The backdown continues. Faced with the ongoing failure of their models, the search rolls on for any factor that helps “explain” why the official climate scientists are still right even though they got it so wrong. The new England et al paper endorses skeptics in so many ways.
- The world might warm by only 2.1 degrees this century, not 4c. (Skeptics were right — the models exaggerate).
- There has been and is a pause in warming which the 95%-certain-models didn’t predict. (The science wasn’t settled.)
- What the trade-winds giveth, they can also taketh away. If they “cause cooling” after 2000, then they probably “caused warming” before that. How much less important is CO2?
- Ultimately, newer models are less wrong if they include changes in wind speed, but they don’t know what drives the wind. It’s curve fitting with one more variable.
As usual, the models still can’t predict the climate, but they can be adjusted post hoc with new factors to trim their overestimates back to within the errors bars of some observations.
As I said nearly 2 years ago, Matthew England owes Nick Minchin an apology:
Nick Minchin: ” there is a major problem with the warmist argument because we have had rising CO2 but we haven’t had the commensurate rise in temperature that the IPCC predicted.”
Matthew England: “What Nick just said is actually not true. The IPCC projections from 1990 have borne out very accurately.” Source Q & A (36:30 mins)
[More on the 1990 IPCC predictions that were categorically wrong.]
Now Matthew England says what Nick Minchin said: “Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.” And it’s published in Nature Climate Change (a journal which also publishes work with the abusive, inaccurate, and unscientific term: “climate change deniers”, its scientific standards are that low). It’s a strange world where politicians and bloggers speak the truth about the climate before the Professors of Climatology. It is time to turn off the tap to unskeptical scientists.
The Trade-wind excuse in a nutshell:
1. It is almost as if climate modelers finally discover the PDO cycle. Akasofu (and many many other skeptics) have been pointing out the obvious, and making predictions on it, for years.
2. Perhaps the trade-winds are affecting the climate. But what drives the trade-winds? The models can’t predict the trade-winds until they understand what drives them. If it turns out to be cloud cover changes, or lunar orbits, or solar magnetic effects, cosmic ray effects, or all of the above… that means there is another whole factor or lots of them that the models did not include. Every warming factor added to the models reduces the power of CO2 as a driver.
3. Internal Variability means “we have no idea what is going on”.
This is the England et al explanation for the trade-winds:
The wind trend is thus probably due to both the recent change in the IPO (associated with a change in ENSO statistics23 and forced by internal variability, and/or external forcing such as volcanic emissions, solar irradiance and aerosols), along with other factors, such as recent rapid warming in the Indian Ocean24,25.
Essentially they say that the winds are driven by something inside or outside the Earths climate, but they don’t know what. Neither ENSO, the IPO are forces like radiation or magnetism, they are effects of other forces. We know not what.
4. If trade-winds take heat from the sky, then trade-winds can add heat in the sky too. How much were trade-winds responsible for the heating that occurred before the pause? How much less powerful is CO2 as a driver?
Partly the answer lies in figure 5. The dotted red line is the model predictions that billions of dollars are invested in, and which turned out to be so wrong. The black solid line is the observations. The new green and blue lines are the post-hoc adjusted guesses. The spaghetti mess is what they are sure will probably, possibly, maybe happen. By 2020 it will be somewhere between 0.8C warmer and the same temperature as today. All answers in between are “right”.
Figure 5 | Recent annual average global air temperature anomalies and Pacific wind trends compared with model projections. a, Observations are shown as annual anomalies relative to the 1980–2012 mean (grey bars) and a five-year running mean (black solid line). Model projections are shown relative to the year 2000 and combine the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multi-model mean (red dashed line) and range (red shaded envelope). The projections branch off the five-year running mean of observed anomalies and include all simulations as evaluated by the IPCC AR4 and AR5. The cyan, blue and purple dashed lines and the blue shading indicate projections adjusted by the trade-wind-induced SAT cooling estimated by the ocean model (OGCM), under three scenarios: the recent trend extends until 2020 before stabilizing (purple dashed line); the trend stabilizes in year 2012 (blue dashed line); and the wind trend reverses in 2012 and returns to climatological mean values by 2030 (cyan dashed line). The black, dark green and light green dashed lines are as per the above three scenarios, respectively, only using the trade-wind-induced SAT cooling derived from the full coupled model (CGCM). Shading denotes the multi-model range throughout. b, Normalized histograms of Pacific trade wind trends (computed over 6 N–6 S and 180–150W) for all 20-year periods using monthly data in observations (1980–2011) versus available CMIP5 models (1980–2013). The observed trend strength during 1992–2011 is indicated.
So, what if it cools before 2020? Based on past behaviour climate scientists cannot be wrong. They will find another post-hoc reason to explain why they were really right, except for this one new factor.
There goes the high climate sensitivity models (skeptics were right)
Am I reading this correctly? The following appears to suggest that climate sensitivity might be headed downwards. The models that work in this paper produced climate sensitivity figures at the “low end of the CMIP3 range” with models forecasting 2.1C now for 2100. This paper, of course, does not find the “low climate sensitivity” interesting.
The model is equilibrated for more than 3,000 years with atmospheric CO2 fixed at pre-industrial and then
integrated during 1780 – 2030 following historical CO2 forcing (1780 – 2000) and then the CMIP3 A2 emissions scenario 46 from the year 2000 onwards. The model’s overall climate sensitivity is at the low end range of CMIP3 models (reaching 2.1 C warming by 2090 – 2099 relative to 1980 – 1999); however, as our interest is on the cooling impact of the wind-perturbed experiments relative to the control, low climate sensitivity has little bearing on the results.
How unprecedented are those trade winds?
Bob Tisdale points out they are unprecedented among observations that were largely never observed. There are few measurements of wind shear in the central Pacific before the satellite era:
England et al. (2014) show the outputs of reanalyses of wind stress anomalies in the bottom cell of their Figure 1. The wind stress anomalies are for the region bordered by the coordinates of 6S-6N, 180-150W. As you’ll recall, a reanalysis is the output of a computer model. It is not data. Data are used as inputs to reanalysis. Unfortunately, there is little source wind data for the eastern equatorial prior to the 1960s. Thus the need for England et al. to rely on reanalyses.
England et al, even admit it (but not in the press release eh?):
In both reanalysis products shown, the recent multidecade acceleration in Pacific trade winds is the highest on record, although estimates of observed winds are not well constrained by measurements previous to the satellite era…
The PDO has a sixty year cycle. There were almost no wind shear measurements in the first half of the only cycle we have good measurements for or during any part of the last cyclical peak. Thus the term “unprecedented” is technically true, in the same sense that “you might win lotto” is. Practically, it is misleading and dishonest, unless you read the fine-print. Business as usual then?
Like a thousand monkeys typing McBeth, Monkey-modeling can generate anything
Anything, this is, except an accurate prediction.
Here’s how it works — Monkey modelers make a guess, get it wrong, but instead of tossing the model or reassessing all their forcings they fish for new factors to conscript to get the least-worst outcome. The new factors are not necessarily forcings (which gives the monkeys lots of scope) but could be any half-credible variable that happens to show the right slope on the graph at the right time. There are a thousand leading indicators in our planetary climate, not to mention a million ways to measure them. By cherry picking the magic factor, the “predictions” change post hoc to fall “within the error bars” and can again be called “consistent” – at least until the next time they fail. Et Voila: a new paper, a conference keynote, a two week junket and a three year grant. Blessed are the ABC for they have another pointless press release to be vacuumed and shared. Thanks go to the ARC for funding the monkeys*.
Since monkey-models can selectively conscript new factors into models when convenient, by opaque modeling, the technique can work indefinitely as an elaborate form of excuse making that could prop up a wrong theory forever. It doesn’t prove the theory right or wrong, but supports its golden Unfalsifiable Status. There will always be some new factor that can be brought into explain posthoc any failure of the theory. (This is especially so if the code is opaque and the new factor is not too compatible with past periods when the previous version worked ok.)
*No animals were used or abused in making this model, except for hapless taxpayers.
The same cannot be said for the data.
———————————————–
REFERENCE
England, M.H., S McGregor, P. Spence, G.A. Meehl, A Timmermann, W. Cai, A.S. Gupta, M.J. McPhaden, A. Purich and A. Santosos, 2014. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nature Climate Change (online: 9 February 2014) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2106
PS: Yes that is a chimp in the photo, not a monkey.
I can’t help but think that many of Jo’s posts from now on will be about observing “The Backdown”. Because of the Internet like never before will a backdown be so cruel to the backdown-ees. That’s why I think it needs the title case of the “The Backdown”.
330
The political decided UNFCCC is the basis for the CAGW scare and today circus in climate science.
After investing a lot for more than 20 years they will not now accept reality or facts. They will first try to make reality and fact more UNFCCC conform?
70
The UN has displayed its lack of actual power for decades. It was supposed to ensure human rights (well, good luck with that one) and prevent wars (ditto). Now, it’s just a machine for activists. It’s more than high time that the UN was disbanded.
60
Perhaps the model makers have just been suffering from a ‘bad case of wind’ all along.
A vegan diet might do that.
60
I believe the modellers understand their model, and the fact that it is an attempt at a simulation.
It’s the outsiders who take the data and run with it (much like scissors), who don’t understand exactly what the model is saying, or with what understanding the model is saying it.
00
Greg Cavanagh;
There are 90 CMIP climate models and 95% of those models say the observations must be wrong.[ Roy Spencer ]
Which of these models are you talking about?
From Proff Ole Humlum’s Climate4you
[quote]
The world’s perhaps most cited climatologist, Reid Bryson, stated as early as in 1933 that a model is “nothing more than a formal statement of how the modeller believes that the part of the world of his concern actually works“. Global climate models are often defended by stating that they are based on well established laws of physics. There is, however, much more to the models than just the laws of physics. Otherwise they would all produce the same output for the future climate, which they do not. Climate models are, in effect, nothing more than mathematical ways for experts to express their best opinion about how the real world functions.
[end]
Tamsin Edwards ; an IPCC climate modeller.
ALL MODELS ARE WRONG [ but some are useful ]
20
CARFAX made a remark about the modellers suffering from “wind”.
I was commenting on the modellers, not the models.
I believe the modellers understand the limits of their model. It’s the “other” commenters from outfield that I believe are confused about just what a model can do.
10
“I believe the modellers understand the limits of their model. It’s the “other” commenters from outfield that I believe are confused about just what a model can do.”
Weirdly, those “modellers” never share their misgivings with the rest of us. Please amplify, if you can, why (in your opinion) the models are correct, but the comments are wrong.
50
… and it looks as though we are going to have years of fun, watching and assisting the backdown.
I like the new idea it’s all the fault of the trade winds! Another confusion of a symptom being a cause.
It’s what drives any wind: pressure difference. The trades blow from A to B where the pressure at A is higher than the pressure at B.
Real research, not models, will be necessary to determine all the causes of the patterns of high-pressure and low-pressure systems which create the Trades …
From some of the papers appearing recently, old Sol, our resident star, seems to have several filaments in that pie, too, as even the solar wind appears to exert pressure on the atmosphere … and as weather is determined by pressure differences, the solar wind could have an influence.
This could turn into a truly wicked problem. (And a very interesting one!)
50
Englands excuse is that Minchin might be right now but when he tackled him two years ago he was wrong.
So basically the history of the planets climate from 2001 to 2011 has changed over the past two years.
Heady stuff! Makes Dr Who’s bio look simple.
I totally agree that all the best minds went into Maths, Physics and Chemistry and that the left overs went into climate ‘science’.
540
I think it is worse than that.
After engineering, medicine, dentistry, vetinary, law, commerce, teaching, social work and nursing took their cadres and of course the more practically minded did a trade only the slops were left. Much of those went into political science and one branch of that rebadged itself as climate science.
More the scraps than the left overs I think, Keith.
250
The over qualified / under achievers; in other words.
Quoted from someone we all know.
30
The problem now is all the snouts in the troughs of ‘climate science’. Lots of well educated students are ignoring real science and engineering courses to enroll in the new, supposedly glamorous, courses in ‘climate science’. The grandees of universities are good as anyone at recognising a trough overflowing with cash and not unreasonably want a part of it.
It is self-evident that most of today’s ‘climate science’ will eventually end up equally as discredited as eugenics and homeopathy.
If i was an alarmist ‘climate scientist’, I would start thinking about sacrificing virgins to try and precipitate a big El Nino in order to get a modest temporary rise in global temperatures. Without a big El Nino soon, the troughs are going to start a long overdue process of drying up.
Sacrificing virgins and believing in today’s climate models both require an equally unrealistic outlook on life.
150
In a telling comment on Professor Dr Tim Flannery, the American writer was very surprised that Tim had a PhD as his school results seemed to absolutely preclude a career in Science. He is far away from our best and brightest!
He was right. Tim scraped into a BA in English at La Trobe university in 1974 when it was little more than a farm. He traded that into an MSC at Monash in whole earth science and a PhD in Sydney in paleoentology. Who is going to correct your opinions in that. What is certain is that we have a Science FIction writer who is lousy at Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry but talks as if he was an expert. In the Government $90million waste investing in his Hot ROcks company in South Australia he said the technology was ‘relatively straightforward’. How on earth would he know? What is certain is that the directors took home $350K per year. Climate Science is awash with wasted money.
So Tim is qualified, as a Science Fiction writer. Like L Ron Hubbard. And he has found his religion, Climate Change. Now he is one of Lord Moncktons Profiteers of Doom.
70
He has written a new book called “we are the money makers”
30
How awful.
00
Some poor ignoramus on A Bolt’s blog was excusing Flim Flam Tim as just being the messenger: “he is just telling us what the nice honest scientists are saying” (My paraphrasing!!) It is quite clear that he is not just a messenger but a true believer and propagandist, using his inappropriate qualifications for credibility.
00
Trade winds / deep ocean heating are the suicide note of global warming hysteria.
Because the deep oceans have the thermal capacity to absorb thousands of years of excess heat. If the ocean depths can readily absorb surface heat, then they will go on doing so – for millennia.
The reason the ocean depths are so cold is for most of the last 30 million years the Earth has been locked in an ice age – interglacials like the present are brief interludes between the long cold. The fact the ocean depths are *still* freezing cold after 10,000 years of warmth should provide a clue as to just how vast the thermal capacity of the oceans is.
If the ocean depths will protect us for millennia – who is likely to get excited about a problem which won’t manifest, until the nations of today fade into the dust of the ancient past?
RIP global warming hype. You won’t be missed.
570
Eric,
You are EXACTLY correct.
