Just 4 sets of four-minute-long bursts of intense exercise was all it took for sedentary people aged 60 -88 to get an improvement in memory scores of up to 30%.
They worked out three times a week for 3 months, and the short sharp sets were better than 50 minutes of moderate exercise. Five hundred million years of evolution will do that — hone organisms to adapt to common stressors. And even if don’t need to outrun lions very often now, we still carry the genes that did.
Obviously the 30% memory boost mostly happens to people who start out sedentary. There may not be such spectacular gains for people who are already semi fit. But it only took 12 weeks.
Researchers at McMaster University who examine the impact of exercise on the brain have found that high-intensity workouts improve memory in older adults.
Researchers suggest that intensity is critical. Seniors who exercised using short, bursts of activity saw an improvement of up to 30% in memory performance while participants who worked out moderately saw no improvement, on average.
Is National Australia Bank scared of this? @ExtinctionR
The witchdoctor activists have been demanding bankers and insurance firms boycott new coal mines. One by one these corporate giants have jumped to obey, like towers of saluting jelly. Australia’s PM, Scott Morrison, has “threatened a radical crackdown” as if there is some way, and some worth, in forcing free people to choose a sensible option. But this is not the way. What the nation needs is not more laws to stifle speech but someone with the balls to speak freely. Persuade the nation instead! Half the country quivers in fear of being called a climate denier by a teenage girl. Tell them to grow up and get over it.
The activists are just namecalling bullies — too chicken to engage in polite conversation because their case falls apart like a crystal mousetrap — looks good, but destroys itself on deployment. If they had overwhelming evidence they just need to explain it — not beat people over the head with it. Australians are good people, right?
They’re only a threat if we take them seriously
Whatever we do, don’t take them seriously. Instead of locking them up, we need to mock them up. Giggle at gullible babies who think coal mines control the climate. Smile at superstitious voodoo. Pat the so called fans-of-science on the back, and ask them how long the glue will last.
Most of all we need a leader with the courage to laud those who don’t cave in and who know what free speech means.
The ABC has been turning the bullies into heroes and the whistleblowers into political-lepers. Someone needs to stand up to the ABC.
Miners drive the nations engine. XR is the glue on the road. Treat them accordingly — possibly with a garden hose, not federal legislation.
PM signals action on secondary boycotts of resources companies and says progressives want to tell Australians ‘what you can say, what you can think’
Morrison told Australian corporations to listen to the “quiet shareholders” and not environmental protesters, who he suggested could shift targets from coal companies to all carbon-intensive industries including power generation, gas projects, abattoirs and airlines.
In a speech proposing limits on free speech advocating boycotts against polluting companies, Morrison said progressives wanted to tell Australians “what you can say, what you can think and tax you more for the privilege of all of those instructions”.
And so they do. But apparently so does Morrison.
Making laws “just for them” and trying to stop them speaking is not just wrong, but like pouring fuel on a fire. It will inflate their egos, power their sense of purpose and, in a way, give them just what they want. Mindless attention without any hard questions. Better to let them talk about science. The more they say they sillier they look.
That’s it: It was 4% cloudier in 1985, then roughly the same after 2000 — that’s the Pause and the Cause
A new paper in Russian, by OM Pokrovsky, shows that global cloud cover decreased markedly from 1986 to 2000. This is a very large decline in terms of the planetary atmosphere. Pokrovsky uses ISCCP satellite data (the “International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project” — a US program). It’s the best cloud data there is. The effects of clouds are so strong that most of the differences between IPCC-favoured-models comes from the assumptions the models make about clouds. Cloud feedbacks are the “largest source of uncertainty”. [IPCC, 2007]
Clouds cover two-thirds of the Earths surface, reflecting around 30% of the total energy from the Sun back to space. A small change in cloud cover can easily warm or cool the planet, like a giant pop-up shade-sail.
This, on its own, explains all the warming that occurred from 1986 – 2000. It explains the pause. We don’t know why clouds decreased, but we know it wasn’t due to CO2, which kept rising relentlessly year after year, and even faster after the turn of the century.
Something else is driving cloud formation, or density or longevity, and the global climate modelers don’t know what that is.
“Thus, cloud cover changes over three decades during the period of global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also a certain interannual variability.”
Cloud cover explains the warming, and the pause.
What drives the clouds?
