JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Books

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (18 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 8.8 out of 10 based on 18 ratings

99 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    Lance

    15% of AU was burnt in 1974.

    “At the peak of the global cooling scare in 1974, Australian fires burned eleven times as much acreage as this year’s [2019/20] fires.”

    Per Tony Heller:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2020/01/1974-fires-burned-15-of-australia/

    110

    • #
      WXcycles

      Great link Lance, bookmarked, that was a cooler atmosphere combined with a strong La Nina.

      This combo has always been more destructive and stormy IMO, it increases the thermal, pressure and humidity gradients both vertically, and equator to pole. How can that situation not lead to greater extremes. Cyclone Tracy was extreme because the slope of its pressure gradient was so extreme, and supposedly the second smallest Cat-4 observed globally.

      Brisbane and surrounds also got hit by tornadoes in thunderstorms in 1973 and 1974, and the great Brisbane flood, driven by a decaying cyclone.

      20

  • #
    Aussie Pete

    The climate change issue has polarised communities throughout the Western World. The scientific complexities surrounding it are clearly still a long way from resolution. For many people it is not even clear what the term “climate change” means other than, that things are getting a bit warmer but not drastically so.
    These people are not particularly concerned and are largely ambivalent about the whole thing. I call them, with respect, “The Happy Wanderers” who take no strong stand one way or the other. Some can be swayed by the preponderance of propaganda while others are turned off by the absurd hyperbolas put out by the Alarmists, but in general, none of them are prepared to devote much time or thought to the issue. In particular any discussion on the science, immediately induces a kind of torpor and the mere reference to a decimal point is enough to end a discussion fairly quickly.
    Given that the scientific uncertainties are likely to continue for years, what happens next will be decided not by science but by the Happy Wanderers at the ballot box.
    The internet is populated by blogs devoted to pushing one side or the other. These blogs are read by their supporters and trolled by those with opposing views but I suggest rarely visited by a Happy Wanderer, they just don’t care all that much. They are the kind of people who can’t get passionate about something that they don’t understand and which in any case doesn’t affect them very much if at all.
    With all this in mind I have established my own blog which is intended to appeal to these people by discussing a broad range of subjects and avoids banging away endlessly on one particular drum. It will contain a sprinkling of climate change posts in which I intend to highlight the absurdities, hypocrisies etc. and juxtapose them with calm but non-scientific counterpoints.
    I have the utmost respect and admiration for the work that Jo and others do, however I just feel there is this gap that needs addressing and would like to do something about it.
    Finally and hopefully it is not unethical, my blog is http://www.dinosaurdiary.com.au if you like what you see and share it on Facebook we may make a bit of a difference.

    110

    • #
    • #
      disorganise

      I look forward to checking it out.

      I said this in another thread somewhere – it’s really difficult to find somewhere that discusses both sides in manner that can let the reader make up their own mind. It’s super easy to find an echo chamber though :)

      50

      • #

        Curry’s blog is good for both sides, but only discusses very technical science. Also, since she quit GaTech the posts have become infrequent so the active voices are way down. It used to be great now just good.

        20

    • #
      WXcycles

      They are the kind of people who can’t get passionate about something that they don’t understand and which in any case doesn’t affect them very much if at all.

      Except for the infinity of ‘policy’ blah-blah false narratives, the corruption of institutions, especially of education and teaching, in all its forms, the politicization of everything, and the ever growing taxation costs, red-tape suppression of behavior and the enjoyment of life, overflowing offices of petty dictatorial bureaucrats ‘saving’ us by fining and harming us, and the resulting failure to address real problems which actually do matter, while the children are endlessly filled with guilt, and fall into chronic depression about even being alive and such a problem, while ‘youth-suicide’ rises (let’s just blame it on ‘social-media’ instead of a lack of honesty, truth and love).

      Your wanderers are affected by climate-change, they just haven’t woken up to how damaging it is, even as the weather remains relatively mild and ‘safe’ with respect to historical norms, and is being very human-friendly and quite agreeable.

      Oh yeah, and the planet is 15% greener, and there’s more life giving rain everywhere, and we have never lived so long, or ate so well and so regularly all the beautiful things the Earth provides with a little natural human technological tweaking.

      What monsters!

      30

  • #
    Brian the Engineer

    Hi

    I have created some graphics explaining why the Larsen ice sheet calving is due to tectonic plate forces.

    Feel free to share.