These “so called” climate scientists don’t know s..t from clay.
Interesting perspective (and some facts) here re heating water.
Note this:
“Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!”
The SCAM is OVER – the scammers just haven’t caught on as yet!!
Cheers,
240
” the suicide note of global warming hysteria”
Beutiful turn of phrase there, Eric.
180
Right! The oceans’ specifi heat is about 1000 times taht of the atmosphere. And if that heat DID go into the oceans, the atmosphere would NEVER get it back. Thanks to the second law of thermodynamics, heat coming out of the oceans back into the atmosphere is about as plausible as heat coming out of the icecubes in a cold drink – making the icecubes colder and the drink warmer.
110
Or you could open the window when it’s cold and hope that the heat will return later.
90
A small point: the current Pleistocene Ice Age started about 2.65 million years ago and I believe there have been around a dozen short lived (10-20,000 years), warmer, inter-glacial periods since it started.
The last interglacial period – the Eemian (114-130,000 years ago) – was a couple of degrees warmer than today’s Holocene interglacial. Just another one of those inconvenient facts for alarmists and therefore ignored by them.
110
The worlds oldest profession is said to be prostitution, perhaps it could be a con man. For example, the definition of a climate scientist is someone who cheats or tricks someone by means of a confidence trick, or of course, simply a con man. A very old profession indeed. Prostitutes are honest, you get what you pay for, we are forced to pay the climate con artist through tax, without any benefit whatsoever.
300
How absolutely spot on you are Hoges. As you say the Prostitutes earn an honest dollar – as for the “Warmist Academics” – yes they are fraudsters – no doubt about that – inexorably sucking money from the public purse – and some of them are Professors from the same Academic Institution – I would love to see their annual budget.
120
The real tragedy in this sordid little Macbeth style play is science itself – as usual, politics with its “dog on heat” morals has corrupted a dsicipline that should have known better, but lured by the money through heavily politicised institutions, we now have th epoliticians running off ( who never had a high moral standing anyway ) leaving the cumps ( the scientists ) to take the fall.
Lesson learnt, I’d have to hope.
One could only hope the science institutions might refuse to have political appointees as controllers in the future.
Is it worth launching a class action lawsuit against such institutions to recoup some of the lost income and damge to viable industries as a result of this scam?
Worth a thought….
30
Sorry – tht should read :
“leaving the chumps, ( the scientists ) to take the fall.”
00
“3.What the trade-winds giveth, they can also taketh away. If they “cause cooling” after 2000, then they probably “caused warming” before that. How much less important is CO2?”
The logic of this thinking has always been the key for me. Every time I listen to a warmist defending models it always comes down to the “other factors”. On the one hand its all CO2, on the other its “other factors”.
Michael the realist recently took me up on the topic of http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm and how with 90 years more GHG this perfect record for proving AGW has stood. His answer was that unless he knew the solar cycle, Elnino cycle and a couple of other things, its impossible to tell why that record happened and why it still stands. What is more correct to say is, we have basically no idea.
But “actually I have no idea” is no where near as convincing a funding argument for your QUANGO as “we all be rooned unless you make a billion easy payments of $49.95, act now”
To think that humans actually still have something to learn about how this planet works? Surely not.
290
England et al. (2014) is further confirmation that climate modelers/scientists have wasted their time and our money creating models that cannot simulate natural processes that cause global surface temperatures to warm and stop that warming. They are no closer now to being able to discern man’s fingerprint on climate than they were in 1990 when they published the first IPCC report.
370
They made models based on and payed by the UNFCCC.
30
England’s PhD was in Ocean currants and climate modelling see here http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/bio.html One has to wonder how he got a PhD as he has no knowledge of fluid dynamics (which is studied by chemical, civil and mechanical engineers). Maybe his supervisors were Pitman and Steffen who also have no qualifications or understanding of fluid dynamics. You know peers without understanding reviewing mates, that is climate science. Black box modeling is not modeling. Anything might be in that black box- might even be Schoedinger’s cat(eg http://quantumfactory.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/schrodingers-cat-walks-into-a-bar/)
150
Climate practitioners are ideologues not scientists, the prestige of science is used to support their religion not matter how badly the science is executed.
Pittman, England and Steffen fit this category.
180
Could you possibly fit a Christmas Turkey into your list? He is another of the high priced help at the UNSW.
40
Remember this moment kids, so in the future when your grandchildren ask “where were you Granddad when man stood on
the moonhis dich” you can tell them you were on the front lines, in trenches, blogging on the worlds greatest science website.123
On another front… councils encouraged to redeploy sea defences some distance inland because dea level will inevitably rise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26125479
This is wicked. As we know, sea level is scarcely rising and the notion that it will is based on the same global warming models that predicted the world would continue to warm due to human-produced CO2, when it hasn’t warmed for 16 years although CO2 levels have continued to increase sharply as China and India industrialise. Of course if sea defences are moved inland some way, the properties newly exposed will be destroyed in storms and the catastrophists will claim that they are vindicated.
140
Looks like another way to send building contracts towards one’s pals. Plain and simple.
40
…it’s also a way to pick up potentially valuable coastal real estate at greatly reduced prices.
That present owners of that land will be ruined is just “collateral damage.” What we are about to see, if it isn’t stopped, is pure evil.
10
Anton – good choice of word “wicked”.
It implies an intentional act of evil.
Yes and you can imagine those who have property between the new defences and the sea will have them heavily devalued, and the knobs will likely then swoop on them for a song, and when all the climate change nonsense dies down, have highly valuable sea side property!
30
How long until we see the paper from Trenberth, Karoly, et al et Mann saying… “It was the Sun that did it” ! ?
They obviously know they have stuffed up and know that a cooling trend is coming.
Just going to be fun watching them squirm ! 🙂
110
Don’t hold your breath.
41
I’ve no intention of holding my breathe.
The world needs all the CO2 it can get. 🙂
110
Tim Flannery is still making false claims, and consuming masses of carbon …
10
They are too brazen to squirm.
They will ride it out until it is all forgotten.
Where are all the global cooling idiots from the 1970’s? They are either gone and forgotten, or have metamophed into warmists and no one (with the power) has called them into account.
00
Here is recent view by Richard Lindzen & Nic Lewis in evidence to the UK Commons Committee on 28 Jan 2014.
Q80 Ian Lavery: …. the IPCC said that the hiatus is a consequence of recent volcanic activity and the redistribution of heat within the oceans. Do you find that explanation valid?
Professor Lindzen: The first one, no. The second one, and this is again a matter of language, it is a very opaque way of saying internal natural variability is the reason. To say the heat is hiding in the ocean is another way of saying that there is always heat exchange between the upper levels of the ocean and the deeper ocean, leaving the surface out of equilibrium and leading to the surface undergoing climate change. Instead of saying, “Well, it could have been natural variability”, they said that, and I think that was designed to make it opaque and confusing and does indicate a certain bias.
Nicholas Lewis: On that, the AR5 report shows quite a high ocean heat uptake over the last decade and more so than in previous decades or the last 15 years. There have only been reasonable measurements of that down to approaching the 2,000 metre level since about 2004 when the Argo network of buoys that dive down and come back up again reached 50% coverage, down to that sort of depth. The most recent paper published on that, Lyman and Johnson, shows that over the period 2004 to 2011—and they do not have up-to-date data because they have to go through a data validation correction system—was only about 0.3 watt per metre down to 1,800 metres, which is I think under half what the AR5 estimate had. The evidence that it increased heat going into the ocean does not appear to have the observational support.
…………………
Of course, if the alleged Ocean Heat Content changes are natural variation, that in turn requires lower ECS estimates because the man-made component is proportionally lower. So CO2 becomes less relevant.
It will take many years to accumulate enough reliable data on Ocean Heat, so the argument about storage is as yet hypothetical, not actual.
180
Alarmists love playing Hide and Seek with the “missing heat”. FOUND YOU!
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-global-underwater.html
Hmmm – Global SST’s same in 2011 as in 1992 – ZERO HEATING in 19 years!!!
I’d like to know where the data is for 2012 and 2013?
Now that is definitely missing. I wonder why?
Could it be that temperatures are inconveniently cooler and yet to be adjusted than 2011??
Did the dog eat it?
comment- Andy Oz says:
February 11, 2014 at 7:01 am @stevegoddard
50
“Alarmists love playing Hide and Seek with the “missing heat”. FOUND YOU!”
Yes indeed the missing heat has been found and I have proof…I filled my bath tub with water and it’s very warm!!!
30
Most geos, including myself have been saying for a decade now that the Theory of AGW is total utter and crap. It goes against all our training. The only geos toeing the “Warmist” line during this period have been those employed in Academia or Govt (especially under the 2010-2013 ALP/Greens coalition). But as that famous Bob Dylan song goes “the times they are a changin”. And change is happening now – the 15 year pause of GW is exposing the “Warmist Alarmism” for what it is – total nonsense. Papers like those of England et al. are a desperate last ditch effort to prop up the failed “theory of AGW” by attributing the blame to other factors such as the increasing strength of trades winds in the Pacific Ocean or other ludicrous papers proposing that the warmth is buried under the ocean. All us AGW skeptics can now sit back and watch this charade unfold because as clear as the sun will rise tomorrow so will there will be no more GW for many many decades to come as the next GM takes hold. It is now our time in the Sun (an unintended pun).
150
But your the King of the geos cant you bring the few stragglers into line 🙂
30
I try Crakar24 but we have to win over the MSM – which is not easy. The MSM simply don’t listen to the geos – maybe they think we all have rocks in our head. As for the “Warmist Climate Scientists” – they have had a “golden run” – the MSM thinks the Sun shines out of their arses not realizing that that in reality the Sun is the game changer wrt Earth’s Climate.
110
I raised the topic of consorship in general with someone who used to work for the MSM. One of the main reasons they left was heavy censorship.
My thinking is even if we could sway the journos, the eds etc are still holding the line. The best way to beat them is imperical evidence that cant be ignored.
Its also worth finding as many regional newspapers who have on-line comments and make your point hat way too – so the truth of the science is heard widely.
I had one F*****x regional newspaper I did this with ( it was my old home town ) and they must have dragged out every signed up labor or greens voters they coudl find locally and thundered at me for days – in the ned I just held my nerve and refuted them and it all died down, but the warmists were ferocious….
30
Over the ocean the wind blows
Where she flows nobody knows
In the sky a cloud has come
Evaporation it’s the one
Over the ocean the winds blow
Yet Thermal expansion has been slow
Models say precipitation is on the run
But in the sky the clouds have fun
80
Matthew England et al give us an item to blame for the present global temperature hiatus.
1. Changes in wind patterns over the Pacific Ocean.
However, that is just one item competing with at least these others briefly described as –
2. lack of sunspot activity
3. changes in heat uptake in portions of the oceans
4. Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
5. changes in activity of small volcanos
6. changes in density of atmospheric aerosols
7. variation of atmospheric moisture content
May the best man win. I’m all for progress in science.
However, I do wish that the authors promoting each of these diverse items would cease to write as if their item was the only one, as if some money depended on them coming up with the winning item.
130
The thing you miss here, even though it has been clearly pointed out to you Philip is that with all of the things that you list, each has an opposite which explains global warming.
And you harp on about a trace gas??
30
Who’s Phillip?
20
He knows who he is, so don’t worry…. he reads this.
20
It would seem likely that all the items listed are at one time or another “responsible” for slowed warming. The climate does not have a single driver, not the sun, not the ocean, etc. Let’s not make the same mistake warmests did and believe a system as complex as climate is driven by any one variable. One suspects it looks more like a dance, with various dancers moving in and out of the lead.
40
Important point,Sheri.
All the[agw models] are created to only measure CO2 and endlessly try to link “it”to a warming world which is well and truly over.The only “driver”of consideration is CO2.No other.This is not science.
Hanson picked the statistically hottest day in summer[in L.A.;early’80’s]for his announcement.He got his hot day then turned off the air.,opened the windows of the high rise and,sweating theatrically,told the nationwide audience”Global Warming”is here etc.
The lies upon lies,the cost,lost progress let alone productivity are of grand proportion.Heads must roll.
00
Yes, I know the models are constructed to favor CO2 and try to make it, and thus humans, the driver of climate. I was making the point that it would seem incorrect to believe any one thing is the “driver” of climate. Any such supposition would seem to be unscientific, be it CO2 or the sun or whatever.
Yes, Hansen is definately a dishonest faux-scientist who became an activist and refuses to admit his science was wrong. While “heads must roll” sounds good, we both know that’s not going to happen. Shutting him down is the best we can hope for and maybe getting people to think a bit more before allowing so-called “experts” take over universities and politics. I’d settle for the scammers just going away and never darkening the doors of scientific research ever again. If we can shame them at all, that would be a bonus.
00
It’ll be interesting to see how many more novel explanations and data ‘corrections’ for the ‘hiatus’ will be dreamed up before the next El Nino occurs.
Perhaps we’ll find out that not as much heat as we thought lies smouldering in the deep, the trade winds will carry on as they did in the good old days, aerosols will be go back to being delivery methods for deodorants and TSI will assume the geometrical perfection of the shaft of the ‘Hockey Stick’ TM.
CO2 II will smash into the charts with ‘It’s Back and its even worse than we thought’ as one obvious strapline!
And, on the face of it, it will appear worse than ‘we’ thought.
All those ad-hoc adjustments to the past that have been employed to hide the plateau or natural cooling or whatever will, when added to whatever the ‘Little Boy’ brings to the party will do wonders for the alarmist brigade balance sheet.
Dana and his Tree Gang comrades will rename the SkS unit of oceanic heat trapping to the Bikini Atoll but without reducing the numbers.
All the Thermistador’$ Christmases will have come at once and if some of the novelty explanations, like Deep Heat and Free Trade, have to take the back stage then be assured’ they’ll be waiting in the wings for the next time they’ll be needed.
The irony that they needed ‘Natural’ forces to support their Anthropogenic theorifications will never enter their tiny, little minds!
80
Erratum: I should point out that when I referred to the ‘Tree’ gang, I meant the ‘Tree Hut’ gang.
I would like to apologise if anyone has been misled by my words.
For the benefit of Dana and John, at SkS, the concepts of ‘apologise’ and ‘misled’ are very well explained by any good, online dictionary.
Here’s one of them:
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/
40
I am reminded of a chap in uni that made a great model of the gold price (some 25 years ago or so). The R-squared was really high (think in the high 0.90s) but there was a slight snag. All the variables required to predict the gold price so well were equally hard to predict themselves (things like the oil price, exchange rate etc). I get the feeling the climate community may find the same thing when they finally find a model that actually works, that is. My suspicion is that long-term climate will be essentially unpredictable.