Cloud cover changes could be caused by changes in the solar magnetic field, which may drive cloud seeding via its effect on the cosmic rays that bombard Earth (see Henrik Svensmark). But clouds could also be affected by the solar wind or by solar spectral changes, neither of which are included in GCMs. Clouds could also be driven by changes in aerosols due to volcanoes, bacteria, and plankton. Clouds could also form differently with changes in jetstreams or ocean currents. Meandering jet streams put huge “fingers” of cold air into warm air zones — surely a recipe for more cloud formation. (see Stephen Wilde’s work).
Global Climate Models have no chance of predicting cloud cover. They assume cloud changes are a feedback, not a forcing. So, right from the start, the models don’t even recognise that some outside force might be independently changing cloud cover. In 2012, Miller et al. reported that models got cloud feedbacks wrong by 70W/m2 — an error that’s nearly 20 times larger than the total effect of CO2. What a farce.
Calculating the warming effect
The effect of clouds is complicated. High clouds cause warming. Low clouds cause cooling. Clouds over the dark oceans change the albedo of Earth more than clouds over a bright desert. Clouds in the tropics will reflect more incoming light than clouds over the poles. But at its most brutally simple, the more clouds there are, the more the world cools.
Figure 9 below, describes the relationship between global temperatures and cloud cover. It appears Pokrovsky used it to calculate the effect of the reduction in clouds. A 0.07C warming effect for each 1% decrease in cloud cover, means a fall of 4% in cloud cover would lead to 0.3C of warming. This is just from 1986 – 2000AD and is roughly the same amount of warming as was seen in Hadley. In this situation, no matter how much the trend of Hadley temperatures is “adjusted up,” as long as an analyst uses Hadley temperatures to estimate the linear trend, the increase due to clouds will fit. (Expect Hadley 5.0 to start adjusting key turning points next to mess with this clear signal.)
Fig. 9. The results of the regression analysis of the series of global clouds (ISCCP) and surface air temperature (CRUTEM3).
The conclusions in the paper:
Figure 9 presents the corresponding regression analysis results. As global temperatures, we used the data of CRUTEM 3 (University of East Anglia, Great Britain, http://www.uea.ac.uk). The number of points for statistical analysis was 318. The regression equation has the form Y = – 0.0659 X + 19.637. The determination coefficient characterizing the accuracy of the regression is 0.277. The latter means this model accounts for about 28% of the observed dispersion of surface air temperature. High global cloud cover is associated with low global temperatures, demonstrating the cooling effect of clouds. The regression linear approximation model suggests that a 1% increase in global cloud cover corresponds to a global decrease in temperature of about 0.07oC and vice versa.
In the case of global cloudiness of the lower tier, the regression equation changes slightly: Y = – 0.062 X + 16.962. The determination coefficient characterizing the accuracy of the regression increases and in this case is 0.316. From a statistical point of view, this model accounts for about 31% of the observed dispersion of surface air temperature. High low clouds are associated with low global temperatures, demonstrating the cooling effect of low clouds. A simple linear regression model suggests that a 1% increase in global low cloud cover corresponds to a global temperature drop of around 0.06oC and vice versa.
Thus, cloud cover changes over three decades during the period of global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also a certain interannual variability. But the inclusion of a block describing the temporal evolution of cloud cover in climate models remains a problem due to the stochastic nature of cloud variability. However, climate models are deterministic and cannot be directly combined with stochastic cloud blocks. Nevertheless, the factor of cloud cover on climate change cannot be ignored due to the significant contribution of this climate-forming parameter and should be studied more carefully to improve climate forecasts.
Battery back-up is so expensive and uneconomic that South Australian householders are ignoring the SA governments offer of a $6000 gift to entice them to buy them.
One man installed the batteries and still spent $18,000. Obviously batteries are a “tempting” offer for renters and the poor (if they win lotto).
For the past 12 months, the SA Government has offered households $6,000 towards a battery, as well as access to low-cost loans to install solar panels. But so far only about 3,700 have applied, with only 2,000 batteries installed — significantly less than the target of connecting 40,000 households over four years.
Energy analyst Tristan Edis said …
“At best, you’d be getting a payback at around eight years…” and “another reason was that feed-in tariffs to export solar energy back to the grid were still relatively generous — about 15 cents per kilowatt hour.
South Australia is the economic space where one distorted market signal meets another.