    Regards
    Brian

    160

    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks Brian,

      I will remember that if any one brings up Antartica loosing Ice!

      40

    • #
      Fred Streeter

      Very clearly explained.

      Thank you.

      20

    • #
      WXcycles

      Not buying it Brian, the rate of gravity-driven deformation of basal lubricated glacier ice is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude faster than the rate of crustal deformation. The driver of the rate of berg carving carving is due to the long term rate of snow input, and the gravity-driven flow downslope from the mountains to the west.

      Other than isostatic replacement of that mountain rage due to glacial erosion of them, and possible basal hydro-thermal activity to lubricate, I’d say geotectonics has almost but not quite nothing to do with the rate of berg carving.

      30

      • #
      • #
        Wayne Job

        The sun behaving as it is can cause a great deal of tectonic and volcanic activity as per history, so I would say that Brian the Engineer may be right on the money.

        11

        • #
          WXcycles

          A supposition doe not trump geodetic measurement.

          30

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Hi Wayne, plate tectonics may be a factor but there’s no getting away from the major mechanism of vertical pressure on the ice pack.

          Unrestrained edges of the ice field will move horizontally under pressure from the overburden.

          The more snow/rain/ice that accumulates the greater the force at the base.

          Ice Will “flow” out and when it goes over the supporting land it will crack off.

          The mechanism proposed will be irregular and over longer timeframe.
          Still?

          KK

          20

      • #
        Peter C

        The Larsen Ice Shelf is floating. It is not a basal lubricated glacier.
        Therefore I think geotectonic stress could cause cracking and caving off large pieces.

        00

        • #
          WXcycles

          I don’t.

          Ice deformation flow is on the order of 10,000 times faster than tectonism, but you still think tectonism is an input to carving? That’s 1 meter of lateral land movement for every 10,000 m (10 km) of ice movement. I’m being conservative here, it can be much faster than that.

          There is actually direct friction with massive crystalline country-rock on higher terrain, and on the low land, and also while grounded over the littoral for a long distance seawards, before it finally begins to floats. That requires gravity flow (and there’s not enough cohesion in ice to drag it as it’s much to brittle).

          Do you discount that deep ice and strong currents measured in m/s are a force that induces dynamic stress and compression in the ice margins? Plus twice daily vertical tides measured in meters, adding and subtracting flex stress? Plus sea waves measured in tens of meters and thousands of tons coming at the ice from different directions. Which can also cause impact stresses with the bottom near the grounded portion? Plus collisions with floating bergs that smash into it and fracture it like an earthquake? Plus high winds from all directions within Low pressure storms.

          Are these not viable mechanisms to carve floating glacial ice?

          When ice deforms it does so as rocks do (a-seismic creep deformation), the water recrystallizes into fresh ice crystals so any slow secular plastic-deformation stress just leads to re-crystallization back into solid ice. So what is needed to break ice is a rate of stress or compression deformations which significantly exceed the rate of re-crystallization, or plastic-deformation flow.

          Tectonism is well below that threshold for ice and is not the force driving carving, it’s much too slow. The fast observed deformation mechanisms are gravity-flow for grounded glaciers, plus the added dynamics of water and air upon the floating ice. Flex fast enough something which is cold and brittle and it ceases to deform, it snaps. As soon as the ice’s internal stress exceeds the available deformation rate (mediated by re-crystallization) it must micro fracture. Where the fractures accumulate faster than they can heal via recrystallizing, is where the carving more readily occurs.

          It’s the gravity flow off the mountains which thrusts the ice seawards under the weight of the ice at altitudes above the grounding level, the more the snow is dropped on there the greater the potential energy to overcome the grounded friction and push it out over the water further.

          30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Great outline.

            Ice Will flow, distort, if given time to adjust.

            The concept of tidal flexing is so obvious but something I hadn’t been aware of.

            KK

            20

      • #
        Brian the Engineer

        Hi WXcycles

        I appreciate your critique.
        As already noted by Peter C the Larsen ice shelf is a area of ocean protected by the surrounding landmass and has therefore frozen.
        It is not connected to the seafloor.
        If it was the seafloor would provide resistance to the calving.
        It also isn’t fed by glaciers.
        It is connected to the surrounding ice cap over the land.
        This ice cap is fused to the land mass under and tectonic stresses therefore flow into the ice shelf.
        There are other mechanisms at work too that are additive to the stresses that cause calving.