140
It’s easy to predict the past.
60
In Climate science
The future is known
The past is unknown
50
Into the foreseeable future. 😉
00
Piers Corbin is successfully forecasting long term.
00
Global warming theory is ‘still not wrong’ ? ???????
Love it 🙂
That’s about the size of it.
Even though they have that 97% or 95% consensus and the ACTUAL observations over the last 15+ years are NOT conforming to the modelling… it’s still possible to argue that even though they”re not right. . .or if you like. . . the science is clearly far from settled. . .they are nonetheless ‘not wrong’.
🙂 🙂 🙂
100
The new tact, bases on observations of trolls, is to try to claim this is not based on models. If it’s based on evidence, they can skirt the problem. Heeby was big on that one, as was Michael the Realist (or whatever). It sounds somewhat convincing if you don’t actually read the IPCC report that says it’s all based on models. And we know people don’t read the IPCC reports or there would be a lot more skeptics developing out there (the science report, not the policy report).
70
A State Farm ad on television has a baby saying: “Ok, does does it bother anybody else that the mime is talking?” I’d like to see an ad where a baby says: “Ok, does it bother anybody else that we’re being forced to change our means of energy production based on a theory whose strongest selling point is not that it’s right, but that with tweak factor 2,134,544 it’s “not wrong?” Amazing!
40
This was posted on another site and makes the Trade Wind Debate even funnier:- http://m.livescience.com/729-global-warming-weakens-trade-winds.html
Bad science is being compounded by sheer bloody mindedness.
40
They’re good. They must be following US politicians new tactic: Unemployment is now desirable. We should want unemployment. (Has the handy side effect that politicians can now continue doing nothing…). Taking a negative and turning into a positive will eventually cause severe neck damage due to snapping back and forth trying to follow the latest proclamations.
30
Is this right? Don’t they know? If so, then they are even more ignorant than I thought.
The trade winds are the resultant of the thermal forces (radiation evaporation convection) and the Coriolis force (eg the slippage at the boundary layer between the earth and the atmosphere, most prominent at the equator where rotation is at its fastest). Trade winds are relatively constant. That is why they were called “trade” winds; they could be relied on to be there for traders. Trade winds are not going to vary that much, owing to the law of conservation of angular momentum.
Wikipedia is not much help on this topic. The above is a summary from Szokolay, Manual of Tropical Housing & Building, Part 1 Climatic Design, 1974.
60
At last, someone mentions the obvious, seemingly omitted anywhere that I have seen on this post – Coriolis Forces – which create the ‘predictable’ trade winds. The link here is to a useful offering on You Tube explaining the phenomena — ‘The Coriolis Force and the Trade Winds – Gaspard Gustave de Coriolis’
So, I’m thinking that given the Mannian rise in sea level, we see a reduction in angular velocity of the rotating earth (conservation of angular momentum). The result, diminishing Coriolis Forces and changing trade winds. /sarc.
Cripes, just realised, better not give this catastrophist folk ‘new’ ideas.
40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT6WwNmDfEQ
Coriolis Forces – helpfully instructive. Not sure what went wrong with the links posted earlier in connection with this.
Trade Wind – causes
And for clarification: Coriolis Force
00
Absolutely agree Martin,
Some people know what causes the wind to blow.
However I think the so called Coriolis Force is due to variation in angular momentum and is greatest at the mid latitudes.
30
See also “Hadley Cells”
00
In case you missed it, I think I figured out how the 95% figure comes about. Judith Curry published my essay on it. I think it explains the paradox of how the IPCC and friends can seem to be more certain even though everything indicates they’ve been wrong. It’s a more sophisticated kind of monkey modeling. Or, more diplomatically, you could say both sides were right, but the skeptics were right about what matters.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/29/the-big-question/
80
The only difference between monkey-modelling and climate -scientist modelling is the amount of crap you have to clean up before you let the monkey start.
40
A link to a much more plausible theory than England’s:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/02/10/global-warming-australian-scientists-say-cat-breeding-behind-pause-in-global-warming/
50
20
I was wondering why England & co only show one small area of alleged accelerated trade wind north of the equator. Actually this is modelled accelerated wind – none of this stuff exists in the real world as far as I am aware.
Maybe it is because the model contains angular momentum balancing and the effects show up operating in the opposite direction in the mid latitudes?
Or the model can be tweaked for wind speed but doesn’t have conservation of angular momentum?
If the latter, then they are going to find another scary thing coming – massive tear in the atmosphere for a start 🙂
30
UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre is getting right up there with East Anglia’s CRU as a an alarmist hub. First the Ship of Fools and Professor CHRIS TURNEY SCIENTIST, EXPLORER AND WRITER (and all round, self promoting tosser) and now Professor Matthew England with this piece of scientific candy floss, straight from a sideshow alley near you.
For a body of science that was so settled and with 97% of scientific opinion in lock step behind CAGW there seems to be an awful lot of shuffling of feet and bumping into the lamposts of reality. It must be those damned observations shining a light on things and blinding their xray vision.
As an alumni of UNSW I am just ashamed. Thank the spirits that these buffoons are not from the engineering faculty. These puffed up loons are out there with Stephan Lewandowsky and Clive Hamilton who at least have the excuse that they do not have a frigging clue about the actual science.
What a complete joke this latest piece of tosh is.
120
What do “Ill Math Novice,” “What Lysenko Spawned,” and “New Tangled Math” have in common?
10
I think Jo has nailed England et al with her statement above “It is time to turn off the tap to unskeptical scientists.”
140
I think I’ve stumbled onto what the eco-parasites are really trying to say:
Look! I’m just a
“Climate Sci” dork
Unsuited to
Productive work
So you say my
Models are wrong?
It’s play with them
Or with my schlong!
32
I have a theory: Climate sensitivity ( to a doubling of CO2) is actually equal to exactly 1.
20
Is CO2 a driver?
No; it hasn’t yet got its learner plates.
80
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”. – John von Neumann
70
“Here’s how it works — Monkey modelers make a guess, get it wrong, but instead of tossing the model or reassessing all their forcings they fish for new factors to conscript to get the least-worst outcome.” Jo
This is why it works – alarmist climate scientists are a bunch of corrupt [snip] who are driven by money, status and social belongingess needs. They are the [snip] of politicians who have them in golden handcuffs. Cut off the funding and the “scientists” will move on to the next scam.
50
I fear that it’s often not a matter of deliberate corruption. It’s ineptitude as scientists.
00
“There has been and is a pause in warming”
Warmists taking credit for the future.
Don’t surrender the language to them. There is no “pause.” Global warming has stopped. It can only be a pause if the warming resumes in the future, but the future is unknown. If a warmist says “pause,” ask them how they know global temperature will rise in the future.
70
Because the science is settled and the world is absolutely warming. Have you not been paying attention the last 20 years? 😉
30
Warming is no longer showing up in temperature rises because the world is changing state. The ice caps are melting and the oceans are evaporating. This locks up a huge amount of energy without actual temperature rise. It is no more Global Warming but Global Heating on a scale never conceived. An apparent drop in surface temperatures will actually accompany an acceleration of this process. Prof. England realises this is too hard for all the lay followers of science to follow so he has to make this wind stuff up in the meantime. We are all being slowly turned into the gas & dust from whence we came.
20
“Like a thousand monkeys typing McBeth…”
Lets hope they can spell Macbeth better than that…:)
30
Such as fish.
Higher temps put fish at risk: Aust study
Conscript that fish! I want a climate refugee charity set up for that fish by tomorrow and vision of the fish limping a bit on the 5’o’clock news!
Assuming the highest empirically defensible ECS to 2XCO2, which is 1.3 via Nir Shaviv, the +3°C won’t happen, not this century, not next century, not even the century after. It would be less than +2 degrees, tops. Since Spencer&Brasswell2010 concluded 0.6 was closer to the truth, the fish are fine.
60
“Higher Temps Put Fish At Risk: Aust Study”
And how much did this useless study cost the Australian tax payer?
30
PeterK,we better get on top of this before another aussie industry is put out of business.No more fish shops,cooked fish straight from an ocean near you.Bill Shorterm’s new media release ‘Tony Abbott indifferent to Fish Shops,no govt grants to save greasy industry’
30
Since we all appear to have some sort of tacit understanding that “monkey Science” has brought us to where we are , should we not use the words “climb down” as opposed to back down ? Good luck to you all , there is at least another 10 years of this bull **** ahead of us, er, if I make it that far!
40
“the technique can work indefinitely as an elaborate form of excuse making that could prop up a wrong theory forever.”
So you’re saying there’ll always be an England. And a Mann, and the rest of the misguided flounderers. It would be tolerable, perhaps, if they weren’t doing with other people’s money.
30
If my memory serves me correctly, when England jumped to his feet to “smack down” Nick Minchen he was already miked up with a lapel mike.
In previous programs on Q & A we used to wait until the boom mike was positioned over the audience member/agent provocateur. Clearly it was a calculated & crafted ambush.
It was the last time I took anything seriously from the ABC. Propaganda poorly disguised is an insult to community & electorate. Propagandists pushing their “barrows” in learning institutions is a blight on (crime against) the future.
80
Just posted the following at The Guardian , much loved uk journal of the lovies, and champagne socialists .
Hopefully it is relevant as it is about the dichotomy of the current Trade wind fiasco and the 7 year old one .
Well I think I would find it more than a bit alarming if someone told me that I had to spend £100,000 to insure my house every year , because it may fall into a sink hole , I think I would rather spend £5000 on a good surveyor, establish whether or not there was a likelihood of falling into a sink hole and if so , spend a further whatever amount to ensure that any holes beneath my property were filled to the required degree.
Whereas “Climate Science “says…..”now look , something , not quite sure what that may be, heating , cooling, tidal surges, solar flares , wind, rain, (also known as weather) may or may not impact upon your life in the next 100 years or not as the case may be ,so can you please stop spending money on building sea walls, dredging rivers ,ensuring that your population can keep their feet dry and hand it over to “Scientists” who can absolutely assure you that within a decade or 4 you will be so happy that they have established that there was sweet **** all they could have done about it in the first place”
Also , any money spent ensuring Africans have water , medicine,… is a luxury expense , when it could have kept 5000 scientists in clover for a decade or more , to think that savings peoples lives is more important than building windmills is heresy!! The Green People of planet Earth are a disgrace , by their stupidity they have condemned millions to poverty and the Scientists pah! whores to state funded lunacy.
When you can prove absolutely that anthropologic CO2 is the cause of anything, = warming or cooling , please get back to me ,because quite frankly, your pseudo science religion is a busted flush
90
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study?commentpage=4
20
Jo, A well written summation of the state of affairs that is AGW. I would like to add two thoughts.
First, errors are often made in any “initial theory” that attempts to describe nature. Corrections to those errors and possible “overlooked phenomena” are often added to explain discrepancies between the “initial theory” and observations. However, for such an approach to be viable, the aspect of nature being studied must involve at most “a limited number” of “affecting phenomena”. As the number of “affecting-phenomena” increases, the exercise becomes one large “circle jerk”–albeit a profitable one for the investigators. Anyone who ever believed or now believes that the number of physical phenomena that affect climate is small or even manageable was/is deluded. At the outset of this “blame all climate effects on CO2 (or even on greenhouse gases)” nonsense, common sense should have told the investigators to be extremely wary of “rushing to judgment”; and that if achieving the goal of understanding all the phenomena that affect climate is even possible, it will take many, many years to numerically rank them and quantitatively determine their effects. This brings me to my second thought.
Given the complexity of “climate” it may not be criminal, but it is absurd beyond imagination to demand that mankind change the way it generates useful energy based on a few decades of “climate study.” I believe I understand the reasons for such arrogance: godhood, money and power–godhood (at least in their own minds) to those who support “saving the Earth”, money to the purveyors [universities, environmentalist organizations, individual scientists(?), etc.] of the “sky-is-falling” community and power to the politicians who control the flow of that money. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who at this stage demands mankind reduce fossil fuel usage based on the belief/conviction that the current rate mankind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic global warming is either a fool, a charlatan, or both.
81
Please explain how power and money flowed to Gillard, Rudd, Turnbull or the labor party for their support of AGW.
Please explain why every national and international scientific organisation in the world accepts AGW regardless of the polical leaningsnor acceptance of AGW of whomever is in power. You can specifically focus on Australia and Canada if you like, both with non AGW believing governments that have been cutting funds to organisations and scientists that support AGW and trying to gag scientists who speak out. The acceptance from the scientific organisations remain unchanged.
Please shows documentary proof of the excessive salaries of climate scientists by providing their global average salary and then compare it to the average fossil fuel executive salary.
I await your response, because surely you have some basis for such ludicrous claims.
021
Political donations?
50
lol. The big political donations and other support (such as the massive free murdoch media campaign against labor) from the big corporations, Murdoch Media and fossil fuels went to the liberal party. They did much better than labor. Try again.
02
Ludicrous to suggest that a climate scientist, who is on contract and might be pouring drinks at a bar the next year, would only prostitute themselves if they were offered the salary of an oil executive.
Ludicrous to ignore the large number of scientists in the field let alone in related fields that are sceptical, especially geologists (Yet, the US Geological Survey put out an article that was reported in all newspapers around the world within days and was complete an utter bollocks).
Ludicrous to ignore the faults, like AGW reduces trade wind strengths (settled science) then the hiatus (that you were belittled for mentioning) is due to these winds being stronger (settled science), all because you are waiting for authority to confirm it for you.
70
Firstly your use of ‘settled science’ is ludicrous. The basics are settled, Co2 is a greenhouse gas, it causes warming, which we have increased by 40% and that warming has occurred. The rest is part of ongoing and continued intense research which our best science says it is 95% certain to be occurring and will be bad for us.
As to your scientists claims you have proved it is even less than opinion and not based on anything substantive. You have also failed to show what is in it for the politicians that supposedly control the purse strings and why the science does not change even when the government support does. You theory has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. grow up.
02
You insist, rudely, on proof and not opinion but talk about 95% certainty. They changed the confidence intervals from 90% to 95% so that they were bigger and the hiatus could just sneak into the lower estimates. They didn’t scientifically become 5% more certain.
Would you like to buy a bridge? Made from organic concrete.