The opposition could have pointed out how this hurts the poor, but instead complain that the conservative govt didn’t advertise it well.
And who is poorer because of this scheme and who do they vote for?
The next annual giant UN climate junket was due to be held in Santiago, Chile on Dec 2 – 15. But protests have driven the country into a state of emergency, 20 people have died, and 3 of the countries six train lines are not functional. It’s so bad, it may take six months to restore the train lines. The protests are reminiscent of the Yellow Vests in France — they started over a minor hike in prices (to train tickets) but escalated rapidly, are largely leaderless, but are obviously very angry.
Chile’s president has just, tonight, pulled out of hosting both the UNFCCC conference, and APEC as well.
A few days ago both sides of politics were claiming the protesters as their own. But with this extraordinary news it’s going to be hard for Saint Greta’s team to say that the protesters want carbon taxes and climate action which is why they destroyed the trains.
Santiago Metro fares are rising, despite falling oil and gasoline prices, because government officials in 2018 traded out most of the Metro’s energy sources from conventional power to wind and solar power. The Chilean government also hit the portion of conventional power that remains with new carbon dioxide taxes.
In 2015 Chile was the first country in South America to enforce a carbon tax of $5 a ton. The actual dollars didn’t start coming out of people’s wallets until 2018. The government expected to collect $160m in taxes, so that’s less than $10 per capita. But as we all know, there are hidden costs with the “transition” to random energy generators, perhaps the knock on costs are much larger?
This what a real state of emergency looks like — not like the “climate emergencies” we see all the time:
Since last Friday, the country has seen barricades in the streets, the army deployed in the capital, subway stations burned and thousands of people banging cooking pots in massive “cacerolazos”, or casserole, protests every night, defying the first curfews imposed since the Pinochet dictatorship. A state of emergency has been declared.
The metro in Santiago has been severely damaged, with several stations attacked. The government has recognised the system won’t be completely restored for more than six months. Only three of the six lines are now functional and just a few stations are open.
In just over five weeks time, tens of thousands of UN climate delegates will be trying to reach the Cop25 venue on the outskirts of the city. It is close to Cerrillos station, on the relatively undamaged Line 6. But Line 1, which goes through the centre of the city where most hotels are located, has been hit hard.
It’s hard to know what the protesters want from far away. The usual news sources are saying the usual catchphrases like “income inequality”, and twenty years later, still “Pinochet”.
But inequality is multidimensional: Chile’s employment rate languishes at 55%, ..
But perhaps most importantly, they feel discriminated against and humiliated in all these areas as they battle with inadequate public services that fail to level the playing field.
Maybe Chileans are sick of being treated like dirt, and lectured to by elites that look after themselves at everyone else’s expense.
The Prime Ministers office has announced $1 Billion boost for power reliabilitywhich translates as a billion dollars spent on emergency measures we wouldn’t need if we hadn’t spent billions recklessly and artificially on a transition we didn’t need to have.
Ten years ago Australia didn’t have to spend a single dollar, on any batteries, pumped storage, or “grid stabilizers”. And it didn’t need extra interconnectors. For decades the FCAS was largely free, thanks to giant turbines from coal plants. If we wanted grid unreliability back then, we’d probably have had to pay for it.
The Liberal National Government will establish a $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund to support Government investment in new energy generation, storage and transmission infrastructure, including eligible projects shortlisted under the Underwriting New Generation Investments (UNGI) program.
This is a government fund to support governments “investing” in energy generation?
The new $1 billion fund will be administered by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), drawing on the energy and financial markets expertise that has seen the CEFC invest more than $7 billion in clean energy since its establishment in 2012. The Fund represents the first new capital provided to the CEFC since it began.
It’s tin tacks in terms of solving the problem. The Snowy 2.0 anti-generator will need 5 to $10 billion. Any new major interconnector chews up $1.5b. South Australia spent $500m on batteries and bandaids, and it’s only 6% of our total NEM Grid. Pfft.
Warning: goal posts on the move
Look who’s aiming to keep electricity only twice as expensive as it was a few years ago before Australia added all the unreliable generators:
The Grid Reliability Fund is an important initiative in the Government’s A Fair Deal on Energy policy and will contribute to meeting our $70 per MWh price target and maintaining and increasing supply of reliable electricity.