        I will update the graphic with this information.

        Regards
        Brian

        10

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Hi Brian,

          The thing about ice is that like lead and gold it exhibits plastic flow under load (from ice stacked above).

          When it is pushed over the land edge it is no longer fully supported by the sea water and cracks off.

          The rate of calving would be proportional to the rate of snow/ice accumulation above.

          KK

          10

        • #
          WXcycles

          Cheers Brian.

          This ice cap is fused to the land mass under and tectonic stresses therefore flow into the ice shelf.

          Tectonic movement would be insignificant as an input to the ice’s behavior over land, except during a major regional earthquake. Such quakes cause the entire planet to resonate, so if they were occurring we’d know about it as the wave arrivals would be measurable and relocatable via triangulation even by northern hemisphere seismometers.

          Crack and fatigue desiccation of glacial ice and its ready ability to recrystallize to deform, and even to stack-up vertically in compression ridges, or as crevasse fractures when under stress, also means it’s a very poor medium (next to useless) for transmitting any secular long term tectonic stress on the timescales of tectonic movement. This isn’t happening so forget it, these are different processes on vastly different scales. Gravity flow is enormously larger, and tectonism would not even be a detectable influence. if it can’t be tested by measurement it’s not even a part of science.

          The major crustal adjustment would be crustal isostatic adjustment downward under the weight of the glacial icesheet. But as it’s been there a long time you could safely presume that even that movement would be close to equilibrium with its relative buoyancy in the much more plastic asthenosphere below it.

          So the ice flow on land will be gravity-driven with almost no other input, and helped or hindered (briefly) by the level of friction at its base. Once the compacted snow is deep enough the friction is overcome, and the ice deforms and flows like the friction is no obstacle. That’s how it takes apart mountain ranges, gravity flow pressure cracks the solid rock of the walls of the feeder valleys.

          … It also isn’t fed by glaciers. …

          This is not the case. I don’t know where you got that idea but it could not be more wrong.

          There are numerous large fringing glaciers feeding into the margins of the Larsen ice shelf, which shelf is mostly glacial ice. You may not see that but that is only because the ice tends to flatten out over time under its own weight, and refuses (recrystallizes), then fresher compacting snow layers fall on top of the floating portion, which flattens it out completely. But inside the ice shelf it’s almost completely glacial.

          Look on the left side of this satellite image and you can clearly see glaciers within glacial valleys constantly feeding their ice into the Larsen Ice shelf as it carves, you can even see where they fan out as they get to the approximate position of the ‘coast line’. As the constriction of the valley goes away the ices fans-out and flattens and joins into a single sheet on land, then on water (while new snow flattens covers its real origins).

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Larsen_B_Collapse.jpg

          The named major glaciers gravity-feeding the iceshelf are clearly shown here:

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Larsen_B_collapse.jpg

          It is not sheltered sea ice that formed this ice shelf, it’s what’s shown in this diagram of how the Larsen iceshelf grows, moves and carves under the influence of gravity flow, then the ocean and atmosphere effects once it is floating.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf#/media/File:Antarctic_shelf_ice_hg.png

          Tectonics has nothing to do with its carving.

          10

  • #

    Next week’s World Econ Forum in Davos should be a hoot. Climate “emergency” is being hyped as a major theme:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/here-are-the-main-themes-at-world-economic-forum-2020.

    Trump and Greta are both speaking. Will it tear itself apart like the Madrid COP? Let’s hope so.

    120

  • #
    el gordo

    Willis Eschenbach in a guest post at WUWT talks of ‘emergent phenomena’.

    ‘My question was, why is the climate so stable?

    ‘And my answer is, there are a host of what are called “emergent phenomena” that arise when local temperatures go above some local threshold. They include the timing and strength of the daily emergence of the cumulus cloud field in the tropics; the development of thunderstorms; the emergence of dust devils when temperatures get hot; the action of the El Nino/La Nina pump moving warm water to the poles; and various “oscillations” like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

    ‘These emergent phenomena arise out of nowhere, last for some length of time, and then disappear completely. And acting together, they all work to prevent both the overcooling and the overheating of the planet.’

    110

    • #

      Willis and emergent phenomena … I live on the western shore of the Coral Sea, and regularly witness the phenomena he describes. I even tried to be on top of Mount Low (not descriptive – named after the graziers) to be in the right place for sequential imaging. Trouble is, when it starts to crank up, it is too hot to hang around.