00
Heeby,
You picked Gillard, Rudd, Turnbill–I guess because they got ousted from power. You mentioned the “cutting of funds to organizations and scientists that support AGW.” You can’t cut funds unless funds existed in the first place. In short, your statement about “cutting funds”, if anything, is proof that money did and still is flowing to AGW activists. [As an aside, I applaud Australia and Canada because they appear to be leading the effort to bring common sense back to politics.”] I pick Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, and Barack Obama–all of whom own some of their power/wealth to appeasing environmental organizations.
As I understand it, the equivalent of the Russian National Science Academy doesn’t accept AGW. Am I wrong? And as to why many national societies have stated that they do accept AGW, I have to believe they succumbed to political and monetary pressure from their benefactors. Using the logic of global warming alarmists, since no other reason makes sense–especially in light of the 17+ year and growing termination of global warming, it must be the reason.
Who (other than you) said anything about excessive salaries? As I understand it over the past ten or so years on-the-order of 80+ billion dollars have been spent trying to prove AGW is a fact. I can’t help but believe a significant fraction of that money went to individual scientists and universities too numerous to mention–and maybe even to a national science organization or two. As far as comparing the average salary of climate scientists to fossil fuel executives, surely you jest. That’s like comparing the average salary of custodians to medical doctors–it’s ridiculous. Fossil fuel companies provide an important if not an essential service/product to mankind. The executives of such companies are responsible for ensuring their services are provided cost effectively; and given the hurdles placed in their way by environmentalists and their political cronies, their jobs are worth every penny they make. Climate scientists perform studies and write documents, which in the most part have value only for the heat that could be generated if you burned the paper.
I’m glad you agreed to await my response. Now you can go back to sleep or whatever else it is you do to occupy your mind.
100
You call that a response? I believe, as I understand it, incorrect information about Australia, a misunderstanding of the science (see my post below), and zero facts.
FYI The current Australian gov has shut down climate change organisations, cut funding for research and is trying to open up all the areas set aside for the environment to fossil fuels and other corporations. ditto in Canada. But scientists opinion have not changed.
Also please name the scientific organisation you imply does not accept AGW with a link to their statement saying so.
I await an actual substantive, thought out response.
02
Heeby,
I spent about an hour doing a google search for an official statement from the Russian Academy of Science. The only “official” statement I found was written in 2005 (http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf) and supports your position that the Russian National Academy as an organization believes in man-made Global warming.
However, I note two things. First as reported in “http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/russische-wissenschaftler-melden-globale-erwaermung-geht-zu-ende/” apparently there are Russian Scientist associated with the Russian Science Academy who believe the world will cool in the next decade not warm.
Second, in my original post I mentioned nothing about National Science Academies. You introduced them into the discussion. I did say, “Given the complexity of “climate” it may not be criminal, but it is absurd beyond imagination to demand that mankind change the way it generates useful energy based on a few decades of “climate study.” In addition I said “Anyone, and I mean anyone, who at this stage demands mankind reduce fossil fuel usage based on the belief/conviction that the current rate mankind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic global warming is either a fool, a charlatan, or both.” That includes National Academies. I stand by those statements. As I see it, your position is that because the National Science Academies believe in AGW, we should respond as if AGW is a fact. My position is that Nature apparently doesn’t believe in AGW as is evidenced by the 17+ year termination in increasing temperature when atmospheric CO2 levels have been steadily rising. I choose to believe nature rather than National Academies.
If the AGW advocates were asking mankind to do something trivial in response to the belief in AGW, then the debate would be academic. However, AGW proponents advocate significantly reducing fossil fuel usage levels. Such action is anything but trivial and will have a major impact on mankind. Until Nature, not National Academies, proves AGW is real, I don’t want to tinker with our energy production. As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Based on the last 17+ years, the only way to claim the Earth’s Temperature is broke is to claim that “broke” implies “no change”.
00
Reed, I do encourage you to beleive nature. But all of nature and ALL of the observations, and not a cherry picked portion of a small portion of nature that confirms what you want to believe. Such as…
**AGW is based on science of over 100 years old and has not been able to be disproven.
**In the last 60 years…
***ENSO has been neutral, and cooling during the last 13 years with the 12 hottest
years on record
***Solar has fallen
***Volcanos that cause cooling have been very active, especially in the last decade
***Cosmic rays are moving in the opposite direction to contribute to warming
***The Arctic has lost 50% of its maximum summer extent
***Gobally ice volumes have fallen
***Nearly 100% of glaciers are receding
***Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate(double) to the previous 60
***Ocean have warmed to the deeper levels (where over 90% of the planets extra energy
goes)
***and the clincher, despite all the natural cooling factors temperatures have risen
.6 degrees.
So rather than a few decades (because longer does not fit your story), look at at least 60 years, look at over 100 years of science and look at the fact that every national or international scientific organisation in the world supports AGW because of the strength of the whole science.
So buy all means listen to natura, and if you do you will see that there is grave concern and nearly 100% certainty that we are changing the face of this planet, and all the evidence is telling us that most of the effects starting to occur are bad for us.
The above is factual data, and the temperature trend matches the satelite. You have to claim a global conspiracy controlling nearly 200 countries and the majority of scientists with someone high in the military doctoring the satelite data over many decades to claim it is wrong. Which I am sure a good portion of you will.
02
At least 97% of what have indicated is blatantly false.
No more needs saying.
Go and get an education instead of copying form propaganda sites.
20
False or irrelevant.
Irrelevant like you.
Why do you come here? Do you like being told you are an ignorant fool ?
10
He can’t help it. Activists like Michael/HJ have an obsessive disorder which compels them to repeatedly pollute blogs which they clearly have no agreement with. Posting a contrary opinion and stirring up the blog regulars gives them a sort of aroused feeling. They will keep dismissing every contrary argument, regardless of validity, because any form of agreement would result on a reduction in their state of arousal.
00
I wish they would get at least a junior high level of science before they come here.
00
The last 60 comprise 50 years of a Grand Solar Maximum.
This is why the world has warmed to a level somewhere between the LAI and the MWP..
But since the turn of the century the sun has been having a snooze, and most solar scientists expect this to continue until maybe 2100.
This is why the temperature has levelled off and starting to head downwards
This is why ENSO will remain negative.
This is why the 2010 ElNino did not cause any step jump in the global temperature.
This is why the Arctic has had a rapid recovery and the Antarctic sea ice is way above record levels.
——————
I notice you are still attached to the electricity grid, consuming coal-power electricity.. Hypocrite !
Put up and shut up, fool.
00
I focussed on the actual scientific data and measurements. You cannot dismiss it without some explanation or proof, that is the actual official data.
03
Griss you ask me to put up while you actually make stuff up. Temps have not started cooling, last year was still the 2nd to 5th hottest year depending on data set. ENSO has already been neutral for about 18 months, rather than ‘staying negative (you are about 2 years out of date. The Arctic has not recovered, it continues its melting trend still way below the 30 year average after a record melt in 2012, and the Antarctic is barely above natural variation and explainable by changes in wind patterns and other factors.
So yountqlk absolute nonsense. Why are you guys never called up on the stuff you make up.
01
” focussed on the actual scientific data and measurements”
No you don’t .. you know nothing of science, and only of corrupted data.
You focus purely on propaganda mis-information. from rabid warmist sites drawing form the climate trough.
You are a brain-wash moron, with zero thinking ability, and zero capacity to learn.
00
ENSO 3-4 is negative.
Arctic is a bit warm for this time of the year.. 255K .. all the cold has gone to the USA.
The 2012 melt was due to a cyclone that broke up the ice. 2013 recovered massively.
You talk absolute nonsense, and are being called on it..
Still using coal fired electricity, I see.. Hypocrite.
If you really cared you would lead the way, and cut yourself totally from the grid.
You are serving zero purpose here. !
Which trough are you feeding from ?
00
ENSO is considered neutral. Also if negative that makes the record hot year in Australia even more remarkable as our hottest years normally occur during El Nino.
Arctic is warm, and the US and other extreme weather is due to a destabilising jetstream due to climate change. Get used to the concept. Do yu not feel guilty looking around the world, England, Europe, the US etc and try to pretend things are normal.
Your other comments are irrelevent, nothing to do with science, and just trying to deflect from the damage your actions are causing.
00
My actions are causing no damage at all, Michael.
And if mine were, then yours are also, and despite you being the one having apoplexy about it.. you do nothing about it except waste more space.
My comments are very relevant because they hit right at the hypocrisy of the AGW agenda.
Al Gore with his many mansions and massive carbon foot print.
Flannery with his waterside dwellings.
Suzuki: mansions, lots of children despite saying population is a problem.
Massive climate conferences requiring massive amounts of air travel.
Massive devastation of bird species and natural landscape with wind turbines, and zero accountability for the damage done.
Waste, waste and more waste. That is not sustainable. And its all one big hypocritical con job.
In reality, it is the actions of the green agenda that have caused more damage to many economies and environments than anything else in a long, long time.
Secondly, the climate has not changed for the whole of this century. Australia looks like its experiencing similar weather to that of the early 1900’s. nothing unnatural about that, and there is no way it can be rationally linked to any beneficially CO2 rise in the atmosphere, because its only weather.
The destabilised jetstream also cannot be slated home to any changes of CO2 in the atmosphere except in the fevered irrational imaginations of the CAGW insane.
This year in Australia is only the hottest in the massively adjusted short-term BOM record. Historic records indicate periods that were at least as warm as now.
Around 1906 looks like it was quiet a bit warmer, a fact which shows up in the original data of stations that were open at that time.
There are still records from 1939, floating about. Its just normal Australia climate variability, and there is no way anyone can prove otherwise except by expunging all of Australian history.
English history also shows that the current floods have happened before, quite often in the scheme of things, and if it weren’t for the cessation of routine dredging operations due to green madness, the result would have been a lot less costly. The places that flooded are called flood planes,.. DOH !!!
And yes, the US is having a tough winter. Its freezing its butt off, all due to global warming.
Australia is warm, New Zealand is not, northern hemisphere is freezing. No global warming happening, hasn’t been since the 1998 ElNino.
Just natural weather variations.
So, still using coal fired electricity ? ….. Or are you going to lead the way.
Didn’t think so.
Go and panic elsewhere, you scared, ignorant little boy.
00
–
Heeby Jeebies
“Please explain how power and money flowed to Gillard, Rudd, Turnbull or the labor party for their support of AGW.”
–
Nah, no power or money there!
20
@Heeby Jeebies February 12, 2014 at 6:51 am ·
Here comes another global warmer demanding others provide information to substantiate what they claim.
For example, why doesn’t Heeby J provide the “proof of the excessive salaries of climate scientists by providing their global average salary and then compare it to the average fossil fuel executive salary?”
After all, it is you who makes this claim.
That’s because you can’t. You make stuff up.
But, I am feeling generous today, and will help the delusional Heeby J. with his failed comment, quote:
“with non AGW believing governments that have been cutting funds to organisations and scientists that support AGW and trying to gag scientists who speak out.”
Australian Govt, Dept of Environment: Responses to Professor Ian Plimer’s 101 climate questions
Unless you have a better example, Heeby J?
60
Well firstly that was done during the previous government that accepted science, the response was, I believe, put together by the CSIRO, our premium science body, in response to a book (not science) from a serial misinformer who is employed by a fossil fuel company, that actually are the ones that make money.
Your point?
02
“…trying to gag scientists who speak out.”
Evidence for this please.
20
Haha,
–
Very clever Bob!
10
Heeby J, I hear your mum calling, she has a towel to dry behind your ears.
80
Spot on Heywood.If it isn’t the oh most loathsome and exhausting Micheal it’s got to be another resurrection,I bet.
An irritating attempt at a born yesterday persona[twit]who’s oh so innocent and in his grand naivety can not understand these “contrarians” and their willful silliness.
Spare us,oh ill tempered dullard.You should identify your self and stop this drivel[and the act].
10
I think the responses I have made cover all other comments, so I will await for something substantive.
03
Why? It doesn’t matter what anyone says, nor what evidence anyone provides, you will dismiss it as being not credible, nonsense or just opinion.
There is really not much point engaging w@nker activists like yourself, because the only truth you accept is your own.
30
This has likely been pointed out already, but just a few years ago the excuse was that winds were doing the opposite. The only thing that is blowing is the air being moved by AGW arm waving hype.
50
What I don’t understand, and sorry if someone else mentioned it, but what happens to their ‘past’ when they plug in all the new variables?
Like, this entire “CAGW” nonsense is because they felt models could kind of replicate pre-1950, but not after that. That meant (in their mind) 1950-today has to be caused by man, and CO2 was the only reason they could (or wanted to) find for it. Up until a decade ago they thought they had this rather perfectly balanced. That meant they thought they could properly predict the future because they could (kind of) recreate the recent past with their models.
…that was then.
But now they have the pause. So they are forced to start plugging in something like the PDO cycle to explain said pause… and what exactly does that do to their pre-Pause lines?
The PDO makes a fantastic example because we know its cycles and lengths, and we know the Models have only missed factoring in the Negative half of it into their calculations (the Positive phase inclusion would be unintentional by basing all their ‘natural occurrences’ off observations since the satellite era, which was +PDO over that time until the last couple years.) So if they plug in the 2008-Today Negative PDO to explain their roughly 0.3-0.4 overshot prediction during the pause, the 1945-1977 & 1884-1915 negative cycles would also be pushed down that same 0.3-0.4 amount. Temperatures during those -PDO periods would then be much lower then observed, and ‘warming’ phases during the +PDO would be stretched out to connect to those now lower -PDO periods. (Those +PDO phases would end up showing the +0.3-0.4 added differential as added warming over actual observations, which would indicate roughly +0.9 warming when we actually only saw about 0.5)
So they are then left with a situation where they need to account for a drop in temperatures during the -PDO periods by the 0.3-0.4 to get them back to observed levels, but not touch anything else. Or they can figure out a way to erase about 0.3-0.4 worth of warming from the -PDO to +PDO flips prior to 2008, and raise everything but the post-2008 period by the 0.3-0.4.
(If this is all confusing, here is what their initial -0.3 decrease to explain the pause would end up looking like after they did it)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1884/to:1914/offset:-0.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1915/to:1945/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1976/offset:-0.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2007/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2008
But if they do either of those corrections, then it will almost certainly drastically affect the impact they believe CO2 has in all of this. Shoot, it might even erase it completely. (that is what many ‘Skeptics’ thoughts are, at least)
…so it leads to the big question; will they even add in the new data over previous periods, or just use it to explain the pause and ignore the massive complications it creates in their back-Modeling?
50
Just how ‘not wrong’ can one woolly idea be ?
50
Wow what a master full piece of George Orwell misinformation. Lets look at the facts.