This is another billion tossed at green fairies, and given to a group that has spent $7b of taxpayer money wrecking our grid. There are better ways this could have been spent. It’s a fence-sitting move, feeding the crocodile. Axing the CEFC and setting up a new group would have been a red rag to the XR-mob. Perhaps ScoMo is afraid of being called a “climate denier”, so the PM has retasked them instead.
Eligible investments will include:
Energy storage projects including pumped hydro and batteries,
Transmission and distribution infrastructure, and
Grid stabilising technologies.
The CEFC may do less damage than it used to do, or maybe not. These band-aids are still subsidies to industries that are destroying grid stability, and will make more of them possible. Instead we should be figuring out a way to get the unreliable generators to pay for reliability-fixes.
California’s devastating Kincaid Fire located in Sonoma County has grown to over 66,000 acres and NASA’s Terra satellite captured this dramatic image of the smoke plume cascading down the coast. OCt 27, 2019. | NASA image.
In Western Australia (WA) we have incendiary gum trees, regular droughts, and humidity so low that sometimes the clothes dry in the washing machine. Far be it for me to tell Californians how to manage their forests, but thought it worth a mention that Western Australian State govt do managed burns on 8% of the forest each year, and our top experts say it should be twice as much.
Compare that to California, where the rate of prescribed burning is now around 0.2% of the forest or so. Not the same type of fire-loving trees, but still the flammable kind…
A regime of green burning also produces a healthier and more vigorous forest and is better for biodiversity. This approach was applied rigorously in WA forests for nearly 30 years, with tremendous success. Unfortunately since about the 1980s green burning has been under constant attack from environmentalists and academics. As a result, in Victoria and New South Wales, especially in forests which are now national parks, almost no effective prescribed burning is done. Even in WA, where green burning was once championed, the area burnt each year has now fallen well below that required to ensure an effective fire management system. Here the annual burning target is 8% of the forest – simple arithmetic allows you to calculate that this equates to a turn-around time of 12 years, which in the jarrah forest at least is nearly twice the recommended burning rotation length if summer wildfires are to be manageable.
Jon E. Keeley & Alexandra D. Syphard
Although national parks began this movement 50 years ago, it is clear that, over this period of time, they have not come close to returning historical fire frequencies (estimated at 10 to 30 years) to Sierra Nevada forests. For example, 50 years of prescription burning in national parks has only burned around 10% of the forested landscape, which, at this rate, would take 500 years to burn all of the forested landscape, assuming no reburning of previous burns.
Mechanical treatments that remove understory fuels and thin the density of trees has two advantages over prescription burning: it can be done over a greater portion of the year and potentially can pay for itself through timber sales.
Let’s see that data again. After truly awful fires of 1961, prescribed burns were ramped up dramatically, and then wildfires were almost non-existent for the next twenty years in WA. See that data (before someone alters it). Gradually greens took more control of forest management. As less controlled burns were done, the fires of the uncontrolled type increased to “fill that gap”.
As prescribed fire reduction declined, wildfires increased in South West Australia. (Click to enlarge)
In Australia we can either have man made fires or natural catastrophes.
Ryan Sabalow, Dale Kasler, Maya Miller, The Sacramento Bee
In much of CA firefighters are not even allowed to let natural fires burn in safe conditions:
In California, the debate over prescribed burns is complicated by a deadly history with wildfires that have grown quickly out of control, the state’s stringent environmental regulations, fear of liability lawsuits and infringement on property rights, and the huge swaths of federal forestland with their own management rules and oversight.
For their part, the Tahoe National Forest’s managers say they understand the ecological value of allowing fires such as the Sugar to burn when conditions are safe. But while the agency has loosened the rules on letting fires burn on some national forests, managers of the Tahoe are still required to extinguish any fire that ignites in the woods as quickly as possible.
Researchers estimate that in 1800, 15% of Californian forest would burn each year:
By some estimates, many of the state’s forests have up to 100 times the amount of small trees and underbrush than what grew prior to white settlement. Meanwhile, researchers estimate that prior to 1800, some 4.5 million acres of the state’s forests burned in a typical year — more than the 1.9 million acres that burned in 2018, the most in modern history.
That has fallen to 0.3% per year:
Yet in a state with more than 30 million acres of forest, only about 87,000 acres of California land were treated with prescribed burns last year to reduce undergrowth prior to the state’s deadly fire season, according to data from Cal Fire, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
CA doesn’t have the incendiary mix that Western Australia does, but perhaps needs something more than burnoffs once every 500 years.
Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology is paid more than a million dollars a day, and the planet is under seige, yet the paint is peeling off some Australian thermometer screens, the grass is long, and wasps are nesting in them. What once were large 230 litre wooden boxes have shrunk to 60 litres and are now even turning to plastic. The old glass thermometers are being replaced with electronic gear that can record a burst of hot air — yet somehow those freak high spikes are supposed to be comparable to temperatures recorded 100 years ago by slow glass thermometers.
Old larger boxes protected thermometers from sudden changes in air temperature.
Left: Len Walker with a 230L screen in 1940. Right: Blair Trewin with a modern 60L Stevenson screen.
Possibly the hardest thing to explain is that even though the BOM collected comparison data on the different types of thermometers, which might help to assess new versus old, they routinely throw the data away. Compounding that, the metadata on sites is incomplete, missing, lacking in documentation. Giant six lane highways are built next to equipment sites but not recorded. There is a huge disconnect between the urgency and the fear of climate change and the care and attention paid to measuring the climate. Despite all this the BOM repeatedly tells the public that the science is settled, and we’re hitting new record temperatures which are supposedly accurate to a tenth of a degree.
Bill Johnston is a seasoned weather observer and agricultural climatologist. He’s been documenting the dismal state of our national climate monitoring network for years, all unpaid. See his previous posts here on Bourke, Port Hedland, Canberra, and Sydney Observatory.
The Bureau of Meteorology has lost its way. Replacement of standard 230-litre Stevenson screens with 60-litre ones, which accelerated over recent decades; automatic weather stations (AWS) becoming primary instruments in September 1996; installing PVC screens in the hottest places they could find, closing offices, sacking staff and reducing maintenance to one or fewer site-visits per year have warmed Australia’s climate.
Lack of site control is endemic and it’s not true that changes in data are due to climate change and warming. Small Stevenson screens relocated to dusty paddocks and airports, which are seldom cleaned or repainted, are invariably biased-high (Figure 1). It matters that paint peels off and screens lose their lustre, grime builds up and that grass is not regularly mowed (Figure 2). Recent record temperatures and increases in the frequency of warm days are predominantly due to relocating screens to warmer aspects, AWS and small screens becoming primary instruments, and lack of maintenance.
Figure 1. While the screen and other equipment at Wagga Wagga airport were well maintained by Bureau staff in June 2016 (left), placement of the AWS temperature probes 2-cm closer to the north-facing rear of the screen made the temperature warmer on warm days. At Rutherglen (right), by July 2019, the neglected screen was grimy; home to a mud wasp (arrowed) and outside paint was peeling around the roof and louvers. Lack of regular maintenance results in bias and causes the frequency of warm days to increase. (Sensors measure relative humidity (RH) and temperature (T).). Stevenson Screens, Australian, Bureau of Meteorology.
The Bureau has lost its way
Standards have slipped and the Bureau’s core function of monitoring the weather can no longer be trusted. The community is poorly served by its penchant for hitting the headlines with exaggerated claims of record hot days, months and years in time for the evening news.
Even worse, in 2017 they established seven new sites in southwestern NSW in the warmest places they could find using PVC screens with mat-black interiors that radiate heat onto the instruments on warm days. It is therefore no coincidence that temperatures have increased in recent time; that records are regularly smashed and that heatwaves and extremes seem more frequent. However, it’s a major problem for climate catastrophists that trends and changes don’t reflect what’s actually happening with the weather.
The climate emergency doesn’t exist. In order to fit the narrative, Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has altered the conditions under which temperature is measured. Aided by the Monash misinformation hub, the ABC, The Conversation the Fairfax press and The Guardian, a campaign is underway to tag our normal weather as non-normal and extreme.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has not only disappeared the Very Hot Days graph but they have wiped out thousands of 40 plus hot days in the years from 1910 – 1963 — years when almost all temperatures in Australia were recorded on Stevenson screens by trained officials under the central management of the Bureau. Volunteer, Chris Gillham, found the data and the changes between ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 and created this transformative graph below.
