more about both IPCC models and/or scientists’ ignorance of climate drivers than it does about fossil fuels.
The major weakness of the models is that they’ve never made any attempt to analyze or understand natural internal variability (such as ENSO, AMO, etc) relying on assumptions that all these natural events cancel each other out over time (but, how much time?).
However, this attribution argument has long been accepted as persuasive, particularly as the atmospheric warming has broadly coincided (with lots of lags and leads) with 50 years of increasing CO2 concentrations.
But everything has changed in the last few months!
Specifically, the model simulations have been proven wrong – by a country mile.
We now have even “Nature Climate Change” publishing a study (by WG1 luminaries) which shows that a combination of errors have caused CIMP5 models to be wrong by 400% over the last 15 years.
A stack of papers have established that the climate sensitivity used by the models has been exaggerated by 50% or more. Several years of global cooling have been attributed to once-ignored natural variation (La Nina and probably the PDO).
So now it’s all back to square one for WG1 of the IPCC. Their new attempt at attribution is to be revealed later this month.
10
The typical village Idiot pattern. Start with an idiot statement demonstrating (again) a complete lack of understanding of latent heat and sensible heat (amongst other things):
Thereby leaving the Idiot open to be shown up as the local idiot (again) with the simple rejoinder:
So, pure liquid water at 0 deg C is at “a greater temperature” than solid water at 0 deg C?
This goes entirely over the Idiot’s head, as it is a statement concerning latent heat, a subject about which the idiot has already demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.
So, having reached a point (again) where the idiot has backed himself into the corner of his ignorance (again), the idiot opts for his usual escape – change the subject (again):
Which, of course, has absolutely bloody nothing to do with the subject whatsoever, but at least – as far as the idiot is concerned – it saves the embarrassment of having to explain the original stupid statement.
.
And so it goes, Michael.
There is no point in me explaining that quantum mechanics has little to do with what we are discussing, because you will respond with a half a page cut and paste – which you won’t understand – explaining the relationship of quantum mechanics to the transfer of energy process known as “heating”.
You will almost certainly also demand a peer-reviewed, published paper to “prove” my claim that “quantum mechanics has nothing to do with heating”, which, of course, is not what I stated, but hell, in two weeks something as trivial as the truth hasn’t stopped you, why believe it will make any difference now.
.
I know you are thinking you are coming across as ‘oh so clever’, Michael, but you are not. You are simply reinforcing your self-imposed image as this blog’s resident Village Idiot.
So far, in the last two weeks, you have gone out of your way to display your complete ignorance about:
* – The nature of acids and alkalies and the chemical relationship between them.
* – The simple Water Cycle, as taught in primary school.
* – The observed and measured NET flow of energy in the earth’s biosphere system.
* – The operation of the Laws of Thermodynamics between unbalanced, open systems.
* – The Four Laws of Thermodynamics generally.
* – The difference between irradiated energy (photons) and sensible energy (joules).
* – The difference between the latent energy of phase change, and the accumulation of sensible heat.
* – The nature of energy generally.
.
Normally I would advise an ignorant troll like you quit while you’re behind, before you make it even worse for yourself. However, since I can’t imagine anybody ever making a bigger fool of themselves than you already have, you may as well keep going.
It’s not doing anybody any harm on this dead thread, and it’s sort-of morbidly fascinating to watch you continually outdo yourself in the Village Idiot stakes.
40
Personally I think this question is answered in the affirmative and we should only be discussing appropriate responses to make sure that future generations are not put into the situation that things get to bad for them to adapt to. This means we need to look at mitigation as well as adaptation. I am not wedded to any particular solution I just know that the solution will need to be more drastic the longer we wait and the consequences more painful. Things might not be as bad as predicted but the potential consequences are so bad that we cannot wait to find out.
I base this on information I have provided previously. To summarise, the long term warming trend over the instrumental record is definitely up. Being a realist I do not expect it to be consistently up, it is a complicated system with many factors and cycles at work, to think that is simplistic. The trend does show many pauses and even drops in the record but with an upward trend. In that respect I do not find any problem with what you call the current pause. Being a complicated system with many cycles of different durations from months, to years, to decades I do not look at it on a year by year basis. That is why I look at the decadel trend which show continuous increases for most of the last 100 years.
To explain the pause I find you only simply need to look at the ENSO data to have a very obvious explanation. The decade 1991 to 2000 was a decade of predominantly strong al ninos, known to warm the global climate, the following decade 2001 to 2010 was predominantly cooling la ninas. It also was subject to flat to cooling tsi and falling sunspot cycles. So for all intents and purposes it should have been strongly cooling. John Mcclean in a paper with several other skeptic authors said as much when they predicted 2011 would be as cool as 1956. The truth of the matter is that it was the hottest decade on record globally, over ocean, over land and on both continents, all at the same time. To me the question has been answered.
To me the skeptics case seems to be more focussed at finding any error or technicality at all to throw doubt on the theory and then that means the issue does not exist and we should do nothing. This I don’t find realistic. It IS a complicated system, there are effects that are unpredictable, there are cycles that are unpredictable but cancel out over time, so I have not found any definitive proof for any other cause for the consistent warming trend other than AGW. In that case we need to go on the basis of what our current science is telling us and not take the risk. All the other indicators of AGW, consequences and the like are occurring as specified before. To me the evidence is more predominantly weighed towards the science being correct. Most natural effects in hindsight can be measured and quantified and you cannot explain the warming without AGW.
03
Ok now onto the tropospheric hot spot. As I understand it, and what I was saying above when asking for proof that this was specifically part of AGW, is that the hot spot comes out of a consequence of any surface warming, not just AGW. Could be solar, or other type of natural forcing, including ENSO if I understand correctly.
I also understand that this has been found globally and in the tropics on shorter timescales.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
(John Christy is a co author here.)
It has also been found that different data sets produce different results and that research has shown that the most likely explanation is that their are errors in the satelite observations or calculations themselves. This makes sense as there have been errors before that when fixed have turned cooling trends into warming trends on satelites due to orbital decay, calculation errors, programming problems etc. Satelites are not full proof.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1551.abstract
Nevertheless other measurements using weather balloons and correcting for winds have found it.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/full/ngeo208.html
Long story short, it is not a crucial prediction of AGW that proves or disproves it and is a difficult little bugger to find and measure anyway.
————
REPLY: See my comment below. – Jo
03
Memory vault. I am not interested in conversing with such a nasty indiviual. You obviously have not read Jo’s skeptic handbooks as she gives short thrift to ad hominem attacks. I also do not accept you long list of dot points as they are all twisted misrepresentations of the actual arguments. If you are unable to have a civil adult discussion then you will have to have them with yourself.
13
Michael , you say –
“I base this on information I have provided previously.”
That is sly – you base it on your belief.
You have provided no information which confirms that the slight warming over the last 150 years, which we all agree has occurred , was not entirely natural. The fact is, that there does not, at this time, exist such confirmatory evidence.
If that warming trend continues , then 150 years from now , the world will be slightly warming than it is now. It is clear that you have some problem with that, something to do with your grandchildren.
You have provided no evidence that any other situation will prevail, yet you continue to state your belief that it will be problematic.
10
Michael , you say further ;-
… there are cycles that are unpredictable but cancel out over time, so I have not found any definitive proof for any other cause for the consistent warming trend other than AGW. ”
The trend is NOT consistent, and you acknowledge that fact.
This is what we call cherry picking. By considering only the warming of the last 150 years , you arrive at your conclusion of an unnatural forcing. By extending the period under consideration backwards to the time before the Little Ice Age, you can still hold that the natural cycles cancel out , just as you say, and nothing of any great consequence has occurred as far as global temperature goes , over the last 300 years or so. There has been warming and cooling, both quite natural.
So once again , using your very own reasoning , your fears for the future of your grandchildren are revealed to be groundless in the light of our present knowledge. You seem to be excluding the possibliity that there could be cooling over the next 150 years, which won’t be nice for everybody , but which would be a perfectly natural bicentennial cycle.
So the logical inconsistency of your position, using your own statements, is very clear.
10
Michael , there is no point in your attack on MV. He is not the person that you allege he is , and we all know that.
That does not mean that he should not be given a damn good thumping from time to time 🙂
But he has as little time for logical inconsistency as many others here possess.
10
Ooops , that should read – as little “tolerance” for logical inconsistency . . .
00
And so finally (yeah right) Michael, here is an elegant rebuttal (courtesy of RSCourtney) of the absurd position that you seem to have adopted:-
“The models assume climate varies because of internal variability. This is “noise” around a stable condition.
The models calculate that climate varies in determined manner in response to “forcings”.
Thus, a change to a forcing causes the climate to adjust so a trend in climate parameter (e.g. global temperature) occurs during the adjustment.
If these assumptions are true then
(a) at some times internal variability will add to a forced trend
and
(b) at other times internal variability will subtract from a forced trend.
Until now, the modellers have assumed effects of internal variability sum to insignificance over periods of ~15 years.
But the ‘pause’ has lasted longer than that. So, internal variability must be significant to climate trends over periods of MORE than 15 years if the ‘pause’ is an effect of internal variability negating enhanced forcing from increased greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Unfortunately, this is a ‘double edged sword’.
If internal variability has completely negated GHG forced warming for the recent about two decades, then
internal variability probably doubled the warming assumed to have been GHG forced over the previous two decades.
And that ignores the fact that warming from the LIA has been happening for centuries so natural variability clearly does occur for much longer periods than decades (as is also indicated by ice cores).
When that is acknowledged then ALL the recent global warming can be attributed to internal variability so there is no residual warming which can be attributed to GHG forced warming.”
Do you see now?
10
Hayseed;
Yes. My simple summary of the above has always been: “If natural variation is ever in control, it is always in control.”
20
Michael,
With reference to your #85.2.1.1.10, which was in answer to my opening of the kimono at #85.2.1.1.5.
Option 1 and Option 2 are not mutually exclusive (yes, my wording was not clear on that point — my bad)
Option 1 – Adaption – is a proactive response that is within our control to direct and manage. The tools already exist, within local government planning departments, to do geographical modelling for changes in sea levels, for example, and you can bet that current and future planning consents are already being based on that modelling.
The same sort of modelling can be done at the national and supranational level. We know how to do this stuff.
In the military, it is called “forward planning”, and time is spent in looking at multiple potential, possible, and even weird scenarios, and in deciding an appropriate set of responses to each one, so that there will be no need to panic on the day, as it were. The Pentagon has miles of shelving containing such documents.
Option 2 – Changing human behaviours, and human society, to decrease or stop the changes – is a much harder thing to do. In general, people resist change from what they know, and refuse to risk their current sense of security. The known is safe, the unknown is frightening. You will already know this to be true, from your work with disengaged teenagers?
Populations have tremendous inertia. One problem faced by all revolutionary leaders is how to overcome that inertia. How to move a population from what they know, and what is familiar, to a new political system, or a new culture and way of living? How to destroy the old culture and replace it with a new culture, because that is what option 2 actually entails. And the Climate Change meme is a revolution – Ban Ki-moon, has told us so.
The other problem faced by all revolutionary leaders, is how to retain control of the revolution once the inertia has been overcome and converted to momentum. Lenin started a revolution, but his faction lost control, leaving Eastern Europe in the hands of Stalin, and Beria, and others of their ilk.
Is that the future you want? Is the apparent comfort of doing something now (rather than planning and waiting to see what happens, and then adjusting), worth the risk of uncontrolled change for changes sake? For that is the direction we are currently pursuing.
Is that the future you want for your grandchildren?
21
“Is that the future you want for your grandchildren?”
Itai!
That was below the obi!
00
Michael the Delusional
.
There Michael, fixed it for you.
30
Rereke
There is already evidence that adaptation will be to difficult in most circumstances. Firstly, people who reject the science have been preventing and resisting rules to implement adpatation in a lot of circumstances. So it is only until it is to late to adapt that people that reject the science will allow most of that adaptation to take place. Also adaptation will be to expensive for most developing countries that have already been suffering from increasing floods, droughts and heatwaves. Lastly to believe that we can adapt as circumstances change assumes that we can predict what will occur (already a lot of things are occurring faster than predictions), and that they won’t happen faster than we are able to adapt. For instance there is evidence that the falling ph and warming of the oceans will occur faster than many of the marine life can adapt.
In regards to a revolution, this is more likely to occur if we do nothing and most of the predictions occur than if we do an orderly transition to renewables now. If we allow things like rising sea levels and their associated storm surges to inundate coastal communities, if crops keep failing due to droughts, heat waves, floods etc then wars will occur due to mass migrations, food security and the like. Just this kind of instability is what the military are already preparing for, and that is not a good thing.
04
Farmerbraun, I get in trouble for repetition, I have provided all of this previously.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Over 60 years of ENSO, roughly cancelling out to zero, the overwhelming majority of the strong el ninos were between the period of 1983 to 1998.
Over the entire period temps have risen more than half a degree. Solar over this period has been flat to falling. There was even a significant volcano over this period, Mount Pinatubo which also has a cooling effect. So what natural variation has caused this warming? Going back further gives you less information. To go all the way back to the LIA or MWP increases the uncertainties dramatically and there is clear evidence for natural factors causing these events. Because the climates changed before with mainly natural influences does not negate the ability for the climate to change now with mainly anthropogenic influences. That is a failure in logic, they are not mutually exclusive. Sciences job is to try to tease out the different influences, and to this date I have not been shown any proven substantive natural influences for the warming since 1880.
So greenhouse gases cause warming. This is proven and accepted by Jo. Co2 has increased due to mans emissions by 40%. Going on this basic science warming should occur, it has occurred. There are no natural influences to explain the warming, despite increasingly more accurate data and science. Hence AGW appears to be a correct theory, already happening, with consequences already occurring, as predicted, and there is no reason why we should not take significant actions to protect our environment for future generations before it is to late. Co2’s effect in the atmosphere will stay for hundreds to thousands of years, due to the slow permanent removal process of the carbon cycle.
Please outline specifically where my logic, based on reality and current data is wrong. Please try and avoid vague excuses, I accept that there is much variability in the climate and that there is much work to be done, but nothing changes the basic trends that fit the theory.
04
This logic is fatally flawed. Natural variation is continuously occurring. During periods when natural variation was virtually the only forcing on the climate (for about 99.9% of the planets history) then it will be the only forcing in control. During periods when man has been emitting CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, aerosols etc), cutting down forests, building cities etc then these changes will also provide an influence at the point that they occur. The ‘climates changed before’ argument is the most absurd argument that keeps getting put forward. It is not an argument, it is a fact, what factors are causing it to change now is the question.
05
“what factors are causing it to change now is the question.”
But you have the answer , right? Yeah right.
And you want others to believe , on the basis of the strength of your belief, a belief for which you are apparently unable to present a shred of compelling evidence, that natural variation is NOT responsible for nearly all of the climate change that has been observed.
That you hold such a belief with unerring conviction would suggest that you must know exactly how climate works, right? How else could you falsify the Null Hypothesis?
Obviously you cannot because you cannot rule out natural variation. And you cannot rule out natural variation because it is not yet perfectly understood. Unknown unknowns right? Not to mention known unknowns.
It is not clear that you accept the principles of scientific discovery.
Some of us prefer science.
So , how is it that you KNOW that the climate changes that have been observed , for any period that you care to nominate, have not been the result of natural variation?
You do NOT know how climate works, so you cannot reach your desired conclusion by logical means. You cannot eliminate natural variation as a possible cause.
Therefore it is simply your belief.
Nobody has a problem with the fact that you claim to know things that you CANNOT know ; we accept religion/superstition as a facet of human behaviour.
Just keep it to yourself ; your belief may not be shared. Better still , just keep an open mind , and don’t believe in things that you don’t understand. It’s ultimately your choice though.
20
“Over 60 years of ENSO, roughly cancelling out to zero, the overwhelming majority of the strong el ninos were between the period of 1983 to 1998.”
Good grief! So what? It has been warming since about 1850. It is currently cooler than the MWP? Natural variation , as far as we know . What is your point?
If you keep up this obfuscation , I will begin to sound like MV :-), and I don’t need a thumping.
20
” Because the climates changed before with mainly natural influences does not negate the ability for the climate to change now with mainly anthropogenic influences.”
What is the theoretical basis of this ability.? Such an ability is unknown in empirical science.
Surely , you meant to say :-
‘” Because the climate has always changed under natural influences does not rule out the possibility for the climate to change now with some anthropogenic influences.””
Nobody would disagree with that.
As you say , that is the question- can we discern an anthropogenic influence? No we can’t because we can’t rule out the possibility that everything that we see is simply natural variation.
Do you understand that this is how science works?
20
Farmerbraun there is no belief involved. I have explained to you repeatedly the science and the data that forms the basis for my conclusion. It is you with the belief that you cannot present any evidence for.
1. There is zero evidence for any natural influence that can account for the strong warming of .6 deg or so since 1950.
2. The overwhelming significant natural factors have been either flat or cooling over that period. ENSO as a cycle finishes up with zero influence when taking into account the whole period. Solar has been flat and volcanos have had one major cooling event.
3. The ONLY actual evidence for the warming is the increase in CO2 due to mans emissions.
4. This is consistent with the science of the greenhouse effect which is agreed to here.
You can keep saying until you are blue in the face that it is natural variability, but that is a belief, as all the science, data and observations are saying otherwise. This is sciences role, this is how science works, to determine these things. We have a basic theory that is based in physics and experiment as well as measurements in nature. Using those physics we can determine what should occur if CO2 increases (it should warm). We determine what major natural factors are also influencing climate and determine their role over the period in question (answered above). In the absence of a competing theory that better describes the data the theory of AGW stands the test. All your questions have been answered. If you have any science or data or observations to say otherwise then the conclusion stands on basic reality.