      70

    • #

      Chaos (nonlinear dynamics) is a powerful form of stability, called the Strange Attractor. The price is unpredictable oscillation. Weather and climate are chaotic.

      For example, here in West Virginia USA the temperature will often vary by 30 degrees F in a day. But it will not vary by more than 150 degrees F in a thousand years. That is incredible stability, with rapid internal oscillations.

      70

      • #
        el gordo

        That is a relief, I thought it might be the Gaia theory revisited.

        10

      • #
        Lance

        Mr. David, I don’t intend to split hairs about chaos and dynamic systems, but rather intend to clarify some elements.
        But, then again, I’m a geek and somewhat OCD. Overall, I do agree that weather and climate are chaotic systems of complex nature.

        Nonlinear systems exist when an output is not proportional to the change of the input.

        Chaos, or chaotic systems, exist when the apparently-random states of disorder and irregularities of a dynamic system are governed by deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions

        Ie, “When the present conditions determine the future, but the approximate present conditions do not approximately determine the future.”

        More clearly, nonlinear systems can, and often are, entirely predictable if they obey known physical laws, ie, are bounded by known limits and functionally known constraints.

        Chaotic systems are so dependent upon initial conditions that their descriptions can only be defined in very finite terms of time or perturbation. Chaotic systems tend to be un-definable over long time periods or within unknown perturbation ranges. Ie, the model of the system determines the iterative solution. Change one element, one initial condition, one single aspect, and the result will be a bifurcation or a totally chaotic condition. Iterative solutions are required because no known closed form solution exists.

        Suffice to say that although we live in a chaotic climatic system, the feedback mechanisms must be negative ( stabilizing ) because life still exists.

        If the system were unbounded and chaotic with positive feedbacks, then life would not exist because the system would be uncontrollably chaotic in the extreme sense. Climate would range from absolute zero to evaporation of seas and atmospheres.

        Thus the system must be bounded, whether chaotic or not. The fact that life still exists is good evidence of that.

        If the system is bounded, the feedbacks within the system must be negative to achieve that.

        In sum, we are lucky as crap to be able to adapt to a system that is relatively stable.
        Politics, ideology, and taxation have nothing to do with it. :)

        70

        • #

          You are mostly right, Lance, although very simple systems can be chaotic. Chaos is a mathematical property fist discovered about 100 years ago. The first physical instance was identified in weather about 50 years ago and since then it has become a big branch of science. All it takes is a properly negative nonlinear feedback, as you suggest.

          It is the struggle between the system wanting to go one way and the negative feedback the other way that causes the unpredictable oscillations. An ongoing wrestling match. In weather, hot versus cold and rain versus dry are two examples. This holds for weeks, months, decades and centuries. But the oscillations are bounded so the system is stable.

          That a system can be deterministic yet unpredictable is a disruptive new concept for science. People still sell long term weather forecasts even though the math says they can’t possibly know what will happen.

          My favorite chaos joke: the stranger asks the farmer “Think it will rain?” The farmer replies “It always has.” That is stability.

          40

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/18/gavins-falsifiable-science/

    GISS gets a serve first up

    50

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      At some point in the interminable arguments I idly wonder if anyone if anyone has ever seen Nick Stokes and Peter Fitzroy
      together?
      (Just kidding, I actually hate myself for approaching ad-hominem stuff).

      I also hate to bring up either elections or the polarizing Mr T here, but on an idle Sunday morning I am marveling
      at his perhaps signature ability to cut to the essence of an issue in the way it impacts the common man (and woman, of course).

      In a recent riff, he spoke of the idiocy of water limited showers, toilets, and dishwashers.
      “you have to push the button ten times, and then, after all that, take the dishes out and wash them the old fashioned way”.

      In a comedy act or political speech, the audience tells you when you have hit the mark.

      You or I can probably write a clear, biting English sentence stating the problem:
      “let’s take out modern culture based on reliable, cheap energy being available on demand to even the poorest household and help the poor by making
      energy less reliable and more expensive”.

      Sage heads here might nod in agreement at the folly of our leaders but that line will never get a laugh. I find myself asking, How would Trump say it?
      If only for the joy of watching liberal heads explode.

      We’ve talked a lot here about how to get our heretical idea through to people, who seem willing to be skeptical nature in spite of the torrent of warmist propaganda.

      The answer might be, how would Trump say it?