Scientists have said for a long time now that the deep ocean is heating up and that is where the majority of the extra energy the planet is building up isngoing. This has not been accepted by this community but suddenly when it suits you it is now accepted.
That the ocean is building up energy while the atmosphere have sustained record global temps proves AGW.
The PDO and ENSO are cycles, which means over time their effect evens out, there is no net increase or decrease in energy. So lets check the cycle, over 60 years, a cycle of the PDO, ENSO has been neutral. Temps have increased by 0.6 deg c. Again confirmation of the greenhouse effect.
Any natural reason for the increase? Lets see, solar has fallen, cosmic rays are in the opposite direction for warming etc, so basically all your excuses focussed on misinformation have already been nullified.
Then the apparent change in climate sensitivity. You apparently missed the fact that they were talking 2.1 at 2100 relative to 1980-1999, not from preindustrial or a doubling of CO2. So basically climate sensitivity to a doubling the same as always, if not at the high end as other recent research implies. Nice try of extreme twisting and misinformation there.
Lastly, the actual damage that this research implies. A long protracted increase in ocean warming means increasing sea levels and damage to corals and the marine ecosystem. So no get out of jail free card there.
So basically, from an actual scientific perspective, business as usual. AGW is occurring.
126
They have been heating up for the last 400 years, out of the LIA, at a very small pace. At the current pace they will be back where they were ~1,000 years ago in another ~1,000 years. I don’t think anyone disputes that. In fact, I think most people recognize that as not only normal, but a good thing! (I mean, you dont want their temperatures to be where they were during the LIA, do you?)
If you are able to recognize that, as you claim, then you must also be able to recognize the real way to determine Temperature increase/decrease is to compare it with that of 60 years prior. When doing so, you find this
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics4/co2-graph.jpg
…no warming since 1950 (the very year the IPCC says the warming started) and instead we have been staying steady at a +0.3 level since (well, outside a quick 1960s bump)
So your PDO/ENSO theory, which you apparently think increases your argument, actually destroys it completely. And yet still you claim other people have an issue with “George Orwell misinformation”?
110
lol, actually virtually every proxy record and several studies disputes that. Still trying to put forward the opposite as fact. serial misinformer alert. I await your apology. Please refrain from using manipulative blogs and point to real data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-6-10.gif
“Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html
03
You’re such a moron
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
As far as silly stuff like this in your so called science reference
here you go, a massive supply of peer-reviewed papers from any region you want to look at that show the MWP was warmer then today in that specific area
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
looks like your paper needs to go back and reconstruct their little reconstruction.
…
BTW, why no comment about your total fail on actual warming?
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics4/co2-graph.jpg
The data is right there for you showing how idiotic your entire theory is.
“OMG, we’re all going to die!!! …from warming that competently ended in 1950″ right?
10
Are you sure you’re not Michael?
You have the same condescending tone and smart ar$e attitude, as well as an inflated sense of superiority and no idea what most of the poster’s positions on AGW actually is.
Just another (or maybe the same) w@nker activist.
131
Is this Michael Wilbur-Ham
“I wish Robert would avoid using the fruits of what science says. How many things did science have to get right for his computer and the internet to work? Peter should stop using this technology immediately and go and sit under a tree while muttering to himself ‘It’s all propaganda’.”
20
“solar has fallen,”
Yes it has….. after a series of very solid maximums over the latter half of last century.
Some solar scientists referred to it as a “Solar Grand Maximum.”
No wonder we had a slight amount of warming during that time.
But now it looks like we are heading the other way, to a very quiet sun for several decades
That is why the atmospheric temperature has levelled off and is now starting to cool.
Most people would prefer it to remain warm, rather than head back to the LIA.
Warmth and enhanced CO2 is purely and totally beneficial for the planet…. cold… not so !
If you don’t believe that, then move to Siberia.
I notice you are still hooked onto the coal-powered electricity grid…. hypocrite.
140
lol, the hottest decade on record (2001-2010), Australia’s hottest year on record during a neutral ENSO(2013), the US hottest year on record (2012), and the last 13 hottest years in the last 14 and you guys are still pushing a global cooling meme. George Orwell would be proud, you learnt well.
02
HJ,
I understand your position and the information you have provided does support your view however you need to look beyond that. The temp rise has peaked for a number of years now, the planet is not getting hotter. The question that remains is will it get hotter, colder or remain at this level from this point on and for how long.
You suggest (kind of) that when we get El Nino conditions again the planet will begin to warm and so it may when the PDO trends positive in about a decade from now but will it cool between now and then? will the temps remain flat?
Nobody really knows, please if you have opinions express them in more detail you never know you may convince others.
Cheers
00
Hottest decade in Giss and HadCrut.. roflmao.
You seriously need to do some research on just how much those two farces have been adjusted to create the trend.
All historic records point to the early 1900’s being significantly warmer, and there is no doubt at all that the world wide event know as the Medieval Warm Period was somewhat warmer than the current plateau. The Roman warm period was warmer again.
So sorry, you slimy little propaganda parrot, it may be the warmest decade on the highly ‘past-cooled’ Hansen/Jones surface records, but it certainly is not the warmest decade in real history.
00
Is it any wonder that the hottest on our very short mutilated temperature record should happen at the end of a 50 year Grand Solar Maximum?
Gees even a cup of coffee stays hot for a while after the heat is removed
You have shown that your maths , physics and chemistry knowledge is pretty much rock-bottom, but are you seriously that stupid to suggest the world will start to cool immediately.
I suspect you really are that incredibly stupid.!
00
What is really interesting is that according to proxy data in scientific papers, the Grand Solar Maximum of 1950-2000 was actually matched during the Medieval Warm Period, but we didn’t reach the temperatures of the MWP. Each warm period has been a step down from the previous.
Now the Sun looks like dropping into the same type of minimal activity as the Dalton or maybe even the Maunder minimums, and probably for several decades.
Hopefully there will still be plenty of time to beef up the worlds electrical power generation systems that have been so damaged by the subsidisation and mandates of the renewable energy farce.
Germany has already figured that out and is beefing up its coal fired systems, but the EU is still not allowing other countries, like the UK, to do so. Interesting.
00
You CANNOT use the “hottest decade”. You MUST use 50 to 60 years. THOSE ARE YOUR RULES, IDIOT.
00
Pure spin. Heat hiding in the deep waters was negligible until an excuse for the hiatus was needed.
3 meters of the oceans has the same heat capacity as the whole atmosphere. Even if heat transport to the deep oceans was negligible, an uncertainty in how the oceans are in equilibrium with atmosphere means predictions of temperature rises at the surface are meaningless.
90% of the extra heat energy from global warming is supposed to be in the oceans. Waves can make the upper 100 m uniform in temperature. That’s about 33 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, or 97% of that heat could be in the near surface regions of the oceans. No need to even invoke the deep oceans (<700m) as a heat sink to explain the hiatus.
The issue is that it was claimed that the science is settled. The global temperature rise through the 20th century was proof that CO2 rather than naturally variability was the reason. We are being asked to believe that naturally variability switches on and off predictably, and have faith in those that claim it. Not a chance in hell.
120
Your opinion is meaningless. My comment is based on the current state of the science. Please provide your evidence for your claims from science.
03
You wouldn’t know science if it kicked you in the *alls.
Which climate propaganda site are you reading from ?
10
Everyone’s opinion that does not match yours is irrelevant. That’s how religion works. You listen only to the high priests. Try looking up scientism.
00
>”That the ocean is building up energy while the atmosphere have sustained record global temps proves AGW.”
No it doesn’t.
By what observed, documented (in the literature), phenomenon in regard to the ocean?
IPCC AR5 has no citation for that after 25 years of investigation.
But the highest solar levels in over 1000 years 1950 – 2009 easily accounts for energy accumulation in the ocean.
Sun-ocean-atmosphere system thermal lag means we’ll have to wait a few years for de-accumulation to take effect but take effect it will surely do.
90
Please provide proof for that statement and science for your other one. Thanks.
03
Links to peer-reviewed papers on this subject have been posted many time.
You have obviously just ignored them, as an ignorant know-it-all would.
Unfortunately, you have proven time and time that you do not have the ability to read and understand them, even if you did want to learn, which you very obviously don’t.
10
Yeah right. Always the big excuse when proof is asked for…
02
Go and do some research of your own. moron.
Why the **** are you here anyway ?
You obviously have absolutely zero intention of actually learning anything.
All you are doing is making an abject fool of yourself.
I repeat.. Which climate propaganda site are you reading from ?
20
http://travellingcoeliac.blogspot.com.au/
10
“travellingcoeliac”
Haven’t they got a model of that in that weird museum in Tasmania ?
10
Still excuses. I might learn something if you actually ever posted any actual science.
12
No, you have proven you do not have the capacity to learn…..
that is why I’m insisting you do your own research rather than me posting links you would never read or understand.
10
Groan.
10
Parrots only have a very limited brain space.
20
Good one, Heywood. And Heeby just verifies it with the exact same quote MtR would have used. 🙂
10
>”Please provide proof for that statement”
The statement: IPCC AR5 has no citation for that after 25 years of investigation.
The proof: AR5 WGI Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional, 10.4.1 Ocean Temperature and Heat Content.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
“Air-sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences”
No citation.
>”…and science for your other one.”
Shapiro et al (2011)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4763.pdf
>”Thanks.”
No problem
10
You just have to wonder at what is going on between the ears of AGW believers, from the so-called top with people like England and his absolutely dreadful paper which Jo has eviscerated [for a another critique see here.] to the bottom with people like this heeby person.
Evidence doesn’t matter to them. Heeby says:
That is complete junk. ENSO and the longer PDO cycles vary in both duration and intensity. That’s not me saying that; there is well established peer reviewed papers which say that:
Duration.
Intensity.
This graph illustrates the point.
Basically ALL the temperature increase over the 20thC can be explained by there being 2 +ve phase PDOs and only one -ve phase PDO with the negative or cooler phase being less intense than the intensity of the 2 +PDO phases.
The NON-involvement of CO2 in this process is well indicated by the fact that the temperature increase during the 1st +ve phase of the PDO from 1910-1940 is identical to the temperature trend in the 2nd phase from 1976 to ~ 1998-2002.
Evidence is not important because these people BELIEVE in AGW. The fact that England gets grant money and earns a good living from his work on AGW is of course beside the point.
50
Neither, ENSO nor PDO increase or decrease the energy in the planetary system as whole. They are internal variability components which change how the energy is distributed. So the fact that the atmospheric temps have remained at record levels, while oceans are warming and while the sun has actually decreased in energy and cosmic rays have been inn the opposite directionn to cause warming, proves that AGW is occurring, as predicted.
So rooky mistake the whole post above, which is a surprise from an actual scientist. Comparing the sun and cosmic rays, which change the amount of energy coming into the system to factors that change the distribution energy.
Please provide some peer reviewed science for your assertions. This actual graph of ENSO shows that the last 60 years were essentially neutral and that during the hottest decade it was predominantly flat to cooling la ninas, and especially the last 14 years where 2011 and 2012 where la ninas and 2013 neutral. nevertheless the last 13 hottest years on record were in the last 14.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
The above post is more bluster and misrepresentation than actual science. How about Jo you write an actual critisism of the above paper and get it published in peer review, thats how real science progresses. Opinion blog attacks are cowardly.
02
So if opinion blog attacks are cowardly, what are anonymous insulting comments? You tell me… Heeby (or should I say MTR?) I seriously don’t think you can keep up with the pace here. You need to be smart enough to understand when you lose. I see no sign of that.
No one is suggesting ENSO or PDO create energy from nothing. But if they can shuffle energy from the sky to the ocean, they can shuffle it back to the sky. And if a lot of our warming in the 1980s was due to ENSO, then CO2 didn’t make so much difference. And I’ve already explained x 10 that after a long warming trend (since 1700) if nothing at all changes, the climate will still “stay hot”. So just because it’s a “hot decade” tells us nothing. (I’m the tallest I’ve ever been!)
It’s a bit rich you demanding peer reviewed evidence when you were never able to provide any yourself, no matter how many times I asked. Let us know when you publish a paper. Until then, no more comments until you admit you havent’ and agree that you will stop demanding everyone else does. It is inane that heeby-nobody can express his opinion on the climate but everyone else has to have a published paper. -Jo
20
Joanne, you run a science blog that claims to use science to disprove science. But real science does not progress by opinion blog, it progresses by the veracity and examination of peer reviewed science Anybody can say anything on an opinion blog that the whole world sees and has not been checked by experts for accuracy and method and critiqued by the scientific community at large. In the scientific world if a paper that has been critiqued and subjected to the experts at large by a publication where that science is the speciality ahs been found to be wrong then it is similarly critisised in the peer review literature under the same guideines.
[Notice everyone, there is nothing of any substance here. Drivel, unsubstatiated, and not even with an argument except that by definition, “authority is science” and all blogs are wrong, and all peer reviewed papers (except the ones skeptics cite) are right. – Jo]
You provide hit and run responses
[Define “hit and run”? – Jo]
…that have not been verified
[I publish peer reviewed citations from your favourite datasets. You need to retract this. – Jo]
… to a minority that want to believe everything you have to say because they cannot accept what real science is telling us.
[So Heeby the sock puppet does pop-psychology? Oh goody. – jo]
That does not show me that this is a scientific blog that has any confidence in their science, but mainly focussed on misinformation. If your critisisms are valid, an actual scientist such as yourself should be able to write a peer reviewed critique that woud get published in a professional paper. That would get you actual scientific kudo and leverage in the scientific community if that was your aim instead of spreading misinformation.
[You’ve found exactly nothing wrong with my posts. Yet you insist I publish your anonymous errors, AND pretend I’m supposed to stay silent unless I get published in the peer review. Then you ignore my point about your double standards? Acknowledge my point, or provide an argument, but stop posting inane declarations that are self evidently stupid. – Jo]
I merely produce opinion that is based on my reading of the actual science towards your opinion blog, such as all your other readers, that can rarely justify any of their claims. Such as the political interference and rich scientists claim, which is utter nonsense, and weak attempts to justify it have proved that. and if that is wrong, then most of your rejection of the science is wrong.
[Define “the science”. You abuse English and science. – Jo]
02
You don’t understand any of what you read.. you just accept the words of the propaganda blogs you visit.
Your opinion is totally worthless and irrelevant, because all the science is pointing towards a much cooler few decades ahead, which ill totally destroy your CAGW income.
00
No, you just repeat the usual w@nker activist rhetoric ad nauseum.
As I stated above it doesn’t matter what anyone says, nor what evidence anyone provides, you will dismiss it as being not credible, nonsense or just opinion.