14
So , lies are all that you have. You have explained nothing ; rather you have evaded explaining how you know that natural variation is not responsible for the observed fluctuation.
You can’t ; so give up now.
I must agree with Memory Vault. You are completely impervious to logic . Your claim to know how climate works (your ‘major natural factors”) is laughable. You claim to understand exactly how climate is regulated. Your Nobel prize in Climatology is in the mail.
You cannot explain how you have falsified the Null hypothesis which would prove your claims to KNOW that it must be anthropogenic CO2.
My earlier determination was correct; you are a liar , a fool , or more likely both.
Regardless you would do well to learn a little about the scientific method. Until then , you are a wasted space on this blog.
20
Not at all. I have explained with links and the basic data and observations my logic and conclusion. You are doing the personal attack thing because you cannot fault it. You have provided nothing of any substance to refute it.
Please tell me where I have lied.
Please explain where I am wrong.
If you cannot do those 2 things with science, data and observations based in reality then you should be big enough to admit it, rather than make all these excuses trying to avoid my answers. I have not claimed that I know every thing, I have clearly stated I do not, what I have said is that going on the current state of the science, data and observations, measurable natural influences are not sufficient to explain the warming and it is consistent with the data and science for warming by AGW. It is also consistent with measurements of more energy entering the planet than leaving it, with the decreases in the energy leaving in the same radiation bands as CO2 and of stratosphere cooling over the 60 year period (so not the sun).
03
Wow Michael, no wonder they call you “Michael the Surrealist”
Here is some peer reviewed science for you.
Here is some more peer reviewed science for you.
Please come back when you have digested these.
41
I particularly like the graph of sunspot activity.
What does it tell you Michael? Would you like to see it overlaid with global temperatures? Nah… I’m sure you wouldn’t, you already know what it will look like.
30
Lies.
1. There is zero evidence for any natural influence . . .
2. The overwhelming significant natural factors have been either flat or cooling over that period. (You said elsewhere that you do not know that . I agree.}
3. The ONLY actual evidence for the warming is the increase in CO2 (That statement is nonsensical)
4. You can keep saying until you are blue in the face that it is natural variability, but that is a belief, as all the science, data and observations are saying otherwise. (you made this up; there is no science which proves that it is NOT natural variability, and you have produced none).
5. I have explained with links and the basic data and observations my logic. (Quite the opposite is true ;you have displayed the illogicality of your position. I have pointed it out but you refuse to address it.)
6.We have a basic theory that is based in physics and experiment as well as measurements in nature. Using those physics we can determine what should occur if CO2 increases (it should warm). (NO such model has ever been validated)
7. I have not claimed that I know every thing. (You have claimed to know everything about natural variability; that is patently false, yet you continue to insist that it is true.)
10
Why? It confirms that besides a spike at about 1960 the solar cycles have been falling. That there have been several periods in the record as high as now, sunspot wise but without the same temperature. That the last decade cycle, cycle 23 is not remarkable http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/1 (bottoming out in 2009/10 when the hottest year by GISS occurred) and that the current cycle (24) will be as low as around 1900 – 1910.
So does not explain the warming as specified above. I skimmed through your 2 papers and read the abstracts and conclusions and found nothing to support what ever it is that you are trying to say (I think). It would be helpful if you would explain your logic and reasoning and then point to supporting evidence rather than just link bombing and making the assumption that they support your conclusions. In fact you haven’t made any conclusions. Your presentation of science is severely lacking and very haphazard. Logically put a case forward please.
03
I wonder what colour the Arctic herrings are:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html
10
Hey Michael!!! Look at this!!!!!
10
Famerbraun. Repeating everything I said and then just claiming it is lies does not prove your point, in fact it proves you do not have one. I have presented evidence of natural factors that show you are wrong and that I have not lied. The basic physics, experiments and measurements on CO2 that confirm the greenhouse effect is agreed to by this site (check the skeptics handbook). If you have ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE THEN PLEASE PRESENT IT and we can have a rational discussion based on the data. Otherwise nothing of substance to respond to.
03
Still nothing of substance. Do you undersstand the concept of presenting a logical and rational argument with supporting data?
03
Michael, knowing, as he does , everything that there is to know about natural variability, was predicting exactly such a situation.
10
That is one more lie to add to the list Michael.
8. I have presented evidence of natural factors that show you are wrong .
You could only do that with an exhaustive and complete knowledge of all the natural factors affecting climate. Nobody has that knowledge at this time; least of all you.
It is quite clear to me now that rational discussion with you is not possible, because you do not understand the basic of scientific knowledge.
Your claim to have complete knowledge of all natural factors causing climate variability is rejected as delusion.
10
Ref 85.2.1.1.28 Point 1:
Has anybody looked? What experiment or empirical observations would be necessary, to prove that the changes in temperature were anything but natural?
Correlation, on its own, is not sufficient as a scientific test.
How would you identify each of the natural influence that could, potentially, cause a change in temperature? How could you then conduct research to demonstrate that each of these was not responsible, in any degree whatsoever? You can’t.
Making a statement that there is no evidence for x, therefore it must be y, excludes the possibility that it equally be z, or w, or any other variable you might like to conjure up, or there may be no connection at all. It is a logical fallacy, and one of many that are used to shore up the current position on climate variation.
The only “evidence” for anthropogenic climate change is computer model output. Those computer models are based on a very rudimentary knowledge of how the climate might work (and there are some huge gaps in that knowledge), and they are adjusted by a process known as “back-casting” – putting in “fudge factors” to make the model agree with observed history. The assumption here, of course, is that the past can reliably predict the future. Which it can’t, as many people who loose money at the gambling table eventually learn.
If any member of “the team” has some real empirical evidence (not models) that demonstrates that mankind is the sole cause of the climate warming in the last twenty five years, then Jo, and several other very interested people would be delighted to see it. They have asked, on multiple occasions, but without success.
What message does that send to you?
40
Good luck with that RW. I’m done with this troll. I refuse to believe that anyone can be so stupid. This is deliberate obfuscation. His intention is to mislead the gullible.
20
Never said I did.
Yes, and I provided a list of my own. The main ones being ENSO, solar and volcanic. I presented the evidence and data for all 3. Their are other cycles and other natural factors without as much information, and I do not deny that, but we need to work with what we know and have evidence for. That is how science works and progresses. Newton did not understand what gravity is when he defined it and created laws for it that worked for MOST situations (not all). Einstein came along and perfected the calculations to work in the situations that it did not for Newton, but could never get his theories to merge with the quantum world. Even today, as far as I am aware, we have not actually measured a gravity wave or found actual physical proof, but we have been using the calculations and progressing science based on it since Newton. Same goes for the majority of real science, evolution, plate tectonics, quantum physics etc, in the natural world you never have perfect information, but you do not sit on your hands and give up. You use what you have and continuously improve and develop. Thats science.
I have based all my evidence on the known science, data and observations, no models used. You are bringing in the model argument because you think that is a weakness. The weakness is you cannot show where I am wrong without bringing in a false argument not on the table.
So basically both of your arguments come down to doing nothing because we do not have perfect information and do not know everything. Well I hope you understand now that science does not work that way and we have to progress with what we know. What we know is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming, we have increased it, it has warmed, and all the natural factors that we can reliably measure do not explain that warming, which is consistent with what we expected with AGW (not perfect, but the natural world is not perfect). This is by data and observations provided.
01
Michael,
I have just come across your comment #85.2.1.1.22 and I have to say that I am disappointed in your response. Let me take it, one point at a time.
Where is this evidence? People adapt all of the time, and they very often do it without conscious effort. They change jobs, and need to catch an earlier bus, they just get up a little earlier, and either sleep slightly less or got to bed earlier. Once they have got used to the new routine, it is fine. How many people in our society do shift work, which requires constant adaption, they have no problem.
Your socialist leanings are showing there. How can “people who reject the science” prevent the actions of other people? This is just silly, and it is an ad hominem comment.
And why do you need “rules to implement adaption”? True adaption, is when people choose to do something differently because their situation changes. People resist being told what to do. Of course they will “resist rules to implement adaption”. If adaption is required, then let them figure out how they are going to react, and let them get on with it. Central planning has been shown not to work. It doesn’t work in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, and in wouldn’t work in the United Soviet States of Australia, either.
Again, I ask you, what right do “people that reject the science” have, to allow, or prevent, the actions of others? They have no right. But it is an observable trait of human nature, for people to resist being told what to do, and how to do it, according to the “we-know-best” precautionary principle. It has a lot to do with them saying, “Piss off, and don’t interfere with my life”. That is where the delay comes from, and it has a lot to do with psychology, and practically nothing to do with rejecting science per se.
That is what aid is, or should be, for. People in developing countries know very well what needs to be done to give them security from flooding, droughts, and different temperatures. What they lack are the resources to do what needs to be done, and the freedom to get on an do it, without being controlled by outsiders who think they know better. As an aside, what people in developing countries need, more than any thing else, is a reliable and constant source of energy, be it electricity, gas, diesel, or coal. Everything else they need, is predicated on that, but a reliable and constant source of energy is what the conservation movement does not want them to have, because a diesel generator in every village, might raise the global temperature by … how much?
This is one of the most inane comments I think I have ever read. Do you suggest that we have never had cause to adapt in the past?
Do you suggest that all of the previous adaptions in nature, or human history, had to be foreseen in the past? Did they require planning by The Party Central Committee?
Where is the evidence? The Argo buoys show no warming. The satellite data shows no warming. What is the acceptable ph range? Where are the world’s oceans on that scale, as an average? How do ocean currents impact the alkalinity of the water where shellfish and coral grow? All of the studies I have seen, assume that seawater remains remains static, as if it were in a fish tank. And let us not forget, that the largest source of atmospheric carbon dioxide, by a long way, is out-gassing from the oceans, caused by solar heating of the surface.
I beg to disagree. Revolutions occur for a number of reasons. One is due to religious differences, as we have witnessed recently in Egypt; another is due to populations being politically suppressed by an autocratic regime, as we are witnessing in Syria; and yet another is caused by a clear disparity between classes in society, as existed in 16th Century France, with upper classes with “millionaire” luxury, and lower classes who lived at a subsistence level, as happened in Argentina, under the Perons.
You do not get revolutions over things like environmental changes, and natural disasters, you get refugees.
Precisely my point. If society adapts, or better still, allows people to adapt for themselves, then these situations can be avoided, or at worst case mitigated. If you believe that coastal communities are at risk, then build higher sea walls, or whatever, it works in Holland. If you believe droughts to be a problem, then allow people to dam creeks, or sink wells, or pipe water from elsewhere, all things that are politically restricted in Australia today, but may be required in the future.
And you would prefer to have some form of catastrophe, and not have a military that was fully trained and totally prepared to react? Excuse me?
I am somewhat disappointed that you would try to push a socialist propaganda line to me, especially since I have already told you my background, and intimated what I do professionally. And professionally, I have to say that the political interference that you advocate, has more to do with creating the problem, than in providing a solution.
10
Rereke, you simplify and minimise and then make the argument political. It has nothing to do with a socialist agenda, I don’t even know what that means. I want us to mitigate and adapt to minimise future unnecessary pain and suffering. Also you say that is what AId is for, but aid is being cut, all the Un attempts to get aid for suffering developing countries is blocked and ridiculed by your side. You do not want to mitigate, adapt or provide support or assistance.
All I can do is post some small samples. You will ridicule and twist anything I say.
‘Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP’
‘Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.’
‘Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the deaths of at least 4.5m people a year, the report found.
The 331-page study, entitled Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet and published on Wednesday, was carried out by the DARA group, a non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. It was written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments.’
http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy?cat=environment&type=article
http://daraint.org/about-us/what-we-do/
“A new Oxfam report released today hopes to close this understanding gap between climate change and global food prices, arguing previous research grossly underestimates future food prices by ignoring the impact of severe weather shocks to the global food system.
The report, “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices,” argues current research paints only some of the picture by relying on steady increase in temperatures and precipitation. To get a more accurate picture, researchers threw down wild cards — the crazy weather events like droughts, hurricanes, and floods we’ve come to increasingly expect — to “stress-test” the system.” http://grist.org/food/how-extreme-weather-supersizes-global-food-price-tags/
01
Wrong, The ocean absorbs as well as outgas, the net effect is absorption which is what reduces the amount of OUR CO2 that stays in the atmosphere. This is one of the most closed questions in the debate. It is our emissions that have increased CO2 by 40%.
Ocean heat content: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
“Since the industrial revolution, ocean acidity has increased by 30%. Is increased CO2 to blame for this increased acidity?”
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/7a.html
“However, the absorption of this CO2 has affected ocean chemistry and has caused the oceans (which are on average slightly alkaline) to become more acidic. The average pH of oceanic surface waters has been lowered by 0.1 units since the pre-industrial period. This represents a 30% increase in hydrogen ion activity. Hydrogen ions attack carbonate ions which are the building blocks needed by many marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish, to produce their skeletons, shells and other hard structures. This loss of carbonate ions produce lower saturation levels for the carbonate minerals, aragonite and calcite, which are used in many shells and skeletons. Carbonate ion concentrations are now lower than at any other time during the last 800 000 years.”
http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13951.aspx
Late in 2012, it was reported that one particular sea creature was actually having its shell dissolved by the increasing acidity of the ocean. It’s the pteropod — a free-swimming sea snail that moves about thanks to wings like a butterfly. It lives for two years or longer and grows to have a shell about 1 centimetre in diameter.
Down in the Antarctic, it is the main sea creature that makes calcium carbonate. In fact, over the whole planet, these sea butterflies account for some 12 per cent of the entire flux of carbonate on our whole planet.”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/12/11/3650065.htm
02
I would prefer the military to not have to deal with issues caused by our failure to react to a global problem before it is to late. You are like a doctor focussed on treating the consequences of the illness and ignoring the cause or ignoring prevention when available.
I actually feel that this is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that you could not answer my question on the basic data and observations I presented before your last post. Have you given up on that one? I am very disappointed that you would refuse to accept that science as outlined by the examples starting with Newton, the guy who developed the modern scientific method, that science does not work on perfect information and progresses and is used before absolute knowledge is gained (if ever).
02
Responding to Michael #85.2.1.1.11
I take back what I said about you avoiding my hot spot article, but it hardly helps that your comment here is so disconnected from the discussion further up where I replied to you. This is messy thread behaviour. Sloppy to mix so many points together. Please be more disciplined.
Yes, in theory, the hot spot is caused by all forms of warming, but the climate models (as I explained in the post) conclude that in this world, it could only be caused by CO2. Worse, the hot spot was not found. The theory is wrong.
You blame the equipment, but if we can’t get weather balloons to work, we can’t possibly get climate models to work. They are 1000 times more complex. The IPCC admit there is a discrepancy between the models and the equipment.
This hot spot is essential for the models to produce warming. See graph fig 8.14 AR4 WG1 where “WV” is responsible for most of the positive feedback. The simplest reasoning here is that the equipment (and multiple independent lines) is right, models are wrong — the humidity is condensing out and raining at lower altitudes.
Will you acknowledge that the alarmist sites you read hid the fact that it was alarmists who called it a fingerprint. They only started pretending it didn’t matter when they couldn’t find it. – Jo
40
O.K. then Izen et al- ad nauseum.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
take it or leave it.
20
Whoops , pardon my Latin- that should be “ad nauseam”!
20
I acknowledge that the graph from the IPCC looks like the warming should occur around GHG but I have not read on a science based blog site that it was a fingerprint. I have only read that on sites like yours. You should stop using the term alarmist as I am not allowed to use the term denialist even though I think it fits and I don’t know what term to use. It is hypocritical as you are using it in a derogatory manner.
Michael. Do you have trouble reading? My reply included links to a blog where I list in detail the multiple times the hot spot is called a fingerprint, if you go to the reference you will find (Karl et al 2006) that there are many big names (like Santer) involved, that I’m not quoting “blogs”. It appears that no matter how good my references are, you are blind to reading them? As for “denialist” I’ve told you, you can use it when you provide scientific evidence (observations) we deny and will not discuss. As for alarmist – again, discussed ad infinitum here, does the IPCC etc et al want to cause “alarm” — yes absolutely. It is accurate. Though I don’t use it is every situation or with every scientist. – Jo]
As I understand it, the long term measurements needed to determine this have simply not been available as they were not looking for it decades ago. There is short term evidence for it and some other proxy evidence but as to models, I do not get my conclusions from them. As i have been trying to put across for a long time now, the physical data and observations are conclusive for me plus the science and physics behind the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle.
So you agree that the greenhouse effect exists and causes warming. CO2 has risen, temperatures have risen plus all the other observations such as Arctic melting (glaciers, ice volume etc), sea levels rising, ph falling etc etc, all during a time with cooling natural factors. That we have had decadel warming for most of the last 100 years, that the 1991 to 2000 decade with its predominantly warming strong el nino was still cooler than the next decade with its predominantly cooling la ninas and falling solar and the record melting with all the rest is fairly slam dunk for me. Without some natural factor to account for it you are only left with GHG, and most natural factors are not warming.
Gish gallop. I agree with most of those but not all. Most are not “causative” but happen with all forms of warming. Some have nothing to do with warming. Some are not able to be measured well enough. But I’m not convinced it’s worth discussing it in detail with someone who can’t reason and won’t search my index to find my previous discussions on all these points. “Without some natural factor” is merely argument from ignorance. IF you don’t know what that means, look it up. – Jo]
So will you admit that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the industrial record even though some natural factors are in cooling trends?