1952 had more hot days than any year since. Not any more. All those poor sods in 1952 who endured an average twenty one 40-degree-plus days will find now that it wasn’t really that hot. The BoM is like an air conditioner that cools the country 70 years in the past. And it’s only a million dollars a day…
As Craig Kelly MP points out — 2011 had the fewest “very hot days” of the last century, but even the recent data from expert equipment can change eight years later.
Chris Gillham also tested the effect of the latest secret ACORN 2 changes on the “old century” 100F cut off, and found, remarkably that there were more “hotter-than-100” days in the raw data in the first half of last century. All that global warming eh? You’ll be shocked I tell you, shocked, to find that the BOMs latest adjustments change that trend from a fairly stable one to … an increase.
Ponder that with millions more people, concrete and cars in the modern era, it’s the old measurements in good screens in open fields that are being quietly adjusted down, not up, and by secret methods.
If the BOM were a bank adjusting it’s own tax receipts, the Labor Party and Greens would be demanding a Royal Commission.
Check out Chris’s site, a vast amount of data-crunching, all done unpaid. Thank him here!
Guest post by Chris Gillham who publishes WAClimate
Only a few people know that in early 2019 the Bureau of Meteorology updated its ACORN dataset and increased Australia’s per decade rate of mean temperature warming since 1910 by 23%.The Australian remains the only media that has ever mentioned ACORN 2 or its ramifications. At least 25 million Australians have never heard of ACORN 2 …
Even fewer are aware that ACORN 2 has influenced and distorted the number of days at 40.0C or above, defined by the bureau as “very hot days”, since 1910.
The animated graphic below shows very hot days from 1910 to 2015 in the ACORN 1 dataset source archived bureau pages within the WayBack Machine when compared to very hot days from 1910 to 2018 within the ACORN 2 dataset sourced to current readings at the BoM website.
Sweeping changes in record hot days? The Bureau of Meteorology adjusted raw data to make ACORN 1 and has adjusted that further to make ACORN 2!
The animation points arrows at how the record high averaged number of very hot days in 1952 within the ACORN 1 dataset was reduced by 24.1% in the ACORN 2 dataset, and the ACORN 1 averaged total for 1952 is still more than the ACORN 2 averaged total for 2018.
To shine a spotlight within the annual averages animated above, it’s worth looking at a random sample of individual stations:
At Bourke in NSW from 1910 to 2017 there were 1,909 very hot 40C+ days in RAW (average 41.7C), but in ACORN 1 there were 1,727 very hot 40C+ days (average 42.0C), and in ACORN 2 there were 1,589 very hot 40C+ days (average 41.7C). From RAW to ACORN 2 this is a 16.7% reduction in days.
At Marble Bar in WA from 1910 to 2017 there were 11,345 very hot 40C+ days in RAW (average 42.4C), but in ACORN 1 there were 10,060 very hot 40C+ days (average 42.5C), and in ACORN 2 there were 9,962 very hot 40C+ days (average 42.4C). From RAW to ACORN 2 this is a 12.2% reduction in days.
At Alice Springs in the Northern Territory from 1910 to 2017 there were 1,526 very hot 40C+ days in RAW (average 41.1C), but in ACORN 1 there were 1,421 very hot 40C+ days (average 41.1C), and in ACORN 2 there were 1,232 very hot 40C+ days (average 41.1C). From RAW to ACORN 2 this is a 19.3% reduction in days.
At Boulia in Queensland from 1910 to 2017 there were 4,889 very hot 40C+ days in RAW (average 41.6C), but in ACORN 1 there were 4,236 very hot 40C+ days (average 41.6C), and in ACORN 2 there were 3,500 very hot 40C+ days (average 41.7C). From RAW to ACORN 2 this is a 28.4% reduction in days.
At Wandering in WA from 1910 to 2017 there were 325 very hot 40C+ days in RAW (average 41.1C), but in ACORN 1 there were 266 very hot 40C+ days (average 41.1C), and in ACORN 2 there were 219 very hot 40C+ days (average 41.2C). From RAW to ACORN 2 this is a 32.6% reduction in days.
The animation above makes clear that the overwhelming bulk of these reduced very hot days in ACORN 2 at these individual stations and at most others was in the first half of the 1900s.
What about the old Fahrenheit “Hotter than 100 days”?