There is really not much point engaging w@nker activists like yourself, because the only truth you accept is your own.
BTW – If you aren’t MtR, you are a disciple or a clone.
00
So Jo, to respond to your ENSO comments. Are understanding the implications of your comments? So if ENSO and PDO do not create energy from nothing, but shuffle energy from the sky and ocean, and back again, where did the additional energy come from and what are the implications?
Also if that is the case, then the warming over 60 years did not come from ENSO or PDo, they merely shuffled it from the sky to the ocean, but then temps rose and did not fall without any other natural mechanism causing it. This is the crux of the science, is it not? ENSO and PDO have been funneling energy to the deep ocean rather than the atmosphere so that it seems as if there is a pause if you only take the atmosphere into account, but as you yourself say, when it shuffles it back to the sky there will be a renewed warming trend, as has happened in the log term instrumental record several times.
In regards to your warming trend, it is my reading of the peer reviewed research that we were in a cooling trend until anthropogenic co2 began being emitted.
So it is ENSO and PDO that did not make any difference over the long term, hence AGW is the only explanation for the warming as natural factor have been eliminated in a large number of peer reviewed attribution studies. You may very well find this line of factual and skeptical questioning difficult and resort to your banning due to fake reasons, that is your prerogative as holder of the master key for the blog. you may well not want your readers questioning and thinking for themselves.
02
Why bother banning you? You will just reappear with a new pseudonym and a new email address, isn’t that right Michael?
Banning is pointless because to the truly obsessed activist, you will stop at nothing to have your opinion heard.
Amusing though that you are soooooooooo sure of your position, that you keep coming back to argue with people on, by your own definition, just a non science opinion blog.
00
The only explanation needed for the warming in the global data since 1940, is the massive adjustments made to the Giss and HadCrut data by Hansen and Jones, in collaboration.
Raw data shows 1940 about the same as the peak of the 1998 ElNino. Tom Wigley asked Jones and Hansen to remove that 1940 peak, so they did.
There may have been some tiny amount of warming which would easily explained by the fact that 1950 – 2000 had a series of very strong solar maxima.
Because of Hansen and Jones, we really do not know if there has been warming or not.
Certainly there has been nowhere near the amount they would have fools like you believe
But those maxima have gone, the temperature, levelled out and cooling has begun since the end of the 1998 ElNino event at the beginning of 2001. The heat from the grand solar maximum is gradually leaving the system.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2001.1/plot/rss/from:2001.1/trend
I really pity you that you have zero understanding of any of this and are constantly making an abject fool of yourself.
But do keep going.. its good for a laugh. 🙂
—-
hint.. buy blankets !
00
Oh the old sad conspiracy theory, totally missing the fact that every global data set shows the same trends even the satelite ones. Make up a story or 2 based around your made up evil henchman and all sorted hey? How embarrassing that that is all you have. How about you find a genuine global data set that supports your position.
You call everything you have no response to a “conspiracy theory” when no conspiracy was suggested. Real debate would mean discussing the actual adjustments. Then you make unsubstantiated innumerate statements like “every global trend shows the same trends”. They don’t actually, as far as the inadequate noisy data can show, but whatever, It’s a waste of time red herring because we’re talking about the worst adjustments which occur early in the last century and so your defense that adjustments in 1920 are “OK” because those in the last 30 years are not too bad, is just another illogical attempt to divert the thread away from that which you cannot answer. But you do this all the time. It’s like arguing with a five year old.
Also Hansen and Jones don’t control data sets and Hansen isn’t even employed by NASA anymore.
[And you think we are so stupid we will fall for this kind of naked diversion? That adjustments made by Hansen or Jones are OK now because Hansen doesn’t work at NASA anymore? – Jo]
They also do not control every other data set, grow up, childish conspiracy theories with a toatl lack of scientific understanding. Even Roy Spencers temp record shows the same trend, shame on you. How about using some science. Beginning at 2001 now, cherry picking your period is not science and not climate and also not taking into account all the other factors like the sun, ENSO, warming oceans and volcanos. Real scientists use all the data and look on at least 30 years of data due to natural variability, you know like ENSO, PDo etc, did you not read the main post?
[Again, bore us bore us with your clumsy attempt to find a “conspiracy” where none was suggested. Then drone on about our lack of “scientific understanding” which you never demonstrate. Noteably you dishonestly hide the fact you have no response (again) to the point about long term warming starting long before CO2 emissions.Is that because you are dishonest or too stupid? You just change the topic. – Jo]
This is why we stopped accepting posts from MTR and why we are too bored to keep letting MTR post much as sock puppet Heeby. They are inane. You are not bright enough (or honest enough) to bother debating. It’s ill-mannered to keep raising non-points, while ignoring real ones, and to keep repeating the same long discussed tritisms like ” how about using some science”. From the anonymous sock puppet. Yawn. It wastes too much of my time to “correct” the drivel, and I’m tired of letting it go through for others to clean up. I’ve given you 1000 chances to show you can sift your best from your worst. You can’t. – Jo
01
MTR aka AAD caught out again…
He just can’t help himself.
00
“banning due to fake reasons”
Your ego has sprung you Micheel, you petulant prat. !:-)
00
>”the warming over 60 years did not come from ENSO or PDo”
The only warming over the last 60 years was late 1970s to early 2000s. Really only 2 decades (1980 – 2000) of the IPCC’s 6 decade (1951 – 2010) anthropogenic attribution period.
Some of the late 1970s to early 2000s warming came from oscillating energy (PDO/AMO), but not all of it (see below).
There’s an explanation of quasi 60 year cyclicity in response to one of your previous comments (currently in moderation) here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/global-wind-excuse-monkey-modeling-shows-global-warming-theory-is-still-not-wrong/#comment-1387073
Basically, 60 years is the period of an entire (quasi) ENSO/PDO oscillation. But it is a minor oscillation on major longer term cycles: 208 years (DeVries) and 1,000 years (Eddy) for example.
>”where did the additional energy come from and what are the implications?”
Up-thread you’ll see another reply to your comment citing Shapiro et al (2011)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4763.pdf
Page 4,
“The difference between the current and reconstructed TSI during the Maunder minimum is about 6 ± 3 W/m2 [equivalent to a solar forcing of 1.0±0.5W/m2]”
So the additional energy over the last 300 years since the Maunder Minimum ended (coldest of the LIA) came from the sun.
The implication is that 1645 – 1715 was a solar Grand Minimum, 1950 – 2009 was a Grand Maximum i.e. now past the peak and gone into negative phase.
The only question is what conditions will prevail in 20 years time? Will it be similar to the Dalton Minimum 1790 to 1830, or the Maunder Minimum 1645 – 1715?
Mike Lockwood (AR5 co-author, Chapter 8 cited co-author, and solar specialist) discounted solar at the time of AR5 publication but since then has changed his tune because the current solar downturn is so significant.
“I would say it is the weakest in 200 years” – David Hathaway, head of the
solar physics group at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.
00
>”(currently in moderation)”
Now out
00
No sorry, still in moderation.
00
Heywood, Griss.. It’s been obvious since this putz arrived that it was either Michael the runt, or someone reading from the same CD.
Now his little slip has proven it is the runt.
00
My hubby asked if it was “the unindicted co-conspirator”?
00
Hmm, all my comments going to waiting for moderation, guess you guys are to scared of a real debate…
03
Not at all. Do you know where we can get someone who can actually debate and not just spout propaganda?
20
>”This actual graph of ENSO shows that the last 60 years were essentially neutral”
Er, yes, obviously. Quasi 60 years is a complete cycle.
So it’s predominantly negative prior to mid to late 1970s, predominantly positive late 1970s to early 2000s, and back predominantly negative again.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
And that positive phase late 1970s to early 2000s period coincides with the only 2 decades (1980 – 2000) that exhibited any warming in the IPCC’s 6 decade anthro attribution period 1951 – 2010.
Basically, miss-attribution on the IPCC’s part. Only now are the papers coming out that introduce natural variability (PDO/ENSO, AMO) into explanations of flatlining GAT.
Still, better late than never, even if the hands of climate science have been forced (ha!).
00
Cohenite,
The problem we face, is that nobody wants to learn history today – it is all full of old stuff.
00
Heeby Jeebies:
“So basically, from an actual scientific perspective, business as usual. AGW is occurring”
–
–
‘If you believe what I believe, you’ll come to the same conclusion as me.’
10
H.J.;CO2 has zero effect on climate or the weather.It does not drive temperature,it makes plants grow.
Left leaning governments have long had a dream of rationalizing a tax on CO2,the Russians were first, straight after WW2.Whomsoever you really are,you are an extremist,a disingenuous zealot.Your wrong and[worse]surely know it.
00
Wow, you are the real extremist. Not even skeptic scientists deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming. What I say is the accepted science from every national and international scientific organisation in the world and the greenhouse effect has withstood over 100 years of attacks. So you are talking complete utter uscientific nosense. The CO2 tax meme is utter fantasy, it does not make politicians rich, they personally get nothing out of it (unlike the trillions to fossil fuel companies for delay). In most cases it loses politicians their jobs and loses them government. Even when a politician publically accepts it they are quet about it most of the time, due to the difficulties it causes them. Grow up, such a childish unsupported argument not based in reality. Try some science one day.
05
Accepted science? Just evidence of sloppy thinking.
Explain precisely what you mean by “greenhouse effect” without employing the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
What is the range of estimates of magnitude of the “greenhouse effect”?
What are the dominant “greenhouse gases” and their relative magnitudes of nett “effectiveness”?
How does their thermal capacity compare to that of the 99% of atmospheric gases that are more effective at “trapping heat” because they can only lose heat through convection and conduction?
How are concentrations of temporally and spatially variable greenhouse gases measured and incorporated in climate models?
Why is only one minor “greenhouse gas” modelled by “climate scientists”?
What is the global temperature and where is the thermometer that measures it located?
What is the ideal “global temperature”?
When has climate not been changing?
20
“When has climate not been changing?’
This century.. Remarkably stable plateau we are on.
00
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As a greenhouse gas it absorbs IR radiation being emitted by the planet as it is heated by the sun. It then reemits that radiation in all directions. In this way it slows the loss of IR to space which translates into a buildup of energy on Earth.
This has been measured by satelites as a decrease of energy leaving the planet in the same bands absorbed by CO2, causing an imbalance of energy coming in from the sun to energy leaving. The planet warms to compensate for this imbalance. It has also been measured on the surface as an increase in downward IR in the same bands as that used by CO2.
It is also noticed in the cooling lower stratosphere as less IR reaching the stratosphere.
Therfore the planet has warmed with all the consequent side effects like ocean warming, sea level rising, ocean acidifying, cryosphere melting etc.
So science matches measurements matches empirical evidence.
This is the basic mechanism and evidence, your other questions (the ones that are sensible enough to have answers) can be found in the peer reviewed literature and the IPCC.
Your question on ‘when has climate not changed’ is I believe what you would call a logical fallacy. Not a single scientist thinks the climate has never changed before. The questions are, why is it changing, what are the consequences for us and can we do something about it. Therefore the statement is irrelevent and non sensical.
02
>”This has been measured by satelites as a decrease of energy leaving the planet”
No it hasn’t:
http://climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif
10
>”It has also been measured on the surface as an increase in downward IR in the same bands as that used by CO2.”
No it hasn’t.
There is no observational evidence that DLR is increasing commensurate with CO2 – none.
Check all the science (I note you don’t cite any), Gero and turner (Great Plains), Wild (BSRN), Wang (SURFRAD).
There is NO evidence for your hand waving bluff HJ..
10
“This has been measured by satelites as a decrease of energy leaving the planet”
(Being kind, I’ll take your spelling as a typo, not ignorance)
But with the Sun gone to sleep, how would having a “decrease of energy leaving the planet” be a bad thing ?
Decided not leave the grid, hey. Probably a good thing, you would have to burn wood over winter 😉
And you would want your fridge operating during the night to keep the meat from going off.
Best to just rely on that nice solid coal fired electricity. 🙂
—
Just pointing out just how much of a hypocrite you are. 🙂
20
But as shown.. You are wrong, or lying .. again.
10
It has gone a bit quiet, wouldn’t you say?
00
Nah. Activist W@nkers will always return They can’t help themselves.
00
During the Copenhagen Conference the delegation from China reported that during 3,600 years of their history there had been three periods warmer than the last (stalled 1998) and that each warmer period had brought greater prosperity as crop yields and grasses for animals increased. As far as I am aware the UNIPCC has never commented?
60
Yet another new study shows SLR in the Indian ocean over the last 60 years was about 1.5mm a year or about 13cm by 2100. That’s about 6 inches.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818114000381
The ABC’s stupid science?????? presenter better get his skates on if he wants to see his 100 metres of SLR by 2100. BTW that’s about 332 feet, so he’ll only miss out by about 332.5 feet.
So where’s all this dangerous SLR brought on by CAGW?
40
60 years = 6 inches?
That might leave James Hansen ‘high & dry’:
2005/2006: James Hanson, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, is arguably the world authority on climate change.
He predicts that we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea.
Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof.
That’s what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like.
From-
Climate’s last chance
Author: TIM FLANNERY
Date: 28/10/2006
Bonus Quote, Tim Flannery 2006:
Before 2004, the rate of melt was such that scientists believed the icecap would melt entirely by about 2100.
At the trajectory set by the new rate of melt, however, there will be no Arctic icecap in the next five to 15 years.
20
Sorry he’ll only miss out by 331.5 feet.
10
That picture sure has a strong family resemblance to the Schmidt’s.
20
>”what if it cools before 2020?”
Quite possible. RSS, by Santers’s 17+ year criteria (i.e. we are no longer looking at “noise”), is already in negative territory from Nov 1996 onwards, if only ever so slightly.
>”They will find another post-hoc reason to explain why they were really right, except for this one new factor”
That would be solar.
Solar parameterization was held constant at early 2000s levels in CMIP3/5 model configurations e.g. GISS ModelE:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/
But after 2009 all that has changed i.e. the AR4/CMIP3 and AR5/CMIP5 model 2020/2100 projections already have invalid solar parameters 2009 – 2014.
10
No, they do not get to use solar inactivity as an excuse for the forthcoming cooling
They have said emphatically that solar variation do not affect climate.
I’ll repeat..
They do not get to use solar inactivity as an excuse for the forthcoming cooling.
40
Pity that advertising standards can’t be envoked to corral ‘Prof’ England’s BS … his ‘work’ is nothing but pimping the Cause.
31
In posting my general feelings here on what I think I am now observing re climate science I am very aware I may be quite wrong.