I agree (with the addition of the word “some”.) Will you agree that some other natural form of warming that started before coal fired electricity could have caused all this warming? – Jo
Will you agree that it’s been warming for 200 – 300 years, and that it was warmer for most of the last 500 million? This thread is now hopelessly long and convoluted. I had to reply inline, though I can’t see any point in continuing. You continue to turn up late to a sophisticated discussion, having missed most of it, and demand we repeat it all for you, while you fail the most basic requirement of posting here, which is the ability to reason. When we do reply, you don’t follow our answers, and pretend we haven’t given you references when we have. – Jo]
02
I have never seen that definition of the null hypothesis, do you have a scientific reference for that (ie not opinion blog)? Also your application of it makes no sense. Why does it need to be unprecedented? The planet has been here for over 4 billion years and started as a flaming ball of dust. It has been threw many upheavals since then including a snowball earth, the PETM with massive extinctions and much more. I don’t think unprecedented is even possible. On the other hand in the modern record of several thousand years some events have come across in the science as unprecedented. Such as the temperature trend, the melting Arctic the falling ocean PH etc.
More important would be to me is that we have a theory, it predicts certain events to occur, these events are occurring, other factors that could be causing it are examined and determined to not be the cause, hence, correct theory. Your explanation makes no practical or realistic sense to me, just seems to be a technical excuse.
13
Michael TR says..
As I understand it, the long term measurements needed to determine this have simply not been available as they were not looking for it decades ago.
Well that’s just not true now is it? We’ve had RADIOSONDE BALLOONS going up there for decades. The data is available. If there were to be any increase in temps at those altitudes, the balloons would have picked them up. NO INCREASE IN TEMPS
I can personally attest to the balloons going up since at least 1969 because my old man (who worked for the Bureau of Met) used to bring the odd one home. I’d sit on one and bounce around the garden with it.
20
Sheeyit!
O.K. This is my very best shot.
You do agree that two contradictory statements cannot be true simultaneously (I’m making that assumption- that this is a scientific discussion.)
Now here are the two contradictory statements that you hold to be true simultaneously:-
1. The range, extent and causes of natural climate variability are not known completely.
2. Something observable is occurring that is outside of the range and extent of , and therefore NOT caused by, natural climate variability.
Can you see it now?
10
Again you show your total inability to understand the reality of science. Most of science of the natural world is not known completely. To continue my previous example, we still have not seen or measured a gravity wave, that does not mean that we have not been using and benefiting from continuously improving theories and calculations since Newtons time, like 300+ years ago.
Same would apply to Quantum physics and the electronics revolution, going on your understanding of science we would still be living in a cave, when the transistor was first discovered by shockley and his time they had no idea why it worked and what was going on at the quantum level. Put your computer away it apparently does not exist. We will never have perfect information on the natural world but we make decisions and move forward with the best science and infomation we have at the time or we do not move forward at all. Do you get it now?
03
That’s fine Michael ; we don’t require perfection. It just has to work .
So you agree that you cannot know that the climate which is currently observable is outside the range of natural variability . You have already said that.
QED.
10
None so blind as those that can but won’t see. Going on what we know of the climate the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the industrial record despite most known and measurable natural events being in cooling directions. Science does not sit on its hands and say ‘we will know better in a decade so lets risk the future habitability of the planet on a guess or a belief that we are wrong’. No science says this is the state of the world as we know it and we need to do something. The possibility of some unknown natural event turning up randomly and having the strength to change the climate that we do not know about, is remote, and we need to face reality and not get sidetracked by those to afraid or greedy to accept what science is telling us. This is no different, as explained, than science normally progresses and improves, the only difference is we have a massive corporate influence with their hands in the fossil fuel cash cow that are pushing a debate that was settled scientifically decades ago for personal greed.
Unless you can explain away my reasoning with data, logic and observations, as set out above (it must be killing you that you can’t), the fact holds.
03
What are you talking about??? You who constantly harps on about “blog sites” are now saying that these are in fact where you gain your “knowledge”????? I am not surprised quite frankly and don’t believe you have ever actually read or understood a scientific paper. As much as you jump up and down screaming “peer review, peer review” and refusing to look at peer reviewed papers because they are not behind a paywall you now show clearly your true colors.
You are….. how shall I put it?……. a parrot.
20
Apologies Michael/Izen/ Russel Norman/ Metiria Turei.
It’s my mistake ; I thought we were going to talk science.
How wrong I was!
20
I have already answered that falsie for ages ago, but shall do so again:
Grab a 10kg lead ball. Hold it out in front of you. Drop it on your foot.
You have just measured a gravity wave. What is your rating on the pain scale?
21
Hey Michael et al , you got that nearly right !
” science says that this is the state of the world as we know it and we need to do something. ”
Yep , science says that we don’t know nearly enough about natural variability to rule it out as the source of what we are seeing, and we need to do something about that.
The something that we need to do is called science.
Best that you leave that to those with the facility to do it.
30
How much cloud cover was there Michael? Do you even have an inkling that the amount of cloud in the atmosphere has far more effect than a trace gas? What are your numbers on it Michael?….. bet you don’t have any.
20
I am surprised that you have not been blocked due to sheer embarrassment of skeptics.
03
Nope, again, science says we know more than enough to act for the good of future generations and the habitability of the planet. To sit on our hands on the vain hope that there is some theoretical mystical other source for the warming is illogical, immoral and unethical. Try explaining that to your kids. ‘We were sure that there must be something else causing it so we ignored everything science was telling us’ Seriously?
03
Funny, I thought action on behalf of civilization was in the hands of politicians not scientists.
Sorry Fool, I get that he was offering a demonstration of empirical science. I do see that you’d be embarrassed by that since you don’t understand the science that hinges on evidence empirical.
NO! FOOL! to act on a principle of precaution is more likely to end in disaster as to not act at all.
20
Mark D
The rest of us adults have come to the conclusion that if Michael the Ridiculous is happy playing quietly by himself, with himself, here on this three week old thread, we might as well leave him to it.
At least he’s not annoying the grown-ups on the current threads.
10
Michael the Surrealist bombs these old threads in the hope that he can make it appear as though he won an argument somewhere.
He is not only a parrot, but a coward to boot.
20
Backslider,
Michael The Ridiculous has now followed his own circular logic backwards around so many circles, painted himself into so many corners, contradicted himself so often, and displayed his utter lack of understanding of even rudimentary scientific principles so many times, that I think it is safe to assume that any outsider straying here would clearly see him for what he is –
A total fruitcake.
.
I think it is now safe to leave him here, playing by himself, with himself.
20
MV, It is hard to argue with your reasoning. But until he stops filling space with crap I feel compelled…….
20
You think science is thought bubbles and guesswork. How about you tell me? You should learn how to present a proper argument. Present some science, some data and observations etc that support your argument and then a true debate ensues. Just asking a question and making unsupported statements is not science, which by the way, disagrees with you. Latest research I have seen says cloud cover has actually fallen.
02
Unfortuantely politicians are to influenced by a short term electoral cycle, opinion polls and corporate donations and influence. Scientists are speaking up for the ggod of their children.
03
Close Michael. I asked you a question to stimulate the possibility that you would think about something.
10
Hooray!!! We agree on something!!!!
Now Michael, you just need to research what that means exactly. Do it sonny, you are finally onto a good thing.
10
Please show some actual scientific rigour AND CREDIBILITY.
Science is not about link bombing and guesswork. Like I have, do the following…
1. Make an hypothesis
2. Explain how it all works in your own words.
3. Present science, data and observations that support your case.
Expecting me to go and guess what the f you are talking about is ridiculous. Learn how to do things properly. This is why I stopped responding to you before and you are very close to me going back to that. Total scientifically illiterate time waster.
—————–
REPLY: This thread is pretty much beyond it. I’ve replied inline to one comment (see blue remarks). I can’t see any point in continuing it. Michael, you’ve been exposed to relentless propaganda. Unless you can reason, there is no way to get beyond it. You keep confounding any evidence for warming as if it were evidence for man-made global warming. As long as you think correlation IS causation, and argument from ignorance is acceptable reasoning, there is no hope for progress here. It doesn’t matter what evidence we present. – Jo
00
No Michael, hes pointing out the absurdity of demanding peer-reviewed papers on things we take for granted. You may think this 99% space commonplace is mind-blowing but most of us learned that in “How And Why Kids Book Of The Atom” at age eight…and moved on.
The fact you cannot perceive simple rhetorical gestures as being such shows that you are every bit the SNIP great [word forbidden here] I said you were.
50
Never asked for a peer reveiwed paper on the comment about us being 99% space. Just a comment on how amazing physics can be and why silly arguments like ‘CO2 is a trace gas so cannot possibly do anything’ is so silly when discussing science.
07
You are such an idiot Michael, you cannot even understand my crystal clear explanation of someone elses equally obvious comment. I never said that he said you asked for the peer reviewed paper on 99%…I said that he said that to point out the absurdity of you asking for a peer reviewed paper for things we take for granted. If you cannot understand that…well you make Blatheradder the 4th look like a genius, you are incredibly thick. In fact you are so thick that I am going to start reading your comments for the comedy value.
60
That made me laugh, you could also keep it for comedy value 🙂
Reminds me of those arguments you have when you are mucking around with someone that goes like ‘…she said that jack said when john went up to be and said…’ lol.
07
Tony,
Wouldn’t that 2.86 figure only apply to coal that was 100% carbon. The very common brown coal (lignite) is at best around 50% carbon so there’d only be about 1.4 times as much CO2 for every unit burnt.
20
1 tonne of pure carbon produces 3.66 tonnes of CO2:
Carbon = 12 units
Oxygen = 16 units
CO2 = 2 x 16 + 12 = 44 units
Therefore, 12 units of C produces 44 units CO2
44 / 12 = 3.66
30
Is it just me, or does the idea of tonnes of CO2 ( a trace gas) not seem to make much sense ?
Pardon the lack of scientific rigour, but when you burn carbon it floats away, apart from the impurities. Isn’t that magic ?
61
Are you serious? No I will not pardon the lack of scientific rigour, people like you are influencing political decisions that will affect the planet for my children and grandchildren, that you display such ignorance is clearly disgusting.
Go and learn some science.
For starters the greenhouse effect: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
Then the carbon cycle: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php
The bare minumum for anyone in an industrialised country
010
“Does this guy ever shut up?”
People like who? Who here has the influence you describe? The fact is that you are right, we don’t care about your children, we care about our own, and will make up our own minds about what is best for them ourselves, without activist greenie idiots such as yourself pushing agendas.
It is laugable that you think that ANYONE here actually gives a toss about ANYTHING you say here.
You are merely an annoying troll on this blog. I have seen your type in many places and ‘you people’ are all the same. You can whinge and sook and cry “what about the children” as much as you like, but the fact remains, you are a nothing credibility wise here.
You are just another activist in the GetUp mould. I bet you are a devout labor supporter and Rudd worshipper too.
80
Its always and forever very simple:
IF “the children” = Entire rationale of green concerns about “The Environment”
and
I have no children
THEN…axiomatically…The Environment is not my problem.
Moreover, by the same crystal clear logic the solution to these Green “issues” is very simple, they dont have to have children.
As soon as they say “what about the children” theyve lost the argument.
60
Presumably no other family at all and no compassion for the rest of humanity and their future. Basically the moral and ethical fibre of a robot I presume.
Not at all. I have outlined my rationale time and time again. The science is clear and compelling. The basics are not under question by any honest scientist and the uncertainties do not outweigh the evidence, the science and the data when taking into account the consequences that could occur.
Basically all the science is pointing in the direction of AGW with moderate to severe consequences for the habitability of the planet for future generations. Why does it concern us? well because we have an ethical and moral responsibility to those that come after us. If you don’t care about the future of humanity and have no morals or ethics to speak of, then no, I guess you don’t need to care and I have lost the argument.
08
Isn’t this Michael a piece of work ? I just don’t get his humour.
70
That is OK – nobody else does either. Come to think of it he doesn’t get his own humour, either. He is given a script to work to. If you come in from left field, or use humour, he falls off the end of the prompter.
40
” The science is clear and compelling. The basics are not under question by any honest scientist and the uncertainties do not outweigh the evidence, ”
You are clearly a very dishonest person , or an utter fool, although you may be both of those things.
40
SShhh Eddie you is lettin the side down, dont you know, even Moles have weight!
60
And they live in Mole-holes, where they breath.
20
Peter.
Oh dear. Comprehension problems on my part showing…again!
I blame the ’09 Langmeil Shiraz.
30
Hi Tony, if you look at this http://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/methane-good-or-bad/ you will see that natural gas actually gives more “green house gas” than standard black coal.
For those who do not know coal- it contains moisture (some of which is inherent), minerals which become ash when burnt, hydrogen (bound to carbon to give organic compounds}, oxygen, nitrogen and sulphur. Australian coal on average has much lower sulphur than coal in other countries. Australian black coal is regarded well in other countries eg Japan, China, India etc, as a clean coal giving rise to little real pollution such as SOx and NOx
31
Actually, the United States has a huge deposit of low sulfur coal. Clinton created a National Monument completely covering the deposits and cancelling an environmentally friendly proposal to start mining it.
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/what_fred_thompson.htm
Don’t know how the quality compares…
30
[…] happened in July 2011 that caused so many globalZ-warmZ moonbats to finally shut up? » The day the Global Warming death spiral began Let the historic dissection begin. Man-made global warming is a dying market and a zombie science. […]
00
Jo, we have translated this article into French and plan to publish it tomorrow 23 August on our news site Contrepoints. We’re the only climate-realist news site in French. We have published many WUWT translations, and more. This one, for instance, has been a big hit : http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/02/26/116205-le-giec-reconnait-17-ans-sans-rechauffement
If you object to our publishing your article in translation, please can you alert me by email?
Thanks you for the incredible hard work over the years.
60
370 comments and rising?? I guess everyone else commented so I will too!!
HI MA!!!
20
Butbutbutbutbut…isnt all this commenting going to reverse those trends!
10
nice comment. I’d say about 20 comments out of 400 are about the post. This is a defacto unthreaded.
05
Post, what post, you mean the one Heywood likes to scratch?
50
Purrrrrrrr purrrrrrrrrrr purrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
40
The summer and fall of 2011? That was when Timothy Geithner’s admonitions were rejected by the Austrian-German coalition, only to be followed by the close bust of Credit Agricole (or other unnamed French bank). The climax was in November of 2011 when the Fed acted in unison with the ECB and the central bank of Japan to pump liquidity in the global markets to avert the post 2008 crash global bank meltdown.
00
There was another major event on March 11, 2011. With Fukushima, there was a temporary jump in carbon prices which made it clear that the GW tale would be over. NO Unreliable “Renewables” can substitute a single tiny nuke. Not even gas from the ex USSR can substitute an old nuke. ONLY king coal could substitute nukes. So the artificial carbon market had to go. Germans are cunning mercantilists, but they are neither stupid, nor suicidal. The tsunami at Fukushima killed the carbon market. The EU energy plan had always been a nuclear one, never mind the Green rhetoric. Fukushima put it on ice, back to coal, goodbye to global warming fairy tales. The banking crisis just made it non-negotiable and urgent.
10
I am remembering events bit by bit… Following Fukushima, carbon prices jumped. If I remember correctly, the German Government somehow increased supply (talk of a free market) to prevent a run-up… It was earlier this year that “backloading” was invoked as a means to drive prices up again, but the industry lobby prevailed over the GAS lobby in the charade known is “euro-parliament”.
00
[…] Sur le web. Traduction : Bézoukhov pour Contrepoints. […]
00
[…] Butter • 26 August, 2013 • Politics • 0 Comments From Joanna Nova dot com:The day the Global Warming death spiral beganLet the historic dissection begin. Man-made global […]
00
For what it is worth: (Straight from the horse’s mouth)
2011
Once a decision is made it would take about a month for the change in direction to filter down through the ranks. Remember the OWNERS of the printing presses are at this meeting (not the journalists)
And the year before:
2010
This from a Google search The link is dead it seems ( http://www.bilderbergmettings.org/metting_2010.html )
Although the Guardian report is still active:
Note all the stuff taken off the table in 2011?
My take is the big money had already left the room shortly after the 2010 meeting leaving the also-rans to sputter along for a few more years scrambling to protect the investments they made in “Green Technology” by tossing the hot potatoes to the useful idiots. – Note all the bankrupcies of Green energy companies in the USA October 18, 2012, President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
THINK Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Molten Metal Technology. At the First Earth Day, VP. Al Gore hyped Molten Metal. link
And now we see the start of the rats leaving the ship:
Jan 11, 2013 New York Times Dismantles Its Environment Desk:
Times says demise of the nine-person team, created in 2009, won’t affect climate coverage.
This is very interesting because as Martin Cohen mentioned in December 2012, The New York Times has vested interest in climate alarmism …..or did….
You are not going to see the BEAST die abruptly instead it will just sort of fade away like a bad dream but leaving the political gains largely intact and none of the big players like Maurice Strong or Al Gore brought to book. You might see a few bit players like Mikey Mann tossed to the wolves if it becomes necessary.
40
[…] hopeloos achterhoedegevecht wordt geleverd. In de media was de waterscheiding 29 juli 2011 zoals Jo Nova in dit schitterende artikel laat zien en uitlegt (tipje sluier: op 25 juli bracht Griekenland 1 miljoen carbon permits op de markt maar er werden […]
10
Joanne,
you are right and wrong about the Hotspot,
The Hotspot itself can be caused by ANY heating of the atmosphere. The actual fingerprint of AGW is the hotspot, a rising height of the tropopause, and a cooling stratosphere. All three together equal the UNIQUE FINGERPRINT of AGW.
The cooling strat must be included as the increasing CO2 there increases the cooling while the other forms of warming will NOT have the extra cooling. Of course this is why the Warmers are trying to say the Hotspot is not the unique fingerprint.