      50

  • #
    • #

      There was an international poll recently on the degree of skepticism to climate alarmism and Sweden was ranked more skeptical than America. Greta is an outlier. So is Action Now! radicalism, so I take neither seriously.

      80

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Anyone else seen the push that’s on to reduce speed limits to 30 kph to supposedly help curb emissions?

    30

  • #
    disorganise

    reduce speed limits to 30 kph to supposedly help curb emissions

    that’s one way to make EV’s attractive I guess. 30kph is a bit uncomfortable in my car with the gearing. And on a hot day (40), even 50 kph is not enough to cool the AC exchange sufficiently to get cold air once heat soak has opportunity to do its thing

    60

    • #
      disorganise

      Doh! that was meant to be 8.2 not a 9. I fail :(

      I’m all for slow speeds in high pedestrian areas. But anything that upsets the flow of traffic is not good for emissions, nor tempers :/

      30

    • #
      Another Ian

      Experience in US found sfa difference in real life fuel mileage with the speed reduction from 70 to 55 mph

      70

      • #
        disorganise

        I doubt the same would be said reducing from 55mph/80kph to 40mph/60kph, let alone to 30mph/50kph.

        The stats for my car bears out your comment. I’ve captured the fuel consumption for each fill up and noted the car computer average speed which I reset to zero each time I fill up. Ironically, perhaps, 100-110kmh is more efficient than 80-90kph for my car, but only slightly

        Full list:
        100-110kph avg spd yields 9.89-12.17 l/100km Av 11.12 l/100km Count=14
        90-100kph avg spd yields 9.67-12.10 l/100km Av 11.27 l/100km Count=18
        80-90kph avg spd yields 10.73-12.27 l/100km Av 11.67 l/100km Count=16
        70-80kph avg spd yields 11.52-13.84 l/100km Av 12.53 l/100km Count=15
        60-70kph avg spd yields 12.00-14.32 l/100km Av 12.89 l/100km Count=10
        50-60kph avg spd yields 12.43-20.75 l/100km Av 13.93 l/100km Count=29
        40-50kph avg spd yields 13.61-22.57 l/100km Av 15.26 l/100km Count=29
        30-40kph avg spd yields 16.71-18.80 l/100km Av 17.45 l/100km Count=8

        I drive a supercharged V8 so that may skew the figures towards the higher speeds, but I suspect the low speed inefficiency is common regardless of the actual numbers (ie, a small car might cut the number in half, but I think the larger numbers would still occur at the lower speeds). It looks to me as if my car would be roughly 25% less efficient at 30kph than 50kph.

        60

      • #
        yarpos

        I think that was because the 55 limit was widely ignored

        10

  • #
    • #
      disorganise

      Interesting. I do see that the bottom of the curve is higher now than 1960, so there does seem to be overall warming.
      Would the cycle possibly be ocean churn (I’m spitballing with no education on the matter) whereby the warmer top layer is pulled down (somehow) leading to top 2km layer cooling over 20 years before it equalises and stops the churn, allowing the top layer to warm again.

      30

      • #
        Ian Wilson

        disorganise,

        Yes, the minima of both the d(OHC)/dt and d(T)/dt curves appear to be slowly rising with time over the 60 and 120 years, respectively. This is most likely the contribution due to CO2. As you can see, it is much smaller than the 60 to 65-year natural variation, however!

        11

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Interesting and nicely set out blog.

      The problem with this sort of “ocean temperature” based stuff is that nobody really knows for sure what they are doing.

      “Scientists” quote figures for so many large effects and quantities that are of doubtful integrity that they are possibly just wishful thinking.

      The term “forcing” probably says all that needs to be said about the science of Man Made Global Warming.

      :-) KK

      40

  • #
    disorganise

    Does anyone know of any papers, or blogs I guess, that have examined the implications of the Earth warming? There is much alarmism over the 2 Celsius warming, but why?

    Questions that spring to my mind are;
    At what warming does Antarctica thaw? What’s the negative and positive of that?
    At what warming does Greenland thaw? Pros/cons
    Does the North pole melt? Would the polar bears migrate or die off?
    Will the deserts get bigger, or do they become green an habitable? At what warming?
    Do weather patterns change and how?