Only time and circumstance will prove me right or wrong either way.
I have dropped the odd comment on Proff. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc blog over recent times
It is a fairly esoteric blog in the content of many of it’s posts as it is populated by a number of highly credentialled scientists and engineers from a wide range of disciplines so a science lay man needs a pretty thick hide to take the academic level back biting that often characterises the commentary on Judith’s blog.
Although the worst offenders, particularly from the alarmist side seem to have been heavily reigned in by Judith in the last few weeks after an open and critical analysis of the blog’s performance. That reigning in has ensured a much more pleasant atmosphere in her blog.
What has become striking to me over the last couple of months, weeks almost, is that on this very pro science orientated blog with it’s numerous and highly credentialled science denizens, the shift in the commentary on climate science as a discipline has become increasingly biting and derisory and even contemptuous of climate science as it stands today, to say the least.
There is now open contempt and open derision being regularly expressed by, unusually, almost the whole range of Climate Etc’s usual commenters on the sheer lack of veracity, the lack of proof for so many climate science posturings and claims, the utter impracticality of so much of climate sciences posturings, the complete failure to look at the consequences for the populace of so many of climate sciences demands and calls for action as well as very snarky and derisory commentary on the levels of deliberate mis-interpretation and deception currently being routinely practiced by climate science and it’s running dogs in so much other peripheral third rate science that are using the posturings of climate scientists as props to back up their own laughably rubbishy bits of supposed bastardised science promoted to the hilt by the MSM so as to ensure that the progenitors of this third rate science [ as seen above ] maintain their quite lavish funding.
There seems to be a general feeling starting to appear even on the generally science orientated [ not specifically climate science but general science supporting commenters and blogs like farmers or engineers supporting their own ilk ] supporting blogs that climate science is due or even overdue for a massive smack in the chops that will likely destroy it as a science.
Reinforced by a creeping awareness that if climate science is allowed to continue on in it’s past arrogant consequences free, highly corrupted fashion it is likely to drag down great sections of other quite legitimate and respectable science disciplines with it as it goes under.
We live in very interesting times.
60
Indeed we do, as human nature changes little, the most strident damnation of climate science and individual scientists will come from their own ranks and that of their most zealous followers.
Attempting to save themselves, these gentlemen of certainty, will turn on each other, remember these are sick people.
10-10, Dr Fruitfly, Al Bore, what they wished upon their critics, they will be certain is to be their fate.Delicious really.
Hopefully the internet will help to out, the slimiest of these characters.
As for the coming hit to science, credentials and expert opinion, all fine by me.
As long as we preserve the scientific method and the freedom to voice our doubt, civil society will be OK.
As for those who attempted to wrap their beliefs in the illusion of science…confidence men, tricksters and bandits are ever with us, perhaps folk tales will now return to basic education.
It is amazing how few have ever read the Brothers Grimm, Mother Goose or the earlier classics that they copied.
Mention the Emperors New Clothes to a twenty something or less and you get a;”Huh?”
20
SHUT UP AND SKI:
105 Olympians conned into calling for climate treaty… good news is 2,795 Olympians NOT conned.
The letter has been signed by 105 Olympians from countries that include:
The United States, Switzerland, Norway, Estonia, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Italy and Sweden.
. . .
It is a pity the Australian Olympians didn’t speak up before they jumped on an evil fossil fuelled chariot, blazing a planet destroying carbon(sic) footprint across the sky.
It’s not too late though, to have the courage of their consensus convictions.
Who else will think of the children’s children?
If they start walking now, or catch a sail boat …
30
One of the most defining characteristics of the Climate Catastrophism Cult is gross hypocrisy on a grand scale.
The saddest aspect is that these high profile, global roaming, fossil fuel reliant advocates of a CCC, who are increasingly seen to be cloaked so openly in their gross hypocrisy, are totally unaware on how they are now appearing to an increasing and critical portion of the populace who are mandated without any choice, to pay for their lavish travelling arrangements and accommodation in far exotic locations so they personally can practice what is a purely personal and totally useless bit of competitive physical activity of no use or purpose for anybody else.
40
Stop Presses! Missing Heat Found!
Monkeys correct after all!
The Global Warming, which was thought to have disappeared to the deep, deep cold depths of the oceans, apparently waiting to re-appear sometime in the not-to-distant future, but before 100 years , has been spotted in … Adelaide!
“Adelaide has suffered through a record 12 days of 40C-plus maximums this summer and that record is expected to be built today with a forecast top of 43C.
The bureau says its data supports the scientific community that argues increasing greenhouse gases, attributed to human activity, are trapping more heat and causing higher temperatures.”
But, with a cool change coming, the heat coming from the deep ocean, which the bureau has linked to our recent “man-made climate change heatwaves”, is “carried into the deep oceans” again, where it cannot be detected.
“A recent report (by the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW) explains that a lot of the heat we might have expected to be trapped into the atmosphere has been carried into the deep oceans,’’ Mr Lainio added.”
20
This isn’t rocket science folks. If all the models use ghg as the driving force, then the models are destined to be wrong. Adding wind speed isn’t the answer, either.
There have been three global cooling and three global warming periods within the last 250 years, all marching to the tune of changing solar irradiance, not CO2 concentrations. (Douglas V. Hoyt and Kenneth H. Schatten, A Discussion of Plausible Solar Irradiance Variations, 1700-1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No. All, Pages 18,895-18,906, November 1, 1993).
The Sun operates in 360 year cycles, composed of Regular Oscillations, followed by a Grand Solar Maximum, followed by a Grand Solar Minimum. This totally predictable 360 year cycle has resulted in the Oort, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton and other unnamed Minimums within the past two millennia.
In 2009, we entered the next Grand Solar Minimum – the Landscheidt Minimum. This isn’t unfounded speculation. This is traceable, predictable planetary mechanics (Duhau and de Jager, The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999).
From this point forward be prepared for relentless colder winter temperatures which will reach bottom around 2040. Along the way there will be ever-increasing fuel scarcity, crop failures, food shortages, famines and loss of life of millions. The next Little Ice Age has begun. No amount of pithy CO2 increase is going to provide enough life-saving warmth. Prepare for decades of bone-chilling cold winters.
Planetary mechanics is the elephant in the room of climate change. The planets control the climate of the Sun which, combined with the Moon, control the climate on the Earth. CO2 is only a flea on the elephant’s ass coming along for the ride.
70
I’ll disagree with that. The mini ice-age was a period of oscillating cold and warm years where there were more cold years than during the warmer periods, rather than every year was a bit colder. There is not going to be relentless cold winters, just more winters that are nasty, or nastier, and less that are mild.
00
i have recently come to the conclusion that the CO2 molecule, is the most capable,the most intelligent, the most organised, and the most devious of all the matter in the universe.
From what I understand, every few months, the Exalted and Most Grand CO2 Master, calls the minions together and gives them instructions on climate modification.
You lot go over there and cause drought,
You lot go over here and cause flooding rain,
You lot go and cause cold weather, and record snow,
You lot seek an appropriate place to warm.
The beginners group, you can have a go at changing the wind.
All you old buggers, you can go deep in the ocean for when we are ready to strike with force.
I think humans can take lessons from a molecule with such a great diversity of skills which can be so rapidly deployed with such contrasting impact.
141
You are right Earl, no more God, sun worship, lets all join the IPCC in worshiping the ,magic gas.
There is nothing CO2 cannot do.
I like the point of origin argument CO2 from Europe,North America, Australasia makes planet warm.
CO2 from China,India, makes plant cool.
Wonderful, all powerful gas.
10
More than that; it’s got homeopathic qualities; remembering if it’s anthroprogenic before it does all those things.
00
“The black solid line is the observations. The new green and blue lines are the post-hoc adjusted guesses. The spaghetti mess is what they are sure will probably, possibly, maybe happen. By 2020 it will be somewhere between 0.8C warmer and the same temperature as today. All answers in between are “right”.”
Looks like the Texas Sharpshooter has struck again.
20
On the pretty little picture up the top, the next projection band will be orange in colour and will go from +1 to -1..
…..just to make sure they cover everything, and with 100% certainty no less. 🙂
Can they get an even wider range of prophecies ?
Can they be any more imprecise with their guesses ?
10
Gotta say I think their little game is rather cute in a stupid, childish sort of way.
See how they have now covered the coming cooling using the green shading.
What a w**k !
20
more abc monkey business. btw thought the carbon tax was meant to save the planet from CAGW, not to go into general revenue:
posted online an hour ago:
12 Feb: ABC: Premier reveals massive blowout in Tasmanian budget
The Government says 90 per cent of the writedowns are outside of its control, including $200 million associated with changes to the carbon tax and GST revenue.
Premier Lara Giddings’s budget update shows her Government has been forced to scrap plans to get the budget into surplus by 2016-17…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-12/premier-reveals-massive-blowout-in-tasmanian-budget/5255192
posted online 15 hours ago. no problem getting an Opposition response:
12 Feb: Fairfax/Tasmania Examiner: Rosemary Bolger: Income fall but no big cuts
INCREASING state revenues such as stamp duty won’t compensate for a dramatic drop in revenue to the state from GST and scrapping the carbon tax…
Ms Giddings yesterday warned the state’s bottom line would be hit by a $150 million drop in Hydro Tasmania’s returns to state coffers due to the Coalition government’s plans to scrap the carbon tax…
Opposition treasury spokesman Peter Gutwein said repealing the carbon tax would benefit the Tasmanian economy by reducing power and gas prices, boost the tourism industry with cheaper sailings on the Spirit of Tasmania and assist exporters and farmers with freight prices to drop 3 per cent.
“If Lara Giddings was serious about jobs she’d reject keeping the carbon tax,” Mr Gutwein said.
“And if Lara Giddings was serious about rejecting the toxic philosophy of the Greens she’d also reject keeping the carbon tax.”
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2082484/income-fall-but-no-big-cuts/?cs=94
repetition equals propaganda:
11 Feb: ABC: Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings flags $150m writedown on state coffers
CAPTION: Photo: The Government says state coffers will take a hit because the carbon tax is likely to be scrapped.
Map: TAS
The Tasmanian Government is set to detail a $150 million writedown in tomorrow’s budget update because of the scrapping of the carbon tax.
The Premier, Lara Giddings, says the Government has had to revise down its budget over the forward estimates because it now judges the carbon tax is likely to be scrapped in July.
She says the shortfall means Tasmanians should expect only modest spending promises from Labor during the election campaign…
Ms Giddings has ruled out any cuts to public sector jobs under a future Labor Government, but says extra savings will need to be made…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-11/premier-flags-24150m-writedown-on-state-budget/5252040
if u think about it, abc doesn’t want the govt having less money to spend cos they may have to cut the abc budget!
00
By all the rules of modelling, all the Climate Science computer models are busted. Bandaids will not help. The primary premise was that temperature would correlate perfectly with CO2, the sole driver of temperature. It doesn’t. This has been know for many years now, but it is only in 2014 that they are admitting what they have know for 15 years. That much closer to their pensions.
The other essential fraud was that for CO2 to be the sole driver, it has never warmed before. So the Roman warming had to vanish. The medieval warming had to vanish. Even the Maunder minimum had to vanish, as it could not be explained. So we had a straight handle on the hockey stick. Other frauds included bolting modern short term accurate CO2 measurements onto long term ice core analysis, an utterly illegal thing to do in science. There are so many frauds, it is beyond counting.
Then you get the faux scientists like Flannery. The opportunists like Steffen and even our chief scientist Chubb who knew he would not get the job if he questioned Global Warming. He equivocated so much you could drive a small power station from the flapping.
We know it is over. They know it is over. They have known for a long, long time, but they have nowhere to go. So they will continue making up stories, polishing the brass knobs and become victims of the terrible deniers. The truth is, they were liars and they know it. Along the way they have acolytes who believe every word they say, like any religion.
It will take 20 years to die. Then we will have another end of world scenario. Being a doomsayer is profitable.
30
knew this would be Readfearn, as soon as i saw the headline:
12 Feb: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: The ‘pause’ in global warming is not even a thing
All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?
The idea that global warming has “paused” or is currently chillaxing in a comfy chair with the words “hiatus” written on it has been getting a good run in the media of late…
But here’s the thing.
There never was a “pause” in global warming or climate change. For practical purposes, the so-called “pause” in global warming is not even a thing.
The study in question was led by Professor Matt England at the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre…
England told me:
“Global warming has not stopped. People should understand that the planet is a closed system. As we increase our emissions of greenhouse gases, the fundamental thermal dynamics tells us we have added heat into the system. Once it’s trapped, it can go to a myriad of places – land surface, oceans, ice shelves, ice sheets, glaciers for example.”
Media outlets across the world have extensively covered England’s paper…
Andrew Bolt, News Corporation Australia’s in-house climate science mangler, could not hide his excitement that Professor England apparently now “admits” that global warming has stopped.
Yet when it’s all put into context, ***practically all the signs show the impacts of human-caused climate change are trending dramatically in the wrong direction – just as they have been for several decades…
Not so much a “pause” as a “fast forward”
While some thought climate change was on “pause” the reality is that the world’s big fat fingers have been stuck on the fast-forward button.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change
10
So the pause is not even a thing then ? So where is the thing ? Would that be lurking in the deep oceans as well.
Walking the Planck
Who says it is trapped ? It is at most only being ever so slightly delayed in its race to outer space.
Readfern is trapped in his scientific illiteracy held hostage by the popular mis-nomers (such as ‘heat-trapping’ gases).
20
As Josh has observed, it’s getting a bit Lovecraftian.
http://theunderfold.com/2013/10/21/hp-lovecraft-call-of-cthulhu-for-beginning-readers/
10
would you be surprised if i told you that, towards the end of this interview, Natasha finally gets round to asking Roman about the BIG THESIS in his book, how we can create empathy in order to respond en masse, on a collective level, against great global challenges like climate change. Roman is being interviewed about his new book, “Empathy: A handbook for revolution”:
AUDIO: 11 Feb: ABC Life Matters: Natasha Mitchell: Roman Krznaric: An empathy revolution
Philosopher and author Roman Krznaric argues that empathy is in decline but, he says, we need it in abundance if societies are to flourish.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/ramon-krznaric/5250090
in the intro, Natasha said he’s not an ideologue or especially radical or political – yet the whole interview is about a collective revolution, & Roman posts on this “denial” blog that he’s attending a gathering of the Progressive Left, where he’s failing to detect sufficient CAGW belief:
2008: ClimateChangeDenialBlog: DOES THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT REALLY BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE?