We do not have ANY of these three features. Although the warmers are still trying to claim we have a long term cooling trend in the stratosphere, it has been flat for over 15 years!!!
I would also point out in the reality of observations that, like the ocean, if the atmosphere warms it expands. That expansion is seen by NASA as extra drag on the satellites requiring the burning of more fuel to keep them in orbit!! Last year I believe, NASA announced that they were using less fuel than they expected due to a decrease in the altitude of the atmosphere. A direct empirical observation of the fact our atmosphere is cooling!!!
I would point out that the idea that the Hotspot itself isn’t a unique fingerprint for AGW is a BRAINDEAD argument for the warmers. They admit that ANY warming causes the hotspot. Well, if ANY warming causes the hotspot, what does a lack of a hotspot mean?? It means they have been diddling the temp records and there has been no warming of any significant amount since the 1930-40’s!!!
Of course, there may have been some warming in which case it simply proves the models are useless. Again, I say this is a braindead argument for them because they score an own checkmate!!!
Oh, and what Richard the Delusional couldn’t seem to remember or did not know is that the hotspot is allegedly driven by the water vapor feedback. More co2 more heat more water vapor more heat… Their Prediction or Projection from the models is that we will have an increasing amount of water vapor in the upper troposphere multiplying the effect. Of course we have NOT been able to observe an increasing WV so again the models are bunk.
The facts and the physics simply do not leave them any room for argument. It is end game and their continuing to argue the point shows it was never about the science, it was about the agenda.
It is a really lovely gotcha though. The smart warmers have tried to claim that there hasn’t been enough feedback yet to cause the hotspot to be noticeable but it is really there. The response is that they have been claiming that we have suffered UNPRECEDENTED WARMING over the last 30 years. If UNPRECEDENTED WARMING does not fire up the ole FINGERPRINT of AGW doom and boiling oceans, what exactly is required???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
20
Unfortunately KuhnKat you are ignoring reality. You are doing the looking for any excuse thing rather than looking at the data.
2001 to 2010 was the hottest decade on the industrial record, this is despite being strongly influenced by cooling la ninas and falling solar. It was hotter than the previous decade which was influenced by strong el ninos. There has been no logical explanation put forward for that discrepancy. Record melting in the Arctic and Greenland and the glaciers continue, the oceans ph is still falling and warming and rising, and anyone that says extreme weather is not on the rise or that climate is not changing is just not looking outside and around the world.
Stratosphere has cooled,
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-temperature-lower-stratosphere
Tropopause has risen,
http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf
Hotspot has been found,
See: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/#comment-1314086
That things do fit as neatly as non realists expect they should just means they are looking for excuses to allow them to do nothing and make it someone elses problem. Natural variability has been ruled out within current science. Temperatures going on natural variability should have fallen, what people here find so difficult to understand that if temps have not fallen when natural factors point that way then anthropogenic causes are still warming. That the models are a bit out then suggests they need some refinement or that there will be step changes in warming that will catch it up to the models when the natural factors go the other way. There is evidence for both. They have been right enough times and in enough different situations to be confident that they are mostly correct.
03
“Author: Michael the Realist
Comment:
Unfortunately KuhnKat you are ignoring reality. You are doing the looking for any excuse thing rather than looking at the data.”
Ok Michael, you have convinced me. You ARE a typical leftard who accuses others of what they themselves are doing to try and distract from their own dishonesty and criminality.
“2001 to 2010 was the hottest decade on the industrial record, this is despite being strongly influenced by cooling la ninas and falling solar. It was hotter than the previous decade which was influenced by strong el ninos. There has been no logical explanation put forward for that discrepancy.”
There is no discrepancy except what you lying leftards have created. Note that you yourself have to qualify the hottest in… bit with the industrial era. Even that is a lie. Here is a fun post that shows exactly what kind of criminal activity your handlers have been up to:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/nasa-ministry-of-truth/
” Record melting in the Arctic and Greenland and the glaciers continue, the oceans ph is still falling and warming and rising, and anyone that says extreme weather is not on the rise or that climate is not changing is just not looking outside and around the world. ”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/word-is-getting-out-the-scam-is-over/
Of course, the REAL discrepancy that is not being explained by your criminal handlers is that the Antarctic has been steadily gaining glacial mass AND sea ice while the Arctic was losing!!! Not to worry though, the Arctic, through normal climate, is rebounding from its recent lows.
By the way, please post that lying ocean PH paper again so we can rip it to shreds again. You really have no capacity to understand this stuff do you??
Oh, and the Colorado liars added yet ANOTHER adjustment to keep the seas rising at a 3mm+ rate. Sorry, even that hallucination isn’t dangerous even if it were true.
“Stratosphere has cooled,
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-temperature-lower-stratosphere”
You really are a scientific illiterate aren’t you?? Your paper shows the stratosphere cooled during 58-74 when the atmophere was either cooling or flat depending on whether you believe the current adjusted data or the original Hansen data that was radically modified around 2000. Your paper also shows that for over 19 years, covering YOUR hottest decade in recent times and the alleged UNPRECEDENTED WARMING since…. the strat cooling doesn’t match the models and shows your complete inability to understand their Faux science. The increasing CO2 is supposed to cause cooling while the increased GHG’s in the Trop BLOCK the extra IR from warming the strat. In your Hottest Decade in… we see that the increasing CO2 has NOT increased the water vapor and has NOT blocked IR from keeping the strat from cooling and the extra CO2 in the strat has apparently managed to keep the temps flat for NINETEEN YEARS!!! Over 17 years is significant according to your handlers. You lose.
Yes, I slapped around a smart guy on Curry’s over this data set a couple years ago. No one tried to back him it was so obvious that it does NOT support the Theory, and, in fact, DESTROYS the theory! Since you admit a cooling strat is THE fingerprint of Gorebull Warming you just PROVED UNEQUIVOCALLY that there has been no Gorebull Warming for NINETEEN YEARS!! Is your failure to accept reality even starting to to sink in yet??
“Tropopause has risen,
http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf”
This one was new to me. Knowing that NASA has admitted that the Tropopause has been falling for years, and have been quite happy about the extended usefulness of their satellites depending on a limited fuel supply for remaining in orbit. I was wondering what was in this one so read it. Turns out to be a combination of data so old it ends at Y2k and thusly does NOT include the LOWERING Tropopause AND does not include your warmest decade!! It is also more model and statistical BS. The nice graphs show that the NCEP linear trend is negative for 79-99. The ERA linear trend is positive from 79-93 (why only 93?? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA). PCM ALL linear trend is negative from 79-99. PCM ALL EOF 1 (mean included) is negative and with mean removed it is positive. This is a resounding lack of support for your ignorant statement for a rising trop, especially since it does not show what has happened during your Hottest decade in…
Here is a quote from the conclusion of this sorry piece:
“The direct evidence is that in the ALL experiment, the troposphere warms by 0.07°C/ decade over 1979–1999 (30). ”
Uh, this so called direct evidence is MODEL output!! The actual DATA shows nothing of the sort. Oh yeah, it especially shows NOTHING about the last 13 years including your alleged Hottest decade in…
“Hotspot has been found,
See: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/#comment-1314086”
Michael the Delusional, you have just linked this post to support your delusional belief in the hotspot. After 10 years of the Hottest decade in… you should have no problem supporting your delusion. Where is it?? If you are referring to that MODEL output paper you preciously linked that y’all call a reanalysis by looking at windspeeds, it does NOT say they found the Hotspot. Even with their model gymnastics they could only claim that the existance of a hotspot could NOT be EXCLUDED!! Of course, this is so shoddy that a cooling upper troposhere can ALSO NOT BE EXCLUDED!! Michael, BAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
The rest of your delusional editorial I will ignore. You really should switch from Tamino, SS, or whatever other propaganda site(s) you are following and accept Joanne’s offer to help you catch up on the actual science as opposed to the distorted reality the propagandists have been feeding you.
50
You call me a liar and then use Goddard? The old conspiracy and opinion blogger science defence, very poor form. As I have explained ad infinitum, science is continuously improving, new data comes in, adjustments for changes, location, different instruments and time of day etc. But your not happy so lets use BEST instead, based on over 1.2 billion records and peer reviewed.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880/trend/plot/best/from:1880/trend/plot/best/from:1880/mean:12
Happy now? I am glad that issues resolved.
It seems you have no capacity to argue with actual peer reviewed science. I have many papers and other actual observations and data on the falling ph and its negative effects on the ocean health. The Arctic is not rebounding, you do not understand the concept of trend http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png, and the Antarctica is losing volume. You make stuff up as you go. Virtually all glaciers now are receding, Greenland and the Arctic are worse than expected and Antarctica, which initially was not expected to lose ice for awhile (it is so cold down there), is also losing ice volume faster than expected.
The colorado data is by satellite. You cannot disregard genuine data without an alternative. You are deciding which science you will accept depending on your beliefs.
I do not have any handlers. WMO specify climate as 30 years and apart from that I follow the decadel trends because as I have explained before, comparing individual years is meaningless when there are so many natural trends of varying durations up to 30 years or more. Your continued harping of your cherry picked period which as has pointed out before starts on a year with the highest el nino in at least 60 years after a decade of strong ones, and even then the next decade comes out hotter, with predominantly cooling natural factors. You cannot explain that which is why this endless dance looking for excuses like a lawyer looking for a technicality to throw out the actual witnesses and evidence.
Again your stratosphere argument assumes zero natural factors and ignores that it is still in record cool territory just like the troposphere is in record hot territory. That it does not neatly fit your mental picture of a simplistic perfect little climate that should only react to anthropogenic or natural factors alone that do not interact and cause variations is your prob not mine.
The troposphere does show that warming per decade.
“WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
“Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
So looking at reality you still cannot explain why the 2001 to 2010 decade is the hottest despite all the cooling factors. Come back when you can answer it.
05
As I have pointed out previously Michael in truth you have no interest whatsoever in real science, but rather only whatever you can find that you think supports your meme.
You run around squarking “peer review, peer review!!!” but whenever you are presented with peer reviewed science you avoid it like the plague.
Are you saying that you deny that the sun drives climate? I don’t need to say anything Michael, because if you would just take the time to read and comprehend the now large number of peer reviewed science I have given you links to you would in fact change your tune dramatically.
But, I guess that just wouldn’t go down well with the latte drinking crowd you hang around with, would it?
Well Michael, we now have a real government (don’t tell me, I know you voted green – suffer) and things are going to change dramatically. What is PC for you now won’t be for much longer, you will all be a laughing stock.
30
I have no problem with the science you presented, as I said, they actually do not support your position, one of them specifically says that the current period of solar is not extraordinary. Did you actually read them yourself? or just copy and paste them of an opinion blogger site that said they did. You were fooled, it is typical blogger science to misrepresent real science articles hoping noone will actually read them. You proved them right. Next time explain in your own words what you think is occurring with the science as support, not just link bomb.
Nothing more unless you can actually explain yourself better.
04
You admitted yourself that you did not read them, so you lose.
Why do you need me to give my opinion when all you need to do is to read the science and see that your own position is wrong.
Why did you fail to comment on the pic showing Arctic ice extent? Oh, that’s right, because that’s all it takes to show how wrong you are.
20
the arctic is a container of fixed size. in winter it freezes to that extent. In summer it melts far more if the winter ice was thinner. You having a picture means nothing in the context of seasonal ice extent in the arctic.
03
You really are stupid…. too stupid to even look at the pic before making a comment.
Here, take a look. What do you see Matt?
Oh! It shows the arctic in August 2012 side by side with the Arctic in August 2013.
Right, so the pics being taken at THE END OF SUMMER tells us what Matt? Yes, it tells us its melted far less than the year before, which as you say means that the ice is thicker.
So much for the end of the world arctic melt……
20
oh you referring to a different picture… I thought you were referring to the one you had of the 1970s.
Big deal there is more ice this year than last year (a record low). That’s happened plenty of times. Again – pointless picture. Still it is almost 2 standard deviations below the mean for 1981-2010 period.
NOte that is from the 1981-2010 mean… not from a 1979 high (where there are also false claims of cheery picking).
02
in fact the picture you have is of the 6th lowest extent recorded between 1979 and 2013. Great picture.
03
Nice cherry pick Mattb.
10
No, I said I looked at the abstracts and the conclusions and scanned through the paper. I could not find anything that supported your position (allthough you did not make one, just link bomb), in fact one of the papers specifically said the current period was unremarkable in regards to solar. So show some real analysis (you were the one that posted them) and explain where and how they support your position. From what I can tell you are doing the skeptic thing of misrepresenting actual science to say something it never did.
I will comment on your Arctic picture. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? A trend is now one year!!! Seriously dude how bad is your science, how about looking at the trend over more than 30 years.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
03
I said nothing about “trend”.
How about going back to the beginning of records? I don’t accept going back a mere 30 years. Do YOU really think that 30 years shows a trend in something like sea ice?
This is the thing with you warmists. You cherry pick your start periods to suit your meme.
SO Michael, how do YOU explain a 60% increase in sea ice extent over such a short period? According to you the planet is cooking, however what we see clearly disproves that. We have now had 6 extreme winter in a row in Europe, record Antarctic sea ice, yet you are still squarking.
20
Those are the whole satelite records. If you have other actual scientific records then please present them. If you are going to start using what some fishing captain said in 1939 or something and present it as science, then you are wasting our time. Yes 30 years is significant, and especially in concert with all the other evidence and trends. The start period cherry pick is the highest el nino year in about 60 year of 1998 you hypocrite.
Over 2 years? Don’t be stupid. Thats not even worth a response, check the long term trend again and grow up your argument a little. It took only 5 years to break the last record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
Its called climate change in Europe, studies by curry and others showing that they are due to a destabilised jetstream due to the warming Arctic. So thanks for pointing out the problem. Europe is still record warming. You don’t even realise when you are saying something that strengthens my argument, and Antarctic sea ice was not expected to fall soon, due to the higher precipitation, hence more snow, the increase was always on the cards, volume though is falling faster than expected. Do you have any idea of what is really going on? Get of your blog sites and have a look around the world.
04
The Fool has spoken! Thus sayeth the Fool: THERE IS NO RECORD BEFORE SATELLITES!!!!!
The Fool has spoken! Thus sayeth the Fool: I declare that no one but a Scientist is qualified to measure anything. Therefore, NO record is valid unless it was
recorded,noted,observedadjusted by a “certified” climate Scientist.Good luck astroturfer, your political comments negate everything else you have posted here.
30
I’m sure that you believe that satellites have only been around since 1979. But then, that’s you Michael. You don’t actually know anything.
The first satellite was launched in 1957 Michael and there is lots to look at prior to 1979. You will even find that there was a sea ice peak around the time you like to cherry pick as a starting point.
As MarkD points out, there is lots else to look at also. The problem for you is that were you game enough to do so you would find your crap quickly falsified.
You in fact do not have a scientific bone in your body. As I said, you are just a parrot.
30
I’ll just park this here in the( probably ) vain hope that Michael/Izen et al will see the error of their ways.
here are the two contradictory statements that you hold to be true simultaneously:-
1. The range, extent and causes of natural climate variability are not known completely.
2. Something observable is occurring that is outside of the range and extent of , and therefore NOT caused by, natural climate variability.
Can you see it now?
40
The real government got voted out. The policy less libs with their pinched but crippled labor policies of education and nbn, still accept climate change and you will be worse of than under a market mechanism. They will give all the carbon and mining tax money back to their big business mates, who will not flow that threw with price drops, and then saddle you with an expensive but ineffective direct action policy.
You were ably controlled by the Murdoch media into shooting yourself in the foot.
05
What a pile of delusion and conspiracy! How do you sleep at night?
50
Guffaw!!! Michael, you are as big a loser as Labor. Suffer. The fact is that the Australian people kicked Labor’s butt. You should try and reflect on why that was.
How does it feel to me in a minority Michael?
Yet more conspiracy ideation from an alarmist. Where is your friend Lewandowsky?
50
Not a conspiracy but a fact. Even some skeptic facebook pages wee concerned by the manipulation by Murdochs media. He specifically came out and said so. So my conspiracy proved, yours is fantasy.
I am saving up many i told you so’s. A government for big business and not the people. Murdoch tried to do the same thing in the US but they were not as gullible as Australia, finally the corporations have what they want, they can put in a puppet government.
05
No Michael, it is a fantasy or yours. Please show us all the peer reviewed science showing that the Murdoch press has the power of mind control…..
The thing is Michael that as much as your own mind is clearly under control most people are in fact free thinkers.
30
Salvador DaliMichael the Surrealist, you say here:Seriously, think about what you said here.
Your precious, and now failed government, run by your Labor Party handlers, got their lowest vote for more than 60 years, just a tad over 31%.
So then, what you are saying here is that around 70% of the Australian population is gullible enough to fall for something that was written by news media people.
Just read that again Michael. 70% of Australia, and you call THEM gullible. Oh, and Michael, this is Australia, your home. If you don’t like hanging out with so may gullible people, then you’re free to leave. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Gullible!
Pot meet kettle.
This is from Michael who strongly believes Wind Power and Solar Power are actually viable technologies for large scale power generation, well, really, for any scale power generation ….. something he, umm, read!
Seriously Michael, if you want to see someone who really is gullible ….. have a shave!
Tony.
40
Your displaying your total inability to understand facts and figure or your total ability to twist the facts to fit your bias.