    If I became convinced that AGW is real, my next thought is; so what? Given a choice of returning to the pre-industrial age and tilling fields instead of typing into a blog, or having to move inland because the sea swallowed my town – I’m moving house :)

    50

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      disorganise:
      Antarctica and Greenland will take a long time to thaw. From palaeontology we know that about 2℃ warmer didn’t result in ice sheets at the poles, but that was in the late Jurassic and was after millions of years of a warmer climate.
      Re arctic pack ice it seems that permanent ice was non-existent between about 6 – 3, 000 years ago when the global temperature was around 1℃ higher. There may still have been winter ice, although less and thinner if it was only that years lot. The polar bears didn’t die off, and seem to have coped quite well. They are variously thought to have originated about 280, or 450 or 800 thousand years ago, so have lived through previous inter-glacials at least 2.5℃ warmer than present and much ice melted (but Greenland’s ice lasted).
      As for deserts, the Sahara was wetter 5-9,000 years ago (as savannah) and dried out. Milankovitch cycle is usually invoked as expanding the Hadley cell northward roviding the extra humidity and for the subsequent drying out as the Hadley cell moved south. Some have suggested that the sun went through a solar maximum and others blame the drying out on overgrazing by humans. There is no written eidence for the last hypothesis.

      20

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Antarctic sits over one of the most active tectonic areas on the planet.
      Volcanic magma is up welling below the glaciers there.
      Naturally the ice above melts.
      And parts of Greenland ice sheet are also effected by the tectonic movements going on in the Earth

      00

  • #
    R.B.

    https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/what-global-warming/
    Something posted in comments section at WUWT. Obviously not peer-reviewed and I’m not going to vouch for it without repeating the work (if I ever get around to it), but the final global temperature anomaly does look closer to the mid 70s version than more modern versions.

    50

  • #

    R.B.,
    I very much do not like to be called “something”.

    WordPress tells me where people visit from, and so I found this page.

    You can call me by name.

    102

    • #
      farmerbraun

      Allow me . . .

      “Something (that was) posted in comments section at WUWT.”.

      You were just joking , right?

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Hi Zoe,

      Interesting way of looking at things, correcting for Latitude and altitude, and an interesting result. Maybe nearer reality than any of the fabrications from the AGW collaborators.

      How would you go about correcting for the fact that a very significant proportion of the sites used would be affected by urban heat , some to a lesser, some to a greater degree.

      Can’t remember who it was, but someone showed that UHI might be able to be estimated by population in the area.

      51

      • #

        Andy,

        UHI?
        I wouldn’t worry about it.
        Once we correct for it, climate scammers will just put solar panels around the thermometer to really spike it up.

        I also don’t correct for gravity anomaly. Very minor.

        I also use an average lapse rate:

        https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/01/04/air-temperatures-and-average-lapse-rate/

        Turns out there can’t be such a thing because Specific Humidty varies by height, therefore Mean Molar Mass is not constant.

        In other words, lapse rate is not linear.

        Stevenson Screens protect from the sun, but they reduce sheer wind and vertical convection.

        The “standard” is not what a human would feel anyway.

        Don’t know. It would be interesting to know the population-to-UHI ratio. But I can’t dig it out from the data itself due to circular dependancy issue.

        The emissivity of all the objects around the thermometer’s stevenson screen is also an issue.

        Farmer,
        English is not my first language. Don’t be an ass.

        80

        • #
          farmerbraun

          Just trying to help – no need to start that.

          20

        • #
          AndyG55

          Interesting presentation you should watch.

          Its tough because of the heavy Irish accents, Start near the 23 minute mark if you already know the basics.

          10

        • #
          WXcycles

          The “standard” is not what a human would feel anyway.

          You hit the nail on the head there, so many times I’ve looked at current obs data and thought, that does not feel right.

          Humans also go up and down in temperature during both day and night, as does cloud cover, UHI effect, humidity, wind, or a lack of. Thus a representative objective ‘temperature’ seems to be something of a fantasy, so we pretend we have ‘one’. But if you were going to measure it you’d hope it was at least consistent, invariant in method, sensor, and the data was not edited for alleged “quality control”, adjusted ideologically, homogenized to nonsense, plus cherry-picked down to the millisecond, and measured within a ‘representative’ non-UHI affected setting.

          As BOM has repeatedly shown, there’s no chance whatsoever of getting a representative objective national or local temperature record. So the figures remain a fantasy, and increasingly a political fantasy, and anti-’historical’ fantasy, as well as increasingly unreliable.

          As the current Willis WUWT link (I posted below) shows. How can anyone take the ‘measurers’ seriously, or any thing they subsequently remark or else claim about it. There is no objective consistency, the met agencies surface data has just constantly made the problem worse.