Roman Krznaric is amazed that political activists are ignoring the world’s greatest social justice issue.
Where was I? At ‘Latin America 2007’, an annual gathering in London of activists, researchers, politicians and thinkers from the Progressive Left…
The second extraordinary thing I noticed was this: NOBODY MENTIONED CLIMATE CHANGE (capitalisation is Krznaric’s)…
The most disheartening moment for me was when watching a documentary about Hugo Chavez made by Che Guevera’s daughter, Aleida. Chavez was boasting about how he was using oil revenues to finance the fight against poverty in Venezuela. And then he pointed out that the future looked bright, since the state oil company had the potential to increase oil production through its access to the Orinoco Petroleum Belt, which is estimated to be the world’s largest oil reserve.
I care deeply about wealth inequality in Latin America, and understand the argument that since rich Northern countries have had the privilege of fossil fuel-based development, then developing countries should not be denied the same privilege. But shouldn’t we be at least discussing the impacts of climate change and the alternatives to fossil fuel-based economic and social development at a conference with the professed aim of helping the struggle for social justice? I can’t help concluding that the Progressive Left doesn’t yet really believe in climate change…
http://climatedenial.org/2008/01/07/does-the-progressive-left-really-believe-in-climate-change/
Roman’s been on about the Empathy Thing for years and years:
2008: ClimateChangeDenialBlog: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EMPATHY DEFICIT
Guest blogger Roman Krznaric argues for a revolution in empathy to tackle climate change.
‘We seem to be suffering from an empathy deficit – our ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes, to see the world through those who are different from us.’ – Barack Obama…
Generating empathy both across space and through time is one of the most powerful ways we have of closing the gap between knowledge and action, and for tackling the climate crisis…
I would like empathy to become the watchword of a new era of policies, social movements, cultural projects and individual action on climate change…
This is an extract from Roman Krznaric’s essay ‘Empathy and Climate Change: Proposals for a Revolution of Human Relationships’, written for the University of Manchester workshops on ‘Future Ethics: Climate Change, Political Action and the Future of the Human’ link You can download the complete version from http://www.romankrznaric.com.
Roman Krznaric is the expert on Empathy at The School of Life in London. You can see a 6 minute video of Roman talking about empathy and climate change link..
http://climatedenial.org/2008/12/03/climate-change-and-the-empathy-deficit/
10
I was pondering the mentality of CAGW believers and it struck me that they are similar to UFO believers. Any report favourable to their cause is automatically true and incontrovertible, and anything against is a dark conspiracy of some sort. Of course that would suggest many climate ‘scientists’ are ‘Von Danikens’!
My other image is that they resemble performing seals who will honk and clap their flippers on cue without really understanding why. Perhaps that’s just me, although it does come as a [slight] surprise that senior government advisors on climate when interviewed show an almost complete lack of knowledge on the subject – they are just repeating the meme.
10
oh, and this is the man, George Marshall, who started the CLIMATE DENIAL BLOG back in 2006 (going by the archives) on which the non-political ROMAN KRZNARIC has posted. so appropriate he’s at the Yale Climate Media Forum:
May 2013: YaleClimateMediaForum: What Makes Climate Communicator George Marshall Tick?
George Marshall, in suit pants and fedora, looks like a distracted businessman, but in fact he’s a missionary in a cultural crusade to get people to talk about climate change. And he has no fear of hostile retorts…
That’s exactly the way Marshall, co-founder of the Climate Outreach and Information Network, COIN, and climatedenial.org, a blog about the psychology of climate change denial, tackles the problem to which he’s devoted his life. He’ll walk up to complete strangers and ask them what they think about the topic that many prefer not to talk about anymore — the changing climate…
He lives in Wales with his American-born wife, Annie Levy, and their school-age daughter and son. They rarely fly because of the high carbon footprint. “We’ve become niche specialists in talking to new audiences,” Marshall says. COIN’s clients have included large trade unions in the U.K. such as the Communication Workers Union and the Public and Commercial Services Union. COIN is working on a climate change communication program with the government of Wales, and Marshall has been testing ways of talking about the issue with groups there…
Might a psychologist (amateur or not) call this denial? Marshall agrees, adding that a Freudian psychoanalyst would call it “disavowal.” He mentions the book The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life by Eviatar Zerubavel. It covers the topic of people who do not connect themselves in any way with the body of information about the climate.
“Disavowal would be a state of both knowing and not knowing,” Marshall says. “Selective recognition. It’s not ignorance. It’s not outright denial.”…
Within the past year, Marshall has visited Texas and sought members of the Tea Party in that state. He does it because he wants to figure out how to talk to them about the climate. “I don’t understand American politics,” he says. “I ask people in the Tea Party where they got their ideas.” They have cited talk shows and news programs.
“The Tea Party is a genuine movement, a radical social movement that I can only dream of for climate change,” he says.
Taking a lesson from that dream, Marshall lays out his strategies as a climate consultant and as a writer and speaker. “I don’t want to give a speech to a conservative audience,” he says. “I want a conservative to do that. My interest is in finding a conservative to do it.”…
Marshall thinks the news media should boldly jump into the worldwide dialogue about the climate of the future. But he thinks too that they should try some new tactics.
He likes to say that journalism since the dawn of the World Wide Web has changed radically, to the point where it’s even hard to define. In that spirit, he says journalists should write for audiences they might already know but may not consider among their principal or normal audiences.
Belong to a religious organization? Then consider writing about the climate for your religious magazine or website, Marshall recommends. Like to fish? Write about the climate for your favorite fishing magazine.
“There’s limited value in writing for a liberal outlet complaining about how appalling it is that so many people deny climate change,” he says with a hint of exasperation. “What is that achieving? You could maybe work for a liberal outlet and say, ‘This is how as individuals we can help to overcome this and persuade others.’ Part of the silence or the meta-silence is that we do not feel confident or empowered to bring up any of these subjects.”…
“I think any time you have a conversation with anyone about the weather you should bring climate change into the conversation, not in a hectoring, judgmental, on-your-soapbox way but just drop it in there every single time. ‘Weird weather we’re having …. yeah well, personally, I believe it’s climate change and that something weird has been going on. And it’s been getting weirder.’ Just put it out there.”
But most of the time in these talks he has with strangers, Marshall says, they just stop talking. That doesn’t matter, he says. Just putting it out there helps “establish staging points in that void where it is acceptable to talk about it.”…
His organization, COIN, works closely with a U.K-based collaborative talkingclimate.org and with the Wales-based Public Interest Research Centre.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/what-makes-climate-communicator-george-marshall-tick/
00
so much CAGW architecture at stake:
12 Feb: BusinessSpectator: Carbon firm announces key additions
Carbon Trade Exchange (CTX) today announced the appointment of Peter Hawkes as Chief General Counsel and Mia Mather as Operations Manager, both effective immediately.
Peter has over 15 years of legal experience and a wealth of expertise in the development and operation of carbon, Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and water markets in Australia and overseas, the company said, including the Carbon Pricing Mechanism, the Renewable Energy Target legislation (and related interactions with Australia’s energy and water sectors), the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (including drafting the regulation for operation of the electronic emissions registries) and the listing of EcoSecurities on London’s Alternative Investment Market.
Peter will be responsible for overseeing the legal and compliance activities of CTX, Government Affairs and implementing CTX’s global licensing strategy. Before joining CTX, he was a Partner at Herbert Geer and head of their award winning Clean Energy and Carbon Law team and played an integral part in assisting CTX with its application for an Australian Market Licence. Peter takes over from Nathan Rockliff who will focus on his role as Chief Operating Officer and CTX’s expansion into International markets…
Wayne Sharpe, CEO and founder of CTX said “We are proud to have Peter join our team and after more than two years working together know he fits our culture and sees the future growth. His carbon experience, from the very beginning of the global carbon markets, is rare, and as CTX expands into RECs and other environmental credits his depth of knowledge in law and practical application will be invaluable.”…
CTX continues to expand its operations in both Australia and International markets. This follows the recent announcement of CTX partnering with the North American Climate Exchange (NACX) to bring their members a new electronic trading platform for Alberta Emission Credits, and a “Powered by Carbon Trade Exchange” solution for access to the CTX global voluntary carbon markets.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/2/12/carbon-markets/carbon-firm-announces-key-additions
pathetic:
12 Feb: BusinessSpectator: Reuters: EU carbon backloading ‘to begin mid-March’
The European Commission will begin efforts to prop up carbon prices in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in mid-March under its so-called backloading plan, it said on Tuesday.
The Commission, the 28-nation European Union executive, said it has started preparatory work with member states and exchanges to reduce carbon permit sales by 400 million units this year.
“The auction platforms will publish the revised auction calendars in advance of the start of backloading,” the Commission said on its website, referring to London’s ICE Futures Europe ICE.N and Germany’s EEX…
The EU wants to delay the sale of 900 million permits in the EU carbon market between now and 2016 in a bid to lift carbon prices, incentivise firms to curb their greenhouse gas emissions and rebuild confidence in the ETS – the bloc’s main weapon against climate change.
The backloading plan was approved in January amid fierce opposition from coal-reliant Poland and after months of squabbling by lawmakers in the European Parliament…
***Shortening the scrutiny period paves the way for backloading to begin next month, which, according to EU rules, will allow 400 million allowances to be withdrawn from government-run sales this year instead of 300 million.
Carbon prices have risen in anticipation of the plan’s approval, with the front-year futures hitting a 13-month high of 6.74 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide on Feb. 6.
While still well below the 30-euro levels touched in 2008, prices are up by more than a third since December, making carbon one of the world’s top performing commodities so far this year…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/2/12/carbon-markets/eu-carbon-backloading-begin-mid-march
00
hours earlier: bulldozed through as with all things EU. Connie knew early!
12 Feb: Bloomberg: Julia Mengewein: EU Carbon Permits Drop as German Official Sees Market Fix in Q2
European Union carbon prices dropped the most in three weeks after a German official said he expected a rescue plan for the region’s emissions market to start in the second quarter at the earliest.
The EU will probably not begin temporary curbs on supply of carbon permits this quarter, Juergen Landgrebe, head of the department for energy installations, aviation and economic aspects at the German Emissions Trading Authority, said in an interview today. The final decision on the timing of the plan is not in the hands of his organization, he said.
“It will probably start in the second quarter 2014 at the earliest,” Landgrebe said in Essen, Germany. “I don’t believe it can be done in March.”
The emergency fix for the carbon market can start after member states end scrutiny of the measure and market participants are notified about changes to the auction calendar, according to EU law. The final approval by governments is scheduled for Feb. 24…
EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said on Feb. 6 on her Twitter account that “backloading can now start before the end of March.”
The European Commission’s climate department was not immediately available for comment today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/eu-carbon-permits-drop-as-german-official-sees-market-fix-in-q2.html
00
Hey Jo, as a former primate keeper and one for scientific accuracy the term Monkey and a photo of a chimpanzee stick in my craw! Chimpanzees are apes and will never be monkeys, wink!
The rest was great reading!
00
A chimp model just didn’t work. I tried. 😉
20
Maybe you need the marmoset model, or the sloth model.
How many different varieties are there, do you know ?
00
Never in thousands of hours of studying climatologists’ “explanations” of their conjectures about their greenhouse guesswork (and discussing such in thousands of climate blog comments) have I ever seen any valid physics supporting their claim.
I’m sure you know that they say the troposphere would be isothermal in the absence of greenhouse gases. (Roy Spencer certainly does say this in his posts.)
Now I say that valid physics can be used to prove that an isothermal troposphere would be an impossibility in a gravitational field. But Earth presents a somewhat complicated scenario wherein the surface appears to be heated entirely by radiation from the Sun and then it is assumed that the hot surface sends its energy back into the atmosphere where it somehow “lapses” upwards to cooler regions and thence by radiation to space.
I can demonstrate that this is not the complete picture by considering the Uranus troposphere, because it is simpler with no surface at the base (at altitude -300Km) and no significant input of energy below the methane layer which absorbs nearly all the very weak solar radiation near TOA. So if isothermal conditions are the expected state, then Uranus should surely exhibit such at around a temperature of 60K throughout its troposphere and in the thousands of kilometres below.
The fact that Uranus does not exhibit isothermal conditions, but instead has a thermal gradient very similar to the -g/Cp value, proves that gravity does cause a temperature gradient, as the brilliant physicist Loschmidt proposed in the 19th century, and thus the models are wrong because they are based on a totally wrong paradigm. Greenhouse gases do not raise the surface temperature by 33 degrees. Instead gravity raises it by about 40 or more degrees and then greenhouse gases lower it back by a few degrees. That is the relevance of Uranus, and Venus is similar.
30
I wonder if the chimp at the computer is left or right handed. I’ve always believed that a left handed chimp could do a better job than the designers of some of the stuff I’ve used. Maybe the MET Office made a mistake and used right handed chimps? 😉
Just a thought…
But a coin toss might do a better job.
10
Trade winds!
Its effects is tradeble and is used as both a warmning OR cooling factor!! 🙂 🙂 can someone please release climatescience from its misory?
from WUWT:
Explanation today:
The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
Explanation year 2006:
Another paper from 2006 says the exact opposite. This oldie but goodie, that preceded WUWT by a few months, escaped my attention until reader “Alec aka Daffy Duck” pointed me to a news article, and from that I found this original press release which says:
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change. The findings appear in the May 4 issue of Nature.
10
All we needed was another excuse Global Flatulence. Smells like another conspiracy to me.<:o)
00
You are ALL W R O N G !!It’s those massive wind powered generators that have altered the wind patterns, all the “climate priest” have been a bit slow in taking that into account. Same days I can fill it in my bones, the winds are definitely much stronger and colder then 20 years ago! It’s all the CO2 fault, if you speed up the velocity that CO2 travels at, the gas gets colder and that’s what caused this temporary reprieve from the backing heat of Gaia ire! Get rid of those gigantic fans and you will see that the weather pattern will go back to what the modellers have predicted. (sounds all-right for the masses)Now I need 4 gazillions to prove that my feelings are correct!
On a more serious note: what a load of garbage!! Even as religions go this one has only the punishment element, no 72 virgin, no paradise, no rapture, no alien to rescue me, nothing to look forward to. Just pain and suffering!
10
[…] you want to read a tough-minded and highly skilled assessment of the England paper, go to Jo Nova, where you will also find a thoughtful contextual account of the issue by William Kinninmonth, who […]
00
[…] on the excuses and “backwalking” of climatology thug-monkeys from Jo Nova and Andrew Bolt Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailStumbleUponPrintLike this:Like […]
00