Firstly there will be libs who have always and will always vote lib, same with labor, same with green. The libs Nat going by the federal election results had a 2.1% swing towards them from the last election. This would suggest that they only got 2.1% change towards them on the issues for this election. The main issues being, budget emergency, carbon tax, parental leave, party politics and stopping the boats. SO your 70%, just like most of your arguments, is a totally twisted unrepresentative view of reality. The media only needed to convince a very small % of people into switching towards lib and away from labor. This is easily done by focusing on how brilliant the libs are, lots of presidential photos, its time messages, we need you Tony messages etc on the front pages and more to make people think that he looks like a leader. Then they need to minimise Labors successes and focus on negatives. This would include making it sound like Australia is falling apart, big cartoons of labor in nazi uniforms, as a circus etc etc. Then go through every little labor problem and blow it up, concentrate on leadership etc, ignore putting any pressure on the libs for policy or costing etc. and in the true tradition of 1984 and oppressive regimes all around the world that control the media and you can easily sway 1% or so. This is not contentious, even the media have talked about it ad nauseum and like I said even pro lib pages have been uncomfortable with it.
I remember when I would buy the paper because that is where you would get all the detail of policies and costings etc to make an informed decision, not any more. No wonder the papers are declining, they are only representing less than half of the peoples views instead of being there for all of the people, but they have other business interests and mates that they are supporting. Look at 10, partially owned by Gina and gave Andrew Bolt his own show repeated. Media in Australia is a joke and is progressively being controlled by big business interests.
07
So Tony, who is really gullible…
07
How about, Michael, that you trot on over to the relevant thread and present your arguments?
Nope, you won’t because you are a gutless coward whose sole purpose in life is to thread bomb old threads.
50
You do realise that it was YOU who started this off topic conversation about the change of government. Strange you would now try to give the impression I am causing it.
Remember?
So I might, I might not, I am pretty over this. Nobody can actually argue away my observational evidence proving that AGW is still occurring and must be affecting the 2001 to 2010 decade that was hotter than the previous decade with stong el ninos, even though it has falling solar and majority la nina affected.
I hadn’t decided to even come back until one of you guys came looking for me after I hadn’t even posted for a couple of weeks. I think you guys like someone to bounce of on and be an enemy for you, otherwise if everybody agrees with you the debate gets boring.
05
No Michael, you have carried through your political meme ever since you first came here – you constantly spout that we need to “take action”….. “for our children and granchildren’s sakes”…..
It is you who advocates government interference in everybody’s lives.
I simply pointed out that your great hope bit the dust…. rather badly at that.
As I said, you are just a gutless old thread bomber.
40
Actually it is liberal using direct action and the green army to try to pick winners and interfere in a micromanaged manipulation of the environment. It was labor using a normally liberal market based mechanism. But again you have twisted the truth to throw blame of your own actions. I merely accept the scientists and the science for the benefit of humanity.
Again the actual fact of the case, as anyone who scrolls above can see, is that it was you who brought the politics to this thread. Probably because you cannot answer my scientific questions and need to distract from your lack of knowledge and misuse of the peer reviewed science that you presented but did not understand didn’t actually support your case.
04
Yep, and that’s what a majority of the voting public wanted, regardless of what Michael wants.
Good times. 🙂
30
Ah Michael, you really are a mindless automaton, aren’t you, ya prat! You say here in 97.2.2.1.4:
A market based mechanism. Give me strength.
For someone who claims to have read every Climate Science paper known to man ….. well, the ones that confirm your fanatical religious belief anyway, you really have no CDF. (look it up)
In a blaze of camera bulbs, your graven idol signed that all important second signature ratifying Kyoto at Bali in 2007, mentioning something about the most important moral blah blah blah of our time.
Part of that Protocol was that in signing, the Country agreed to place a price of some sort on CO2 and the 23 other gases as well, be it an outright Tax or an ETS. The money raised was then to be sent to the UN for disbursement among those 140+ Countries still classed as Developing.
When some Labor hardheads looked into it, they said hang on, we emit how much CO2. Man, there’s a motza in this for us.
So, they hired an economist, and hey, isn’t there a hint in there somewhere that Climate Science had nothing at all to do with what they wanted. They then told Ross Garnaut what they wanted the findings to be, and after a while he duly presented them with what they wanted, a Tax that would raise an absolute fortune.
Bugger the UN said those Labor hacks, now blinded by the huge number of zeroes after the dollar sign.
They needed a ploy to sell it to the public now, and keep all that loot for the all important budget bottom line, and more spending money, so they settled on the ploy that they would give a little bit back to the people, concentrate on that, giving back to the Labor heartland who would be thankful for the small pittance they got back from a Government which they could now see was looking after their interests.
So then Electrical power generation makes up 35% of those CO2 emissions, and 20% of that electrical power goes to the Residential sector, and so Labor magnanimously gave back some of that money to 75% of the people for their household electricity bills.
So 75% of 20% of 35%.
Labor raises 100% from CO2 emissions and then gives back 5.25% of the money raised.
Then they changed the rules of applying to Kyoto anyway. Originally it was to be a level 5% less than what was being emitted in 1990. No one ….. on the whole of Planet Earth ….. achieved this, ever, so Labor just said we’ll set them at 5% lower than current and hope to reach that by 2025.
Because, after all, lowering those emissions means less money coming in, so we need them to be either static or raising, so we get more money, raising the cost each year.
Knowing the problem, the emission of CO2 and how it is supposedly causing dangerous runaway global warming/climate change, does Labor bite the bullet and just shut down those CO2 emitting power plants, 85% of all power being consumed here in Australia.
Well no.
You see, if they closed them down, then there would be no money incoming eh! Don’t be silly.
No, we (Labor) needed to make as much money as they could from this, and then keep it all, and hey, does this show you how much they care for the whole World’s children and grandchildren.
And as to giving some of it back to the people. Hey, who cares anyway, we’ll get it back via bracket creep in a year or two.
So Michael, don’t give me any crap about your bloody market mechanism. This was flat out money grubbing at its worst.
You’ve been had Michael.
You have fallen for the proverbial 3 card trick.
Your mindless belief in your Socialist handlers has placed you so far into the collective Labor fundament that, whenever a Labor front bencher smiles, all we see are your teeth.
Market mechanism. Huh!
You blind fool.
Now bugger off and stop annoying us.
Tony.
60
Tony, I really don’t know why you don’t get pulled up for lieing. Apart from a world class dose of verbal diarhea there is nothing of substance or truth to reply to. Seriously dude stop making stuff up, its pathetic.
05
Michael the Realist,
I’ll start with your spelling, which is shocking: both of these wrong – diarhea and lieing. Say no more about your ability to rationally make judgement on others.
But the main problem is your accusation of lying, which is over ridden by quotes from your heroes of the CAGW crew:
You Michael, are one of the tools that dish out the sort of garbage as indicated above.
Your deception and fraud is desperate, only in order to hang onto power and authority, for your pathetic little pay cheque and 32 countries in 3 month tour. You are busy coming up with new scams and frauds in cut and paste examples over the last month to try and scare the readers of this blog back into obedience, in order to continue your lifestyle.
And the media are well aware that they cannot report on your lies, twisting sick little mind games that you have played out here for everyone to see, or they will expose themselves (refer Guardian , Fairfax and ABC).
Your last accusation of labeling Tony for not telling the truth is the last straw. You Michael are a dead set fool, criminal, and a goose.
It does not matter how much lipstick you put on, you are still an ungulate prevaricator. Why has your belief group of CAGW believers got so many liars that make fools of themselves. 97% of CAGW believers are exactly like you Michael, and that is why the world is turning away from you and your arrogant ways.
60
Dave I have no heroes, I follow the science, the data and the observations, which, despite all the attempts to avoid and make excuses stands unchallenged. 2001 to 2010 being the hottest decade on the instrumental record, hotter than the previous decade (with its strong warming el ninos) and hotter despite overwhelming cooling influences (la ninas and solar). Rant and rave with all that rubbish all you like, but they are undeniable facts.
As to Tony’s lies
Please provide proof that
…all of the ETS money was to(and has been) sent to the UN.
…that Garnaut was instructed to conclude a tax that would raise a fortune
…that over 50% of the tax back to the people can be classed as a small pittance
…that nobody has been able to reduce emissions by 5%
…that nobody is trying to shut down the economy, not for the tax, but because it is just plain stupid. We are trying to encourage an orderly transition away from fossil fuels before it is to late to do easily.
…that AGW is not real and is not supported by all of the scientific organisations globally and that labor was only following the science
…of economists statements that an ets is not a market mechanism and a cheaper way of reducing emissions to the taxpayer than a direct action mechanism trying to select winners and decide politically the best way to reduce emissions.
…that you guys do not want to debate me. Which is why even after I stopped posting for several weeks you guys came onto an old thread and started baiting me.
When you can actually disprove AGW and not keep on with this politically motivated bs and biased views, come back and provide it. You can start with proof of why 2001 to 2010 was so hot despite cooling influences.
04
That’s it Michael, keep swinging.
Mind you, I’m a tad disappointed. Only one post so far today.
You do realise we are still over twenty posts short of the magic 700 number for this thread?
Still, I shouldn’t grumble. You have already almost single-handedly rocketed Jo’s site up through the internet traffic rankings, to make it a shoe-in for next year’s Bloggies Australian award. Poor old John
CrookCook at Septic Science, and The Team at UNReal Climate must be spewing at the traffic figures.You haven’t got a few friends who could do like-wise on a half dozen similar old threads, have you? That way we could get Jo’s traffic up where she might even be a serious challenge to Anthony over at WUWT.
.
By the way Michael, since you’re here and so knowledgeable about all this
global warmingclimate changeextreme weatherclimate thingy stuff, perhaps you can clear up a little mystery for us all.Apparently there was big party and celebration planned for this weekend, with lots of pomp and ceremony and flag waving and brass bands and speeches and stuff, to mark the official release of the IPCC’s Fifth Summary for Policy Makers, in which they had proved conclusively the planet was still heating its way to hell in a handbasket, and it was all our fault.
Now it seems somebody has cancelled the party at the last minute, and instead the IPCC has scheduled “crisis meetings” for next week. Something to do with “reality”, apparently.
Anyway, I thought you might like to give us the full dos on the matter.
30
No, you do not. I have pointed out your distinct lack of science with the claims that you make.
You most certainly have been challenged, yet you duck and weave and just keep repeating the same crap over and over.
Again, I have already shown that your claims are absolute bullshit.
I provided the proof (peer reviewed science).
You are a liar Michael.
30
…and the biggest lie is that governments are making big pots of money out of this and thats why they promote. Please specify WHO has made big pots of money and WHO it has advantaged. That shows a distinct lack of logic and reason and intelligence, that line of thinking.
Fact. It has cost many governments and politicians their jobs, it is unpopular with people, and not one individual politician benefits from it (costs most of them their jobs). The only possible reason is that they think it is the right thing to do for the people, humanity in general and future generations. So point out HOW and WHO in the labor party benefitted from this, and then say you are not a liar.
Backslider, your proof says nothing of the sort, clouds have slightly decreased, fail. Put forward some coherent argument. There is no science in there that says it is responsible for the 0.6 deg rise in temps in the last 60 years, zero, nada etc. This is similar to your proof of a gravity wave, I can only assume you are joking again.
03
Is this the same Michael who states “I follow the science, the data and the observations“?
Is this the same Michael who says “the fact that in science it is common for tiny amounts to have big substantial effects“?
How can you say that when you have neither read the paper nor followed up on the clear lead I have given you. You claim to be a lover of science so I would expect you to hungrily find out as much as you can about it, rather than expect me to hold your hand. The rest of us have.
It’s no joke Michael. Trust me, the time will come when you eat your words.
So tell us Michael, if you can, what is a “gravity wave”?
10
That’s funny. Thanks . I enjoyed that.
40
Want something else to enjoy??
So the new senate could pass the legislation to repeal the CO2 Tax/ETS but revoke the Direct Action plan.
Happy days! Billions of dollars freed up to use on more quantifiable benefits.
50
That would backfire on them, latest surveys say over 60% of people want more action on climate change. Labor got kicked out due to disunity and a biased media ignoring their successes, they did not get kicked out due to anti climate change feelings.
06
Until you tell the punters that they have to pay for it, then the ‘support’ declines.
Regardless, even if the direct action plan gets up, we will only waste 3.2B a year as opposed to over 10B.
Good times…
50
That would backfire on them LOL,
Remember AGW is/was the greatest moral challenge or some such, we are bombarded with bullshit study after bullshit study, Abbott himself declared the election was a vote on the Co2 tax, it was front and centre for most of the campaign and in fact was the only real point of difference between the two parties.
Result, labor was booted out of office in emphatic style but according to your overlords it was due to disunity and you, you guliable little fool come here and parrot everything they say.
Might have to start calling you “Michael the ritualist” due to the many faiths you hold so dear.
60
Actually I don’t think he knows what everybody voted for, or is he god now?
Front and centre was ‘stop the boats’, though I notice this morning he is running with the PNG policy, and they could have stopped about 4000 people earlier if he did not block the Malaysia solution. The guy should be charged with treason, he has been damaging Australia for 3 years.
Also there was the ‘budget emergency’, but I noticed on election night him saying that we were in economically good shape, Turnbull said the same thing this morning on ABC24.
Yep you guys were badly had and easily manipulated by the biased media creating disasters were there was none and ignoring the real disasters, all the langauge now has mysteriously changed as they rewrite history.
06
The REAL Michael is finally revealed to us! An astroturfing political hack.
Good to know. Good to know
Oh and a sore loser too……
50
Well this is strange!
Michael says with absolute certainty
And then later states
Based on the fact that only a God would know why people did not vote for Labor, can i ask you a question…………………….Are you a God Michael?
70
… latest surveys [of those who agreed to take a survey, when approached,] say over 60% of people want more action on climate change …
There, fixed the selection bias in the original. It still doesn’t mean swat though.
60
He knows that most people voted for Coalition policies.
Oh you poor mindless troll. You also are not God. If ‘stop the boats’ was ‘front and centre’ and ‘the PNG policy’ was so good, why then was Labor trounced?
The fact, which you are unable to swallow, is that THE CARBON TAX was front and centre. Suffer.
50
ROFLMAO!!! That coming from a climate alarmist chicken little who runs around squarking “The sky is falling, the sky is falling” believing all the crap from the likes of Al Gore, Pachauri, Flim Flammery et al….
You are a prime idiot Michael.
50
The only decent policies they have are pinched policies. Firstly he was anti parental leave and then when labor did it, all of a sudden he has the worlds most generous parental leave (or nearly). Then he says education is not broken, but when labor tries to fix suddenly he is giving money to education (but not as much, not targetted and not requiring any state money). Then he says the internet is not fast enough, but when the nbn comes along suddenly he has an nbn (but only to the street and then it crawls on old technology into the house. So he only has policies because of the labor party, but then he cripples them to break them. What a joke. I was laughing out loud on q and a last night. The audience asked if they had any economic reforms and 2 of them could not think of any!!! What a joke. Thankfully because of labor they do have something, but it is not much.
06
I meant Abbott said the internet was fast enough.
06
Listen Michael. Stop THREAD BOMBING here and make your political views known in the relevant and current thread.
You won’t, because as already pointed out you are just plain gutless.
40
You’re not much of a realist if you keep trying to re-write history.
Abbotts very first and most significant act that drove him to the prime ministership was his challenge against Malcolm Turnbull the then opposition leader.
He opposed the proposed ETS (which later morphed into a temporary carbon tax) from his very first day as opposition leader.
Michael you need to stop bullshitting repeatedly on this site.
50
You have already asked this question. Why are you allowed to continually repeat yourself? Answered here…http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/#comment-1315558
05
60% Huh?
Did you get your figure from the ALPBC’s ‘Vote Compass’ which is not representative of the entire population, just those who frequent ABC online and other like-minded sites??
Let’s see.
Also,
36%… Sounds remarkably close to the ALP’s nationwide primary vote, lowest in over 100 years.
30
Micael the Realist says:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/#comment-1315111
I’m sorry is this now Michael’s blog? You feel you can make demands of the host? Bad form Michael. Audacious behavior really.
Michael, do you deny that a whole host of Warmists regularly and repeatedly claim that the effects of global warming will cause climate extremes, natural disasters, food shortages, famine, mass disruptions, tremendous costs and war, to list just a few that YOU yourself have suggested, as well as invoking your progeny as an excuse for drastic and extreme measures to limit the worlds peoples access to low cost energy?
Just what about this is not alarmism? If alarmist is used in a derogatory way it’s because NONE of these fearsome effects has happened (well except food prices going up due to the diversion of cropland to biofuels) and your wailing is alarmist.
You ARE a Warmist alarmist. Sad that you deny it.
30
I have a problem with hypocrisy. I merely accept and support the science as accepted by virtually every major international scientific organisation in the world and the IPCC. If that is what they are saying then I think we should listen and respond to it. I have NEVER put forward drastic and extreme measures. I think we could do it fairly painlessly now but the longer we leave it the more drastic things will be later on down the track.
Now do YOU deny the science as put forward by every internationally recognised scientific organisation in the world and the IPCC, the premier nobel award winning organisation from the UN set up to review the peer reviewed science and collate reports for decision makers? Then by definition you are a denier. Simple surely. You may say it is a conspiracy, that you do not think they are representative or whatever, but the fact remains.
08
Don’t be so gullible. The “winning” of a Nobel PEACE prize means nothing to nature and DATA.
Hey, do you remember BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA won a Nobel PEACE prize immediately after he won office? GUESS WHO IS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE WORLD THAT HE SHOULD BOMB SYRIA? GUESS WHO HAS USED MORE DRONE ATTACKS THAN GW BUSH?
Nobel peace prize means jack chit in the face of data, and the data says there has been no warming since 1998. Data says what warming there was happened during a period of predominant El Nino patterns. Data says in over a half a century, there has been NO WARMING of the Lower tropical troposphere. DATA SAYS THE CLIMATE MODELS THAT NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNERS RELY UPON TO MAKE POLICY HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED.