          61

        • #
          R.B.

          He wasn’t being an ass. I was referring to the article rather than yourself with “something”. Just a bit lazy.

          10

        • #
          R.B.

          He wasn’t being an ass. I was referring to the article rather than yourself with “something”. Just a bit lazy.

          10

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Zoe, you seem to have manufactured a reason to take offense.
      Why

      21

    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks Zoe,

      I will take a look at your web site.

      40

  • #
  • #
    WXcycles

    A Surfeit Of Temperatures – Willis Eschenbach / 4 hours ago January 19, 2020
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/19/a-surfeit-of-temperatures/

    You can even select your favorite surface temperatures!

    50

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Ah, but THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

      The temperature has gone up between 0.52 and 0.84℃.
      These variants are probably due to CLIMATECHANGE© or local concentrations of hot air.

      40

  • #

    Okay, so Loy Yang A Unit 2 in Victoria came back on line this morning, so now all ten coal fired Units in Victoria are fully operational. They are currently delivering 4580MW from a Nameplate of 4690MW, so, at a Capacity Factor of 97.6%. They don’t ramp up and down across the day like they do in the other two States with coal fired power, so that power delivery is a straight line of power delivery across the day. All this from those ten Units with an average age of 33 years.

    The 17 wind plants in Victoria are having a good day (CF – 42% currently) and are delivering 900MW in total from a Nameplate of 2116MW.

    So, all of those wind plants on a good are delivering as much power as any ….. TWO of those coal fired Units.

    Of all of Victoria’s metered power currently being consumed, 5280MW, coal fired power is delivering 86.8%.

    And school hasn’t gone back yet.

    Tony.

    50

  • #
  • #
    WXcycles

    As expected the humidity input over QLD and NT finally produces monsoonal Low activity in the Gulf on the 29th Jan, plus easterly tropical wave activity in northern Coral Sea. Should have a couple of cyclones or at least some deepening Lows by the 1st of Feb. This should wake up the wet-season (it started on about the 27th of Jan last year, i.e. also late).

    https://i.ibb.co/y4XHWfX/29th-Jan-2020-forecast-Tropical-Lows-Screenshot-2020-01-20-Windy-as-forecasted.png

    30

  • #
  • #
    DOC

    There is the basic question about the mentality of our politicians and councillors.
    They chase votes and these days that means green votes because they are entirely responsible
    for having the green left dominate our entire education system. That gives us 40years of
    propagandised people from our education system that presumably believe this highly
    ‘opinionised’, one-sided view of the world that is totally incapable of assessing the
    dangers from their own strongly held and actioned views. We see it everywhere. ‘Save the
    trees!’ ‘Save the plants, insects and wild life!’ ‘Save the sharks!’ There is a total
    absence about ‘SAVE THE PEOPLE!”Save the economy!’ ‘Save our society!’

    There is a total incapacity to even consider the dangers of what they demand and do,despite
    numerous examples from the past of disasters to people that such stupidities give rise to.

    We get people governing us that are entirely besotted with this stuff to the point of irrationality,
    even when they consider themselves the educated, rational, should-be decision makers of the nation.

    When does this stop? The current devastation ‘they’ tell us has cost the lives of a billion wild
    lives. That’s supreme disaster at the hands of so many Australians who vote for this stuff on the
    grounds it will preserve and develop our wild life and environment – blow (to be polite) the people,
    their lives and their property. On their own ‘Anthropogenic’ theory, how much CO2 have they managed
    to push into the atmosphere. A tragedy for them but probably a big fertilizer help in the recovery.

    A RC will only provide a protection for our politicians and greens. However, a PM with a bit of guts
    and common sense would throw fully open the debate on AGW, fight the imbecility of the UN and the climate
    activists by the enforced censorship against anyone with a legitimate argument against the enforced theory.
    Eventually, this is the only way common sense will ever be restored to society. Its amazing that our Courts
    are so biased in their judgements on climate because they are supposedly making decisions on available proof,
    not opinion. Scientific proof is not ‘proof’ based on opinion when facts are absent.

    30

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Just heard the local ABC radio presenter try to get the CFA spokesman she was talking to admit that the current warnings in Victoriastan for fire , floods , wind and rain were unprecedented.
    Thankfully he said no we’ve had them before at the same time especially after a big fire .

    30

  • #