I visited the famous Giles weather station a couple of weeks ago. It’s an ACORN top ranking site, it even has a Met office. Because it so central and so remote the measurements here are used to estimate temperatures across a vast area — indeed, arguably, it’s the most influential site in terms of Australia’s area-averaged temperature. It’s 1,700km drive from Perth (1,000 miles) and the last 800 km of that is dirt road with wild camels. It’s so remote the nearest post box is 340 km away across the state border at Uluru / Ayers Rock.
This could have been the best site in Australia, unaffected by UHI, open since 1956, staffed with professionals.
By the Bureau of Meteorology’s own standards the site is non-compliant.
The screen is surrounded by an extensive area of graded bare gravel, unlike the environment it is supposed to represent, (buffel grass, spinnifex, and low scrub). Bitumen was laid on the road between September 2011 and October 2012 and is less than 30 metres from the screen. 30 metres is exactly how far a [6m wide sealed] surface should be. The bare gravel surface right beside the screen is the main problem.
The BOM knows this of course, in excruciating detail. The road was sealed around 2011. This is all marked up on the BOM site info. Presumably, they’ve “corrected” for the road using sites a thousand kilometers away?
There’s a thousand square kilometers of better spots in every direction.
Giles layout. Bureau of Meteorology, Sites metadata PDF. | Click to enlarge.
The Seattle Public Schools Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee (ESAC) has determined that math is subjective and racist.
In a draft for its Math Ethnic Studies framework, the ESAC writes that Western mathematics is “used to disenfranchise people and communities of color.”
Hammers and drills too. They build mansions for white people. Tools of oppression.
Using the ESAC’s framework, Seattle’s public school students will be able to “construct & decode mathematical knowledge, truth, and beauty” so that they can contribute to their communities.
Just what we need. More people to contribute wokeness and entitlement.
Students will also analyze the ways in which “ancient mathematical knowledge has been appropriated by Western culture,” and “identify how math has been and continues to be used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.”
Six. Seven. Hate. Nine. Let’s ban the number hate!
In 2017, a University of Illinois math professor Rochelle Gutierrez argued in a newly published math education book for teachers that they must be aware of the identity politics surrounding the subject of mathematics.
Right now Gutierrez is oppressing black and asian mathematicians:
“On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness,” she argues with complete sincerity, according to Campus Reform. “Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White.”
Some mathematicians are more equal than others:
Gutierrez also wrote that the importance of math skills in the real world places what she calls an “unearned privilege” for those who are good at it.
Unearned privilege being defined as anyone lucky enough to spend twenty years practicing algebra.
Because most math teachers in the United States are white, white people stand to benefit from their grasp of the subject disproportionate to members of other races.
Is she really saying afro-hispanic-asian people can’t learn maths from white teachers? If I said that, they’d put me in jail.
“Are we really that smart just because we do mathematics?” she asks, raising the question as to why math professors get more grants than “social studies or English” professors.
Indeed. Why do lawyers earn more than maths professors? Why do English professors get paid more than hair dressers? It’s so unfair. We could pay everyone the minimum wage. To quote that great Russian ethnic: “From each according to his ability,…” Did leftist intellectual reasoning start with Karl Marx, or end there?
Shame Prof Gutierrez cant see cultural injustice. People who are good at maths have been oppressed for a hundred thousand years. The Eulers of the iron age were wasted, digging holes and smiting voles. They were denied their cultural identity, mocked for their spear throwing and forced to live in a world without numbers, or even a PDP-11. Now, after 5,000 generations, finally they have a chance to shine.
It’s free world. We won’t expect her to turn up to the national sorry maths day, but Gutierrez can always work on her own culturally inclusive maths, with woke numbers, and use it to design her own unoppressive phone.
Here’s an inconvenient fact: Australia had the highest number of very hot days in 1952, back when CO2 levels were 311ppm and humans had not yet emitted 87% of our carbon dioxide emissions. Something else was causing that extreme heat. If only the modelers knew what it was?
For years the BOM site had this informative graph below, but yesterday Craig Kelly M.P. phoned me to prepare for his Bolt Report appearance and informed me the Bureau had dropped it down the memory hole. It used to be a tab available on their Track climate trends and extremes page. Apparently in this era of global warming, the BoM doesn’t think Australians care about the trends in days over 40C in Australia, or perhaps it didn’t fit the agenda? On the Bolt Report last night Kelly explained that according to the Wayback machine, it disappeared sometime during the election campaign this year. (It was there on March 26th and gone on March 28th.)