DATA SAYS IF ANYBODY IS IN DENIAL, IT IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
61
The data says that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the industrial record despite overall natural cooling factors and hotter than the decade with you cherry picked year and its strong el nino influence. The 1991 to 2000 decade was the strongest el nino affected decade for 60 years but was still cooler than the following decade. But I suppose that would only make sense if you accepted logic and reason and did not come in with a preconceived bias.
So nope, the denial is not on the side of science, it is with people like you ignoring the actual and long term data in concert with natural factors, and only accepting the parts that fit your bias.
16
Michael:
If there has been warming since 1975 and no cooling, then the 2001 -2010 decade would be the warmest decade since 1975.
It’s a bit like marking a child’s height off on one of those cardboard measures. Let’s call him Michael. Michael get taller over the years. Long after the parents have lost interest (in measuring the rise) in Michael’s height stops. Michael is taller now than he has ever been.
The problem is that unless the parents are raving lunatics the measurements will be accurate.
With AGW the measurements are done by those who decided before they started that Michael would grow at precisely 1mm per day and continue for 90 years. This didn’t happen, but they kept marking the chart that way until it became too embarrassing to be made public; so they switched to talking about the dangers of uncontrolled growth.
By the way, what happened to 1998? It was “the warmest year on record” at one time, then it got demoted to fourth warmest year on record, then back up to warmest year. As the temperature failed to meet IPCC projections 1998 then became cooler to 2005 which became “the warmest year on record”. I hope 1998 won’t continue to slide else it won’t make the “100 warmest years on record” list.
P.S. those remarks relate to North America; you’ll struggle to find anywhere in Australia where 1998 was the warmest year on record (actual unadjusted readings).
40
The old rewriting history conspiracy defense. Every data set shows the same warming, grow up.
Strongest el nino in 60 years after a decade of strong el ninos, do you actually understand the climate? Apart from that 2005 and 2010 are hotter in most data sets and it has consistently stayed hot since then despite falling solar and a strongly la nina affect decade. Can you explain that? Not projections, not models, actual data and observations. If natural cooling events influence the climate but temperatures remain in record hot territory and do not fall then warming by CO2 is still occurring. Basic logic and reasoning, sadly missing here with all the cherry picking.
…and I am talking globally, not cherry picking regions as well. Hottest decade (2001 to 2010) on land, over ocean, in both hemispheres and on every continent. Are all those facts blowing your mind?
03
False. 1998 was in fact a moderate La Niña year.
As for you “decade of strong El Niños”:
1987 – Moderate El Niño
1988 – Strong La Niña
1989 – nada
1990 – nada
1991 – Moderate El Niño
1992 – nada
1993 – nada
1994 – Moderate El Niño
1995 – Weak La Niña
1996 – nada
1997 – Strong El Niño
You are a liar Michael.
Well, let’s just look at that decade also:
2001 – nada
2002 – Moderate El Niño
2003 – nada
2004 – Weak El Niño
2005 – Weak La Niña
2006 – Weak El Niño
2007 – Moderate La Niña
2008 – Weak La Niña
2009 – Moderate El Niño
2010 – Strong La Niña
As I said Michael, you are a liar.
40
1991 to 2000 decade of strong el ninos with 1998 being a strong el nino affected year. Going on the research by Mclean, de freitus and carter there is about a 7 month lag between the full affects of the change occurring. I will let readers determine who is the liar.
Graph of 60 years of el nino and la ninas http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Info on the research by the skeptic scientists above. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349
Roughly zero overall effect, so why did it warm 0.6 degrees?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
04
It was not a “decade of strong el ninos [sic]”.
There was only one strong El Niño and that was in 1997. You are a liar.
Its not my problem Michael that you do not understand your graph.
So, after all your harping you now say there was “roughly zero overall effect”. I won’t bother arguing with this, however its clear that you believe that warming was caused by CO2.
I have already shown you research which shows that cloud cover has fallen. This would have what effect Michael? Oh yes, it would warm the planet.
I would suggest that you study cloud formation Michael and in particular the effect of the sun and cosmic rays. It’s not CO2 Michael, it’s what the sun is doing and clouds.
While this has lead to a brief period of marked warming you will find that as we progress into a solar minimum that this planet will cool dramatically. Better that we adapt to that rather than your alarmist bunk.
30
You have no understanding of the concept of science and proof. The science and the data say nothing of the sort. Please point to the specific proof in the research where it is concluded what the effects of the 0.4% increase in cloud cover does. Then show the measurements and the data that show anything of the sort.
You have link bombed some research and then made a grand conclusion with no corroborating evidence. The science and the data say nothing of the sort. You are a liar and you are making stuff up. I have shown above the actual data of el ninos and la ninas for the last 60 years. I have shown you the research from skeptic scientists that said that due to these la ninas we should have seen a massive drop in temperatures in 2011 to 1956 levels, In contrast they about 0.5 degree higher. I conclude they are so much higher due to the influence of AGW overriding natural cooling factors. Proved with the science and the data, not disproved by you vague statements and misrepresentation of peer reviewed science.
02
Interesting Michael. You keep bombing here with links to graphs, then give your own false interpretations of those graphs, but not one peer reviewed paper supporting your conclusions.
I’d be happy to, once you do.
Shown where Michael?
That is exactly my point Michael. They are your own conclusions and you have no actual science in support of them. I have given you an alternative route to research yourself. I know that if you do so you will come to different conclusions with some actual science to back them up. If you love science as much as you claim to you will follow my lead. I gave you a very good paper to start with, there are others if you care to look (I gave you hints).
40
Pay attention sonny. That’s a 0.4% decrease per decade in cloud cover over four decades.
That comes to 1.6% decrease in cloud cover over 39 years.
Do you think that 1.6% of the planet is not very much? How much would it be if we extrapolate back a bit further?
How does this 1.6% increase compare with the numbers you use for increase in CO2 and the supposed effect of that? Do you remember what you said about small numbers?
We are talking only a 0.5 degree increase in temperature Michael. Can you think of an experiment to see what would happen when more of the planet is exposed to direct sunlight?
30
OH, just for you Michael.
20
Backslider, all your questions have been answered as well as peer reviewed science corroboration, but this did not pass moderation so I will try again. Look at the following for the ENSO data, temperature data, and the link to the skeptic scientists science which said that 1956 should be as cold as 2011 going on natural variations. 2011 was not, it was 0.5 degree hotter, conclusion? AGW is overwhelming natural influences.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/#comment-1316279
A link to the science that is confirmation of my conclusion
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
There you go that is the right way to do it. Hypothesis, data, and science. Theory proved. Your turn.
As to your cloud paper. You are being a hypocrite, I was the one that said small numbers is not science, but you are the one always using it as science. Now you are saying the opposite. I did not say the small number negates your science I am saying science negates your science. It does not say in the paper that this has caused warming and you have not produced any proof that it does, opinion is not science. Also could you explain what the reason for the fall in cloud cover is while you are presenting your science properly.
Your cherry picked graph proves how anti science your argument is. You have chosen different dates for each graph depending on what misrepresentation you want to display. Look at all the available data.
05
Michael the “realist”,
How many times have you posted here with vigorous claims that there has been no stopping of temperature trend? How many times have you posted graphs showing that and refuting all of our evidence as “cherry picking”? Now suddenly you use as evidence supposedly to support your position a new paper that says:
Read that?
hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity
READ THAT?
hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity
One more time:
READ THAT?
Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity.
Here’s you Michael the realist pasting a link that says exactly what we have been saying! Funny that! You post a link that says there is a lack of EMPIRICAL evidence, and supports what we’ve been saying!
Michael, you are becoming a skeptic.
NOW ADMIT THAT IT WOULD BE STUPID FOR US TO ACT ON CARBON WHEN WE KNOW SO LITTLE!
20
Congratulations Mark , you have proven your cherry picking and misrepresenting skills. You forgot to read to the end to get the actual conclusion, or you do not understand what they are saying.
“Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.”
In other words, exactly what I have been saying for months and using the actual ENSO data. So you got them and me wrong. Basically when you look over the last 60 years you get a zero overall ENSO effect but 0.6 degrees of warming. Despite the recent 13 years or so having a net La Nina influence and falling solar, temperatures have remained record high for the whole decade, and even though the last 2 years were affected by back to back la ninas, and even though skeptic science expected that to translate to 1956 temperatures they are still within the hottest 13 years or so on record and 0.5 deg hotter than 1956. This is proof that AGW is overwhelming natural events and that warming is still continuing and that as cycles go warming again we will see a sharp uptick in temps as has happened in the past during hiatus decades.
So despite your very poor attempt at misrepresenting me and the science the facts are that warming is still continuing at the same trends and we need to act now for the sake of future generations. Also we know quite a lot and definitely enough to be concerned and to act on that information. How about you show some scientific honesty and admit that the data supports the above view, and in the end it is all pretty simple if you open your eyes and be honest about it.
03
No Michael. As always you dodge and weave around the issues and just keep posting the same things over and over. Things that yiu have been shown do not corroborate your assertions.
What Michael? So now you are basing you arguments on a single year and the prediction of a single paper?
MarkD has shown that your conclusions re. that paper are unfounded.
Why am I a hypocrite Michael? It is you who made the statement, but then say that a 1.6% reduction in cloud cover could not do anything. Let me give you another hint Michael – its not just reduction in cloud cover, but also the whiteness of the cloud cover. Again I urge you to study the topic, you will be duly rewarded for your effort.
You need proof that less cloud cover would mean more sunlight hitting the earth’s surface thus causing warming? Try this simple experiment Michael:
Pick a nice sunny day that also has plenty of nice phat clouds. Go and stand outside when one of those clouds is covering the sun. Now wait there until the cloud moves on and the glorious sun shines upon you. What do you feel Michael?
Yes Michael. It has to do with cosmic rays and cloud formation – do look it up, you will be enthralled.
Please explain exactly what it is about the graph that you do not like? It simply supports what everybody already knows – there has been no statistically significant warming for a statistically significant period of time, despite ever rising CO2 emissions (again negating your arguments). Everybody is talking about this Michael, except you.
30
Oh, by the way Michael. Could you please tell us all what event happened in 1991 that perhaps even you may admit had an effect on global temperatures?
Let me give you a hint – it was an event that will undo all your arguments re. El Niños.
If you can’t figure it out, please feel free to ask.
30
Backslider, as before and always you have presented no science to back up your assertions, only thought bubbles, opinion and requests for me to find the science for you. Pathetic. Obviously you have not learned your lesson about the last time you requested, I did and you were found to know absolutely nothing about the carbon cycle and how much CO2 we have put up there.
Until you answer the questions in http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/#comment-1317002 with actual explanations of the process and the science to back them up, I am done with you. Your opinions are just wasting my time and I will not be doing your work for you. Sad, very sad.
03
Wow ! So you won’t be back? That offer is too good to refuse.
I am sure that I speak for the consensus (sic) here when I say that you will be missed by nobody.
But will you miss us? Can you possibly stay away?
Time will tell.
20
I have answered your questions. Please take the time to look.
Here you are yet again, doing your usual duck and weave.
WHAT MAJOR EVENT HAPPENED IN 1991 THAT INFLUENCED GLOBAL TEMPERATURES?
I think you have probably found the answer to this and are now trying to hide because you know it shoots you to pieces. Prove me wrong.
20
You are the one who marches around here screaming “peer review, peer review”, thus it is only reasonable that you be asked to cough it up.
I have already pointed out your lack of peer reviewed science in this thread to back up your assertions and what you have provided only shoots it down.
20
Prove what wrong? All you do is ask other people to do your work for you. You were wrong about the solar papers, they do not support whatever it is you did not say when you linked to them. Same goes for the cloud paper, that also did not say what you are finally intimating they say (but still without any detail). You have nothing.
Above I have provided the ENSO data that proves the last 60 years, finishes out to zero, with the 1998 being affected by the equal largest el nino of the 60 years. That the 1991 to 2000 decade was strongly el nino influenced, that the 2001 to 2010 decade is overall la nina influenced and also affected by falling solar. I provided a link to skeptic paper (from 3 skeptic scientists) that expected temps to fall due to natural variations and the temperature data that shows that they did not, and in fact the 2001 to 2010 decade is the hottest on record and 2011 and 2012 hottest la nina affected years on record. The only currently scientifically verifiable explanation for this is that AGW is overwhelming natural factors (0.6 higher in 60 years). I then finally linked to the paper that supports all I have said. Hypothesis, data and science. You fail dismally, with your vacuous link bombing without explanation science that does not support your view.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/#comment-1317002
Please provide what I have to regain any scientific integrity at all.
Hypothesis, explain your science and what it is you are trying to prove and how it works. For instance, if it is the clouds tell me that you think falling cloud cover is causing warming, explain why the cloud cover is falling (ie, what is the mechanism), explain how the falling cloud cover causes warming (again the mechanism), show the data that proves cloud cover is falling and show the peer reviewed science that shows that falling cloud cover has caused warming.
Answer all those questions with referenced science (not opinion) or prove that you are as scientifically illiterate as I think you are.
02
Also I referred to a previous comment rather than repeat myself, I thought that would be better. Backslider has also cross posted his comments on to another thread and you have allowed that.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-on-readfearn-a-journalist-with-a-grudge-is-a-mere-propagandist/#comment-1317314
03
Michael the RealWarmist accuses me of “cherry picking” because I used his linked paper against his argument. (the paper absolutely says: NO WARMING IN THE 21ST CENTURY. the authors even provide references 1,2)
Michael, is it right for you to claim I cherry pick when it is a report you cherry pick for your argument? You mustn’t be able to read well. The paper goes on to claim they know why this is happening. The premise of the paper MUST BE FACT otherwise why would the authors bother with their research? Their conclusions MAY be right, MAY not be right, BUT THE OPENING PREMISE IS WHAT THEY BASE IT UPON.
The true Skeptic understands that natural climate variability could account for all the measured temperature rise.
The true Skeptic knows that claims of co2 warming are not proven by coincidence or correlation.
The true Skeptic knows that empirical measurements do not come from models.
The true Skeptic knows that other external and internal forces change climate.
The true Skeptic understands there is a great deal about the Earths climate that we do not yet understand nor do we have sufficient ability to measure empirically.
The true Skeptic sees how politics has entered into the bias of scientists like Hansen and Mann and is not compelled by the fallacious authority based argument.
The true Skeptic sees how money has potentially corrupted the scientific process.
The true Skeptic fully understands that the Precaution Principle is not logical.
The true Skeptic sees many other natural non-human reasons for climate change that are not at all well understood and therefore cannot be excluded.
The true Skeptic understands that the Michaels of this world are really politically motivated not science motivated.
30
Not at all, it doesn’t go against my argument. Which is that the decade of 1991 to 2000 was predominantly affected by el ninos, culminating in one of the biggest el ninos affecting your cherry picked year of 1998.Nevertheless the following decade of 2001 to 2010 decade was hotter even though it was affected by predominantly la ninas and falling solar. Further that the last 60 years temps rose .6 deg even though ENSO evens out to 0 and solar was flat to falling and it even had a big cooling volcano in the middle. Nobody has been able to answer this argument. You guys go around in circles trying to avoid them or put up science that does not support you, but you have been unable to show what natural factor has caused the warming. You guys are not skeptics or trying to find answers, just ignoring reality and misinforming the public. Not natural variability, hence, the science tells us, and all the cooroborating evidence agrees, AGW. Get over it, its a fact.
No models necessary, you put up arguments I have never presented, you cannot face reality so make up stuff to throw at me.
04
Yes we have Michael. It’s the sun and cosmic rays.
You claim that CO2 has “caused the warming”, but have absolutely no science to back it up…. only you own opinions, which have been thoroughly shown to be false.
10
Here you go AGAIN with your crap when I have already shown you that the 1991 to 2000 decade had significant cooling due the the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
I have also shown that the decade was NOT “prediminately affected by el ninos [sic]” and that the succeeding decade was NOT “affected predominately by la ninas [sic]”.
You are seriously sick Michael. You have not produced ONCE peer reviewed papaer which supports your arguments. Not one. They are just your opinions.
The fact is Michael that temperatures have been falling since 1998. The World news is now full of articles on the IPCC’s massive backdown on their alarmist predictions.
10
Old data, the correlation breaks down now that AGW warming has kicked in.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_1024.jpg
[Snip antagonistic reply. No you have not adequately rebutted Backslider with regard to the ENSO argument. In detail, explain why his points are not correct.] ED
03
No Michael, you have given your own explanations and have not explained any science whatsoever.
You keep linking to ENSO graphs Michael, then give your own explanation of them, neglecting things as important as the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
Why should we listen to your misguided opinions?
The only peer reviewed science you have provided falsifies what you say Michael, as shown by Mark D
Wrong about what exactly Michael?
20
Michael, there are many graphs floating around showing the lack of correlation between warming and CO2. I’m sure that you have seen them.
To assume that solar irradiance is the only factor is as stupid as your assertions regarding ENSO.
You claim that all the warming since 1960 (at least) has been caused by CO2. I can find posts by you where you purport that human emissions of CO2 pulled the Earth’s climate out of The Little Ice Age.
What we don’t get from you Michael is the science showing the things that you assert.
I am particularly intrigued by this phrase Michael. You you please explain it? In particular when the “now” began.
20
Yes I have. It is Backslider who did not adequately rebut me. You do realise that he has only offered opinion with no sources where I offered the actual data. But you allow him to get away with mere words while my actual data and peer reveiwed science is knocked back. What does this tell you?
Actual ENSO data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Clearly shows the preponderence of el nino events for about 1983 to 1998. The one affecting 1998 being equal highest up at level 3 on record with the 1983 one. CLearly shows the 2001 to 2010 decade being much lower than the previous decade. Discussion of the el ninos and la ninas since 1950 are below the graphic, and the overall period was roughly even with no net effect. Clearly the 0.6 deg rise over the 60 years was not due to ENSO, and that the 2001 to 2010 decade was much lower ENSO even though it was warmer than the previous decade.
Explanation of how ENSO affects global temperatures
“The sloshing back and forth can also influence global temperatures. During an El Nino, the tropical Pacific fills up with warm water, which enhances the transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. This tends to raise global temperatures. Conversely, during La Nina, the tropical Pacific fills up with cool water, which tends to depress heat transfer and therefore global temperatures.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=el-nino-la-nina-and-global-warming&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20130322
Peer reviewed science explaining how the lack of rise in recent temperatures are just a natural cooling variation (but it has not cooled).
“Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
Consequently the above proves that I have provided everything that Backslider says I have not. Now it is only fair that backslider rebuts this properly with data, science and peer review.
[Stop writing with such added twists of the knife as “allow him to get away with”. This post is better and that is why it gets published, not because you whinge like a baby. You are the antagonist here and have been since your first post. Because of that, you will be held to a higher standard. Jo has explained this to you, other mods have explained this to you. Too many of your posts include an insult and this behavior is extremely annoying to the other writers and to us Mods. I strongly encourage you to focus on not annoying the Mods.] ED
01
I doubt that anything would be adequate for you. You continue posting the same guff all over this blog even though I have clearly shown you that your ENSO comparisons are invalid. Here you do it yet again:
There is no comparison Michael because the previous decade was significantly affected by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
Why do you continue to make a comparison based solely on ENSO when there are other significant and obvious factors at play?
Here is just one paper on Mount Pinatubo. There are plenty of others if you care to look (I know you do not care).
You have not shown any science which shows that, regardless of ENSO, the warming of the past 60 years was due to CO2. You have not provided a scrap of science to back up your claims, yet you expect us to accept your own interpretations of ENSO when you have shown yourself incapable of taking into account other factors?
This is patently false. I have referred you to numerous peer reviewed papers which you will not read.
Let’s see now. A link to an article in Scientific American which outlines that scientists cannot agree with each other on what is happening. This is clearly not peer reviewed, nor does it prove anything.
As for the Nature paper, we see:
Sorry Michael, but we do not accept “novel” climate models as science. They can draw whatever conclusions they like from their models, but it will never be science.
Show us something with real science Michael.
20
Sure, I will accept that. What you fail to realise is that it, like most of the science you put forward, does not help your case.
Firstly from the paper you provided…
Like I said!
Yet from 1991 to 1998 we had 0.2 deg of warming. Wow! That is a massive turnaraound, from minus .6 to plus .2 in less than a decade, how come?
The Nature paper is peer reviewed science that supports my argument, the papers you provided did not support your argument.
Besides the Nature paper I have consistently used the actual data to show that most natural factors were in cooling directions or flat for the 60 years since 1950, though global temperatures rose 0.6 degrees. You have not provided the actual source for your ENSO info, I have. Please show an actual source for all 60 years if you do not agree with mine. Anecdotal subjective descriptions of ENSO are unacceptable. You have been unable to come up with any natural source for the warming with proof in data or science. The scientific american article was only to explain the ENSO mechanism for you.
Again I would request in regards to your cloud claims.
1. The actual mechanism and cause for the drop in cloud cover.
2. The science of what this would mean to climate.
No opinion thank you, actual science and data to prove your case.
Mods, I think your actions should be balanced and even, then I would not get so annoyed. If insults are unacceptable by me then they should be unacceptable for everyone. If I have to answer questions put to me then everyone should answer questions put to them etc.
00
Have to add this bit from the paper you provided. Thanks for that, it was very interesting.
But those things obviously overrode the volcanos effects by the end of the decade and then some.
00
Well finally Michael. Does this mean that you will cease to use your false juxtaposition of the two decades?
My “case” Michael has primarily been your false use of data and false numbers (which I will continue with).
Let me put it to you this way: We all agree that the Earth has been warming for several hundred years. Your position is that this is entirely due to CO2 emissions. You even go so far as to claim that CO2 emissions are responsible for puling our climate out of the LIA. You have not been able to show this, however it is clear that is your position.
Thus, my “case” is not that the Earth has warmed. Since the Earth has been warming, it is not unusual for a decade to be warmer than the previous. Can you show me a decade which hasn’t been? Yes, there are some – perhaps you can explain those in the face of rising CO2 levels?
Where do you get this number from Michael? From the latest IPCC report we have:
I think you will find Michael that “0.2 degrees” was the IPCC prediction in the previous report and it has failed miserably. It is only 1/4 of what you or they have said. At least they admit it.
No Michael. You have cherry picked only those things which you feel supports your argument. From the NOAA:
If they don’t know, how can you possibly know Michael? You simply believe there is a correlation between CO2 emissions and warming and draw your conclusions from that. Correlation (even though they do not correlate well) does not show cause.
1. “The actual mechanism and cause for the drop in cloud cover.” – Why don’t you read the papers I referred you to rather than just the abstracts?
2.”The science of what this would mean to climate.” – From the Pinatubo paper, which you accept:
Now Michael, if we have radiation losses of up to 5% causing significant cooling, what do you suppose radiation gains from loss of cloud cover would do? I know you don’t like me appealing to common sense, since you don’t appear to have any, but I will ask it for the benefit of others at least. Step out into the sun some time, it’s a nice feeling.
Here is a primer for you from Nasa to help you understand some of the simple things I talk about. Please note:
Again, how can you possibly know the things you think you do?
20
Not false, fact. Does not change anything, it should be clear, even by you now, that the warming by AGW and el ninos overrode the cooling factor of Mount Pinatubo and that the decade following it was still even hotter despite many more natural cooling factors. You continue to ignore natural variation in the climate system that are known to be cooling, and other evidence of warming such as ocean warming, Arctic melting etc in preference for cherry picking. Look at the big picture and again despite flat ENSO over a 60 year period, a huge cooling volcano, flat to falling solar we have 0.6 degrees c of WARMING. Wow, can you not get that?
THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND I WOULD ASK MODS TO SHOW SOME STANDARDS AND BALANCE. I provide the sources for all of my data. YOU DO NOT. SUBJECTIVE COMMENTS WITHOUT SOURCES.
GISS. 1991 0.4 1998 0.6 – the period include the Mt Pinatubo cooling. Again actual data.
Source thanks. All quotes should come with a source, that is what I teach my students, where did you go to school? Also nobody denies uncertainty, it does not change the basic science and the overwhelming trends. IT IS OCCURRING every international science organisation agrees and most of the science points to it. Science is always improving, that does not mean we sit on our hands while we twiddle our thumbs watching the climate degenerate waiting for some mythical unattainable goal of perfect information. You take out of context remarks and ignore the conclusions.
I did. Told you that, and they do not support your claims. Did you?
That quote says absolutely nothing about what caused the drop in cloud cover and what it means to climate. It is about a large volcanic eruption and the effects of its aerosols, in fact it claims ongoing cooling which is the opposite of explaining the warming. It seems you are admitting that all natural factors are strongly cooling. You keep avoiding and misrepresenting the questions. You have no actual science or understanding to back up your claims. The fact remains, I have provided the proof and the science that shows warming through natural cooling, confirming ongoing and significant AGW. You persistently add to my cooling while being unable to explain the warming, yet cannot admit it. DO you give up yet?
From your quote you ignore the following
Also from NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
I ask again, please answer the questions properly and with sources.
02
Try looking at what the IPCC really is right here …
50
I don’t think an opinion blog called no fracking consensus is going to tell me anything of value.
16
What? Like an opinion blog called “Skeptical Science” which is anything but skeptical?
40
That is to be expected of religious fanatics. If it is not in the oracles then its evil.
31
So Jo allows you back in here and you choose to break site rules.
Mods please note.
40
sorry backslider… are you driving a Waaaahhhhhhbulance?
08
Yes…. and that’s you wailing in the back.
50
It was in the context of a discussion on why I am allowed to be called a warmist and alarmist continuously. I stated the conditions of what is being denied, so it was not in the context of a derogatory term.
26
I deny nothing if it is measured empirically. The word empirical is completely foreign to you Fool. The IPCC, Nobel (that you couldn’t bring yourself to properly recognize with a capital letter), the UN that is a despicable amalgamation of all that is wrong with the world (and for which I will work the rest of my life to unfund and destroy) does not comprehend the meaning of empirical.
Everything that you comprehend is political. You have been abused and neglected in your life. Your childhood was a ruin of abuse. That is why you find political life safer.
I am sorry for you.
30
Ok then. You must agree by the following information that 1991 to 2000 was dominated by strong el ninos (1998 being one of the highest for the 60 years), that the 60 year trend evens out to zero and that 2001 to 2010 is slightly more la ninas.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Then how do you explain 2001 to 2010 being higher temps than the previous decade, that the temps over that period rose .6 degree?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Must be AGW, you believe real data, unless you have another verifiable measurable explanation.
Real empirical observational evidence.
04
I have already shown here that you are a liar. All that you are saying is false.
Where do you get this stuff? Where is the blog you are parroting your info from?
40
Look again, you were proven wrong again. Unlike you I don’t need a blog site, I can think for myself.
04
No Michael, you simply do not understand your own graphs. Nobody is going to accept your own interpretation of them, so unless you can provide some peer reviewed science you are wasting your time.
I got my data from the ONI, not some blog, which shows that your claim that “1991 to 2000 was dominated by strong el ninos” (never mind that you like to move your dates) is completely false.
To add your extra years:
1999 – Strong La Niña
2000 – Weak La Niña
This decade was NOT dominated by strong El Niños. There was only one strong El Niño and that was in 1997. Only ONE.
Please take the time to study the ONI and how the events are rated.
60
Read a graph mate. Besides the 1991 to 2000 decade the 60 years were mostly mild la ninas, comes out to zero if you add up the actual figures and nothing explains the 0.6 deg of warming. The science is confirmed by skeptic scientists as posted, or do you disagree with your own scientists?
06
I have shown that 1991 to 2000 could just as easily be classed as “a decade of strong La Niñas”.
Now you purport that “the 60 years” were “mostly mild La Niñas”.
The fact is that there were just as many strong El Niños as there were strong La Niñas – 5 of each.
While there were 14 mild La Niñas and 4 moderate, there were also 9 moderate El Niños and 8 mild El Niños. Sorry, but the El Niños have it.
The thing is Michael that you are not a statistician nor a climatologist, yet you expect us to believe your own interpretations of what is happening.
You do not know how to read the graphs which is why I have asked you to provide the peer reviewed science to back up your assertions. The fact that you are unable to do so only shows that you do not have any.
30
Michael the Realist
You do not understand the concept of proof.
You have a blog site. http://mrfabsblog.wordpress.com/
It is empty. The name says what you think of yourself.
More correctly, you think uninfluenced by better arguments. I have examined you arguments here.
20
Michael the Realist:
Well, I didn’t think it would happen but I’ve just given you a thumb’s up. You did state what we are denying.
Don’t let it go to your head. I still think you are ignorant, deluded and gullible. You keep stating that a number of scientists say what you would like to believe in. So what?
Much of what is written in the IPCC scientific reports is debatable; that is the nature of science. (If you had read Donna LaFramboise on the 2007 report you would know that 30% of it isn’t peer reviewed nor science anyway). There is no such thing as an infallible and never changing explanation/hypothesis/theory in science. However that doesn’t matter as you haven’t read those reports (and frankly I don’t think you would understand them).
The Summary for Policy Makers bit (which is released separately and usually well in advance) is far more definite, dare I say alarmist, and largely written by climate activists, not scientists. Whether you have ever read any I don’t know, I suspect not but it matters little as you have undoubtedly been told the main points over and over again and swallowed them indiscriminately.
Do try to realise:
Science is not set in stone.
Judgements on science should be made by those with some knowledge of it.
Scientists are human, not infallible (try looking up phlogiston theory, Piltdown man, N rays for starters).
Those who write here are entitled to their opinion, even if it isn’t yours. And many know far more about the subject than you.
Your dogmatic approach is making look like a fool.
And, as someone much older than you appear to be, I advise you to be wary of those who want to “save the world”. Particularly if they have a history of making predictions that don’t come true.
30
Graeme
The rest of us adults have come to the conclusion that if Michael the Ridiculous is happy playing quietly by himself, with himself, here on this three week old thread, we might as well leave him to it.
At least he’s not annoying the grown-ups on the current threads.
40
M.V.
We were all young and gullible once. In my case I was, long ago, a socialist. The fit only lasted 3 weeks because I did some research on the subject, particularly the predictions and trials and the results.
Michael is obviously young and gullible, and we would both agree very close to the edge of the bell curve, but there is a chance that his vehemence is due to him trying to overcome doubts about his new faith. In that case I don’t begrudge a few lines pointing out that he is foolish.
After all as Robert Burns said
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion.”
20
Hi Graeme,
Youth and gullibility are like beauty, they are only skin deep. Time cures all.
Stupidity, however, like ugliness, cuts right to the bone.
There is simply no cure for stupidity.
A fact Michael seems intent on proving, again, and again, and again, and again . . . .
50
Science is not set in stone. I agree, I have stated that repeatedly
Judgements on science should be made by those with some knowledge of it. I agree
Scientists are human, not infallible (try looking up phlogiston theory, Piltdown man, N rays for starters). I agree
Those who write here are entitled to their opinion, even if it isn’t yours. And many know far more about the subject than you.
Your dogmatic approach is making look like a fool. All the dogmatism and certainty comes from the climate misleaders side of the argument. We do not know for sure, but our best data, science and observations are saying that AGW is real and already occurring, then we need to deal with it for the sake of future generation, the consequences are too dire. Only those who think they know everything would promote ignoring it. The history of AGW is quite strong. Everything predicted is occurring.
04
Nah.
I’d say a major part of it comes from the fact that there hasn’t been any warming for 15+ years, DESPITE ever increasing levels of CO2.
40
So Memory Vault, you also base all your science on a cherry based portion of a graph ignoring the science, the trends and natural influences. Is anybosy here able to display some actual scientific rigour and logic?
04
Michael says
You accuse people of cherry-picking without foundation. I accuse you of cherry picking in two areas and you ignore it. These are
1. Your definition of “skeptic” is from skepticalscience. This disagrees with the numerous definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary.
2. You say a “skeptic” looks at all the data. I looked at all the data proxies for the MWP and Michael accuses me of cherry-picking.
My conclusion:-
(a) Michael is right, therefore wrong
(b) Michael is wrong, therefore right
(c) Michael contradicts himself. I cannot think of any other logical category.
20
You do not know anything. You are just here parroting opinions which you have dug up from who knows where?
If you scroll down to the bottom of this thread you will see my post which looks at YOUR OWN LACK OF PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE for all the guff you have been posting in this thread. Just alarmist opinion, not science.
I have also posted showing that your main meme in this thread is plainly false.
Most people around here actually believe that AGW is real. If you cared to actually look at this website you would know that. What we don’t believe is your alarmism about it. We don’t accept opinions, no matter how much you try to couch it in emotive arguments.
As much as you squark “Peer reviewed science, peer reviewed science!!” your own decided lack of it only shows us that you do not have any science to support your arguments.
30
Its not difficult to know. All the major scientific organisations like I said. For instance…
“A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
“Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
” Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” AGU develops position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to Earth and space science. These statements are limited to positions that are within the range of available geophysical data or norms of legitimate scientific debate.”
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_statements/AGU_Climate_Statement_new.pdf
“This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding.”
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
06
As I said, you do not have actual science….. just media releases, the ABC and The Guardian.
60
Well Michael the Surrealist. I have gone through every post you have made here and find that in total you have referred to only three peer reviewed papers to support your arguments.
You seem quit happy to quote blogs and the oh so reliable sources such as The Guardian and The ABC.
Of these three papers we have:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” which concludes:
In other words “We do not know”. There is no support here for your CO2 theories. Would you like to talk about water Michael? You never answered when I asked you about cloud cover (twice now).
The other two papers are the extremely dubious:
“Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere”
and:
“Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds”
Both of these papers make extremely convoluted arguments to try and dodge around the fact that the tropical hotspot has never been measured.
Please come back when you have some science.
70
Wow you must be bored. Is this you trying to deflect that you cannot explain why the peer reviewed papers you referred to did not support your argument? Or is it because you cannot find an alternative reason as to why the 2001 to 2010 decade is the hottest on the instrumental record despite overwhelming cooling natural influences? Or is it because you do not understand what a gravity wave is and how to prove (thinking dropping a ball constitutes scientific proof).
I have provided actual empirical observational data for my main argument above, which nobody to date has been able to explain away or say how it can be wrong. Obviously the 2001 to 2010 decade has not warmed due to the influence of falling solar and cooling la ninas and that it has not cooled proves that AGW is still occurring. Basic, simple.
So spend all your time going through old posts, I have better things to do, like showing where you are wrong.
04
Did not support what argument exactly Michael?
I have already shown here that this assertion of yours is false.
You need to learn the difference between humour and science Michael.
Please give me the reference to your peer reviewed paper on this data. I do not accept your interpretations of the data Michael.
You should have stopped at “has not warmed”, because everybody except you accepts that in fact it has not warmed.
40
And a jolly fine job you are doing of it too, young Michael.
For heaven’s sake, don’t stop now – it’s too important.
40
BTW, here is your warming Michael.
I did mention this several times, but you were not even slightly curious. But then, it’s real science, isn’t it.
60
I have seen that paper before, was going to bring it up myself but forgot. You do realise it points to a fall in cloud cover, don’t you? Just where in the paper do you think it supports your argument? I think you have parrotted an opinion blog again without actually looking. You have been had, think first, then post.
04
Yes it does. A fall in cloud cover will lead to warming.
Get with it sonny.
40
Since you seem unable to scroll up and see my reply, I will repost here.
1991 to 2000 decade of strong el ninos with 1998 being a strong el nino affected year. Going on the research by Mclean, de freitus and carter there is about a 7 month lag between the full affects of the change occurring. I will let readers determine who is the liar.
Graph of 60 years of el nino and la ninas http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Info on the research by the skeptic scientists above. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349
Roughly zero overall effect, so why did it warm 0.6 degrees?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
03
Do you think that if you just keep repeating this rot that it will make your assertion correct?
There was only ONE strong El Niño in this decade and that was in 1997.
1998 was a moderate La Niña and 1999 was a strong La Niña followed by a weak La Niña in 2000.
There were only three El Niño events in this decade, the two others classed as moderate. There were four La Niña events in the same decade.
You do not understand the data.
How in the World can you say it was “a decade of strong el ninos [sic]”? This is a lie.
Your pants are on fire Michael.
50
No, I repeat it because it is correct and you cannot show otherwise
06
I have clearly shown that 1991 to 2000 was not a “decade of strong El Niños”.
There was only ONE strong El Niño along with a strong La Niña.
In fact there were only three El Niño’s as opposed to four La Niñas.
The La Niñas have it – sorry Michael, but it was a decade of strong La Niñas.
I’m curious Michael, where exactly do you get this meme that it was a “decade of strong el ninos [sic]”?
50
True, but Backslider keeps repeating the same questions even though they have been answered. Should you not moderate repetitive previously answered questions, then I would not feel the need to make sure it is answered everywhere it is asked.
06
No Michael. You keep repeating the same guff over and over and I keep countering it.
You have no “answers” other than silly little insults.
You have no respect for science and march around here expecting us all to accept your interpretations on what has been happening with ENSO, including false claims such as “strong El Niño decade” without a scrap of science to back you up. You don’t even know the biggest climate influencing event that happened in that decade.
30
Well said backslider.
I have said far more here and here, but you sum it up very well.
Suggest people take a look at Michael’s blog. The name and content says all you need to know about the man.
http://mrfabsblog.wordpress.com/
20
Manic bean counter, I would have thought that ad hominem attacks were not allowed on this blog, especially trying to out somebody who tries to keep there privacy due to actual threats and attempted professional attacks in the past. I am a teacher, that blog was a practice one from ages ago. When I ried to post on your blog I needed to be a wordpress member to be allowed to post, so I grabbed an account that I had not used and even forgotten about from years ago. A very low blow that you need to stoop to those levels to try to silence me. Just proves the strength of your own character. Will you now try some actual threats as well?
06
Michael,
The only worry about threats you need concern yourself about is if your employer sees your ridiculous comments. I believe the right of everyone to speak their mind, and to challenge others in their beliefs. It comes from a belief in freedom of expression. But that freedom means recognizing that others may have an alternative point of view. That makes our beliefs vulnerable. On a blog like this, or mine, that means engaging. I have tried to engage, by answering you when others would not.
From my engagement with you, I conclude your views are shallow and dogmatic. You suffer from a literary incontinence. A good remedy is to put a bung in the relevant orifice whilst you recover from your affliction through reflection.
Others can check this conclusion out for themselves, and judge for themselves if I am being unfair.
My first two attempts to answer Michael are here and http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/08/26/showing-warming-when-it-has-stopped/.
Following Michael’s many follow-up comments, I first listed the fundamentals that climate science ignores (of which Michael only expressed a few), then applied them to his counter-arguments.
One area you could look up Michael in your reflections is Wikipedia on Ad hominem, particularly in the context of Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement.
40
Also please note the date on the blog of 2006. Obviously just a trial from nearly a decade ago. Wow, grow up.
05
Thats true. But moderation is not your job, and the moderation here is generally much lighter than on most sites, Jo wants to encourage an exchange of ideas. Unfortunately the playing field is rarely flat. That is a good thing for me, because a lot of senior businessmen and politicians see the bile and angst, and look for somebody with a reputation for cutting through the brush, as we say in Aotearoa.
Where do you get your brush from?
20
The comment at #111 was supposed to be a response to #105 – the referencing is shot.
Well done Michael, you have broken WordPress. You ought to apply for a job at the NSA.
10
Actually several parts of this post are not repeats, the nature paper for one and the quote from McLeans paper. They are a coming together of the whole argument, including the data, the science and the conclusion. Which has been asked for but not all together anywhere else.
05
Nope. MarkD showed that the Nature paper brought you completely undone.
RSS global satellite temperatures show that the current decade is the fastest cooling on record at 0.086 degrees. Take a look for yourself Michael.
20
Jeez; talk about thread hijacking! Mikey the Unreal has completely taken over.
The core of the OP observation is that Big Money has long depended on access to government spigots to justify spending on “de-carbonization”. But governments are, by necessity, closing them down. The Invisible Hand can be ruthless in making sure the real prices are paid!
20
Ok Michael, I have had it up to here with your bullshit, so here it is for the whole World to see:
Michael states:
All of Michael’s arguments in this thread have hinged on the decade succeeding 1991 to 2000 being hotter than that decade. Never mind that his assertions of “natural warming events” (ENSO) are completely fabricated, the most important thing that Michael has missed for the preceding decade was:
THE 1991 ERUPTION OF MOUNT PINATUBO !!!!!
Yes folks, the eruption of Pinatubo saw global temperatures drop by 0.5C and its influence was felt for at least SIX YEARS:
20
Also does this not mean that things should be even cooler? So lets see, ENSO zeros out, solar falling, Mount Pinatubo cooling. BUT TEMPS HAVE RISEN BY 0.6 Deg C IN THE LAST 60 YEARS, WOW!!! WHAT HAS CAUSED ALL THAT WARMING? YOU HAVE NOW ADDED EVEN MORE NATURAL COOLING FACTORS.
Hmmm looks like AGW is overwhelming natural factors more than I thought?
02
Does it Michael? Again you prove you inability to think. The effects of Pinatubo did not last forever.
You have taken up this entire thread with the same guff:
Did I miss any?
You have used the assertion that “The 1991 to 2000 decade was the strongest el nino affected decade for 60 years”, juxtaposing this against the 2001 to 2010 decade saying “2001 to 2010 being higher temps than the previous decade” with the claim that this was entirely due to AGW stating:
In fact in this thread you claim that warming for the past 60 years is entirely due to AGW and in previous threads you have claimed that AGW pulled the Earth’s climate out of The Little Ice Age!!!
Nobody here denies warming Michael. The point here is that you simply do not know what you are talking about which is evident from the fact that the 1991 to 2000 decade was significantly influenced by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo and you neglected this entirely. Not only that, your claims about El Niño and La Niña affected decades is entirely false. This is easily seen by looking at the data:
1991 – Moderate El Niño plus Mount Pinatubo eruption
1992 – nada
1993 – nada
1994 – Moderate El Niño
1995 – Weak La Niña
1996 – nada
1997 – Strong El Niño
1998 – Moderate La Niña
1999 – Strong La Niña
2000 – weal La Niña
How that becomes “predominantly influenced by warming el ninos [sic]” is anybody’s guess.
Further, you describe the following decade as “primarily influenced by cool la ninas [sic]”. Let’s just take a look:
2001 – nada
2002 – Moderate El Niño
2003 – nada
2004 – Weak El Niño
2005 – Weak La Niña
2006 – Weak El Niño
2007 – Moderate La Niña
2008 – Weak La Niña
2009 – Moderate El Niño
2010 – Strong La Niña
Four El Niños with a strong La Niña in 2010, which we both know didn’t influence until 2011. It is false to describe this decade as you have.
There is no room whatsoever in your thinking for natural warming. None whatsoever. I have given you good leads to go on so your can learn for yourself, however you have shown us all that the only thing that matters to you is your alarmist meme.
The biggest influence on our climate is the sun and cosmic rays Michael. You should fervently study this so that your eyes may be opened. None of us deny that there is a small AGW influence Michael, but it’s exactly that: small.
The fact is Michael that temperatures have fallen since 1998 and everybody except you can see this. We are now heading toward a solar minimum and the predictions are for significant cooling, a situation far more dire than the lovely warming and greening pf the planet that we have had.
30
[SNIP. This is the same round and round that has been going on for almost ever. Make a new point, take a new approach or this is what will happen. ] ED
03
Scientific prrof please, that the drop was 0.5c and felt for 6 years.
04
Find it yourself.
40
[snip. antagonistic, useless post.] ED
04
Google is your friend Michael.
Your failure to take this event into account puts the onus upon you to find out, not for me to hold your hand.
20
How come I have never seen you accurately quote a peer reviewed scientific paper? And yet here you are, expecting other people to provide you with citations.
But of course, we have established several times that you are not a scientist. What you really are is still under debate. Although I have to say that the consensus is tending towards human.
30
Ref #104
The temperature drop was clarified by USGS, and lasted for about three years. As of 2005, some of the other environmental impacts are still in evidence.
And please note, Backslider did not say the temperature drop lasted for six years, only its influence. In that regard he was wrong. He vastly understated the case.
20
Still waiting for the source. Mt Pinatubo is also one of the real life model experiments, they ran through the models what should happen after it erupted and then followed it over the following years. The models were found to predict the events very closely.
Secondly, it still proves my point, over the 60 year period since 1950, with ENSO effects coming out to zero, with solar flat to falling and with a bloody big cooling volcano you have 0.6 deg of warming. Please explain?
02
You maintain that warming was entirely due to CO2. Prove it.
You maintain that warming over the past 60 years has been 0.6 degrees. Prove it.
You maintain that “solar flat to falling” over the past 60 years. Prove it.
You maintain “ENSO effects coming out to zero”. Prove it. This does not mean just your own interpretation of the graphs. It means you showing us the science which shows that ENSO effects come out to zero, not just your opinion.
You maintain the The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of The Little Ice Age. Following your logic, were is not for CO2 emissions, we would still be in the LIA. The fact is Michael that most scientists accept natural warming coming out of the LIA at 0.5 degrees per century. The actual number thrown around for warming since records began is 0.7 degrees. Thus, if the warming in the last 60 years was 0.6 degrees then the warming prior was only 0.1 degrees. You will find this to be patently false. The greatest amount of warming was in the first half of the 20th century. Check your numbers please Michael.
It is a fact also that warming has “stalled, paused”, “stopped” or whichever adjective you would like to use. This is clearly borne out by the data and corresponds with the recent decline in solar activity and is predicted to continue falling. The IPCC admits this. Climate scientists admit this. You and SkS don’t, but then, you are not scientists.
So Michael, with all your ranting, please explain to us why temperatures have stopped going up. We await with bated breath.
20
No I have not. I have proven that going on the major natural factors such as ENSO, Solar and volcanos that we cannot explain the warming of 0.6 over the last 60 years without CO2, and this is consistent with the majority of the science and calculations of the effect of and science of CO2. You have been unable with actual data and confirming science been able to prove me wrong.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
and
“The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-comparison-small.png
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceAndSunspots.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm&h=635&w=880&sz=39&tbnid=lTqj1ouMlKsoyM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__rKxxgF6FWhRstpL2CPJJnf2wmj0=&docid=8AACqO_b9RPpYM&sa=X&ei=5e04UrTdFoy6iAecjYCIBQ&ved=0CE4Q9QEwAw&dur=2505
Best i could find in a short time frame, no point spending to much time, you are not actually interested in the truth.
Been done multiple times, read the analysis under the graph of ENSO
Not me, the PAGES paper suggested that we were in a long term cooling trend until CO2 emissions kicked in. Paper provided multiple times.
YOU PROVE THAT, BOTH THE MOST SCIENTISTS AND THE WARMING TREND AND GIVE THE MECHANISM. THE CLIMATE IS NOT MAGIC. IT RESPONDS TO FORCINGS.
I have admitted multiple times that the climate is a complicated system with many forcings upon it of natural and anthropogenic causes and that this has/will cause many dips and flat spots but with a clear underlying long term warming trend due to mans emissions. This is what SKS, scientists, IPCC etc understand. You and other climate misinformers are affected by confirmation bias and this stops you from looking at the full picture and focussing on cherry picked elements of graphs and the science that confirms your point.
Again I have given everything asked and you still avoid and have been unable to answer any of my questions with actual data, explanations, science and peer review confirmation.
01
Well Michael the Delusional,
“Secondly, it still proves my point, over the 60 year period since 1950, with ENSO effects coming out to zero, with solar flat to falling and with a bloody big cooling volcano you have 0.6 deg of warming. Please explain?”
since you are still BEGGING for someone to show how stupid you are I will volunteer to be that big bad DENIER who does that.
You continue to harangue us with your ridiculous question as to why the temps went up .6c over 60 years. That is a very easy answer. Normal climate.
Now, what YOU have to explain is why it was ONLY NORMAL!!
Your IPCC science claimed that the upper end could be .6c/decade. That would be about 3.6c.
Your IPCC science has also claimed 4.5c for an upper end. That would be .45c/dec for 2.7c.
You IPCC claims a median temp rise of 3c. That would be .3c/dec or 1.8c.
You IPCC claimed that the actual warming was at .2c/decade or 1.2c.
Finally the IPCC has changed their bottom limit to 1.5c or .15c/dec, in the leaked AR7 draft, which would be .9c.
So Michael the delusional, I do not need to explain anything as the temp rise has been UNDER the IPCC BOTTOM projection!!! You have to explain why you are so STUPID to think there is a problem of some kind.
As I tried to tell you when I destroyed your Peer Reviewed Science (PS: the WMO is an ADMINISTRATIVE Organization and does not DO science MORON!!), without the FINGERPRINT, which includes the Flopspot, you and the IPCC have NOTHING!!!
I would also reiterate that the flopspot is not there because THERE WAS NO WARMING OF ANYKIND except in the imaginations of FOOLS, Scam Artists, and people TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD from who knows what!!!
30
Nope, thats your job. I have already proved that most major natural factors were flat or cooling. Point made. You still have to show the natural factor that explains the .6 deg warming. Nothing explains it but AGW. Again your flopspot comments, attacks on models (of where the flopspot came from) etc do not trump reality, they are merely excuses on your part because actual data and consequences are occurring and matching predictions. They are projections of scenarios, not reality. Explain reality.
04
No Michael. First you must show that there has be 0.6 degrees of warming in the past 60 years. Then we shall move on from there.
20
The Null Hypothesis must always be disproven first, before any alternatives can be considered. The Null (H0) is always that unspecified natural and normal processes continue to operate. Only then can specific attributions like CO2 warming be speculated upon.
Natural variation has caused much larger rises and falls in modern and paleohistory than are under consideration here. It is impossible therefore to discount it in respect to the last 30 years.
10
Michael the delusional rants,
” Explain reality ”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Michael, far better people than you or I have attempted to explain reality and failed. If you are delusional enough to think that is important take a swing at it.
Our issue here is that for some unknown reason YOU think that .6c of UNPROVEN warming:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/giss1999-2013usadjustments.gif
(Yup Official GISS data!!)
in the last 60 years is a problem. You have shown various papers, most of which were MODEL based which you finally admit have nothing to do with reality. YET, you have shown us no reason to worry about a .6c warming real or not.
You continue to fail at the most basic issues. You really are STUPID when you claim that solar has been declining over this period. We have been in what is called by the experts a Grand Maximum until mid 2000:
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php
Notice that we did not go below “normal” until Cycle 23 which was around 2000. So, you are either LYING or simply have not bothered to LOOK at the records.
Which is it Michael the DELUSIONAL??
Are you STUPID or LYING??
Michael the Delusional, the serious question in your court is what science, what papers, peer reviewed or otherwise, gives you reason to expect that the observations, adjusted or otherwise, of the last 60 years is going to somehow cause us future problems based on the growth of CO2 or any other reason.
The WMO’s concentration on deaths and MONEY have little to do with the actual strength and occurances of extreme weather. People who are not delusional that look at the records KNOW that extreme weather is DECREASING compared to pre 70’s.
You have already admitted the models are scenarios and do not match REALITY! Since you cannot depend on these models to PREDICT the future Climate development, and therefore have to let go of the PREDICTIONS based on the FINGERPRINT that includes the Flopspot and Stratospheric Cooling which comes from the models, WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE?!?!?
Additionally I wish to finalize your LIES about understanding the Flopspot and the Stratosphere signatures. If you really understood the modeled science behind this you would KNOW that the cooling strat is due not only to the increase in CO2 in the strat itself but due to the Flopspot. Yes Michael the Delusional, they are TIED TOGETHER!! Without one you cannot have the other if there is warming. Seriously dude, how could the strat cool if there was MORE radiative forcing from below?? Yup, the real Flopspot is claimed to REDUCE the radiative forcing by preventing some of it from getting to the strat!!!! This is the Evil feedback situation that would cause dangerous warming!!! No, don’t tell ME that is STUPID or CRAZY!!! Tell the morons at Realclimate and the other AGW sites who promoted this fraud based on their Junk Models!!!
Now that the Flopspot has failed to appear over the period of time THEY CLAIMED was UNPRECEDENTED WARMING, there is NO SCIENCE to show CO2 will be a problem. What is YOUR scenario? What is YOUR prediction and what is it based upon?? Continual screams of “it is warming and it is dangerous are tiresome”. Or, are you changing it to, “it should be cooling and that means we are gonna die if we don’t DO SOMETHING!!!” Either way, you have shown us no logical, science based scenario, to back up your WHINES!!!
If you continue I am going to demand some cheese with that!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
00
[…] Nova, a sceptical scientist whose website is in my blog roll, pointed out a couple of months ago that the ‘salience’ of ‘climate change’ seemed suddenly to decline in the […]
10