There’s not much a of a trend in the average number of very hot days (greater than 40C) each year in Australia. | Source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2016.
Apparently very hot days are defined as the number of “days over 40C” and are obtained by averaging across all stations with sufficiently long data across the country. It uses the all wonderful modern ACORN dataset (v1 in 2016). There were 21 days where the nation averaged “over 40” in 1952. Since then humans have emitted 5/6ths of all the emissions our species has ever produced. The peak in 1952 doesn’t prove CO2 has no effect, but the lack of a meaningful trend across the century highlights how misleading it is for the BOM to claim that extreme heat noise proves we need to reduce CO2. There are so many combinations of heatwaves, hot days, and hottest-ever long weekends that it’s possible for a PR institute to fish for “a record” and find one. A PR institute might also filter for records to forget them. If only the BoM was science based instead.
Pagan witchdoctors instilled fear by pointing at suspicious coincidences and didn’t mention the counter-factuals. Some things never change.
Last night, Craig Kelly talked to Andrew Bolt about the failure of MediaWatch and his concerns about the Bureau of Meteorology.
As Andy Pitman says: “this may not be what you read in newspapers…”Craig Kelly wants to know why MediaWatch have never pulled up the ABC for misleading the public on droughts. That’s what MediaWatch are paid to do, says Kelly. Now that Pitman has made the misunderstanding on droughts and climate change clear, the ABC is mythmaking — actively promoting falsehoods.
But the blame also comes back to Pitman and climate scientists at uni’s, the BoM and the CSIRO. If they are aware the public have a misunderstanding, it’s their duty to correct that. That’s what we pay them for. Where were their press releases?
I speak to Kelly regularly, and he impresses me with his detailed questions — drilling down and checking his sources. He’s determined to hold our scientists to account.
If only more M.P.s took such an interest in climate science and meteorology.
We the undersigned petitioners request the House reconsiders Australia’s commitment to the PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT that was ratified on 9 November 2016 and declared ‘entry into force’ on 9 December 2016. Australia is meeting its emission targets. We contribute approx. 1.5% of global emissions and many eminent scientists advise any changes this nation makes will have little or no effect on the overall global climate. America, the world’s 2nd largest greenhouse gas emitter, has given formal notice to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. China- the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases will SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE their emissions to 2030, and other developing nations have been given a ‘free pass’ under the same agreement. The estimated cost to our nation is $52 billion between 2018 and 2030. This will severely impact Australia economically and socially, with taxpayers funding ‘developing, but fast-growing economic-powerhouses’ such as China and India. The Paris Agreement is not operating as intended, and there is more risk than reward for Australia to remain. We must consider an AUSExit of Paris.
We therefore ask the House to formally advise the UNFCCC of Australia’s intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The first date representation can be made is 3 years from the date of the ‘entry-into-force’ of the agreement. This date is 9 December 2019. Formal removal becomes effective 12 months later.
Sign it. :- )
Please read and confirm you agree with the Terms and Conditions. You must be a resident or citizen of Australia to sign a petition. Current Members of the House of Representatives cannot sign a petition.
See Decision Canada: 170 seats to win, currently projected as Liberals–Trudeau: 156 (down 21 seats), Conservatives–Sheer: 122 (up 26 seats), 5 seats undecided.
Lib: 33.4% Con: 34.25% (as more votes are counted the Conservative vote is rising.)
Called as a minority Liberal govt. Trudeau to stay with support from either the NDP or The Bloc. Canada is divided. The Conservatives won slightly more of the popular vote but it was concentrated in the two oil-rich provinces Alberta and Saskatchewan, so they won fewer seats. In the largest, most populous province – Ontario — the liberals won twice as many seats as the conservatives. The Liberals are the party of the politically correct inner city voters.
Big loser is the NDP (social-democrats) falling from 39 seats to ? 25. Big winner is Bloc Québécois (separatist/centre left) going from 10 seats up to 22.)
In the US, Brexit and Australian elections the pollsters missed the hidden conservative vote. It was so strong some people said they’d vote Labor, but then they voted the other way, and then they left the polling booth and still told exit pollsters they voted for Labor. It wasn’t til the first hour of vote counting that people realized what had really happened.
When a whole side of politics becomes unfashionable, people know what the pollsters want to hear. The Conservative Party led by Andrew Scheer is running on a lower tax, No Carbon Tax platform, so there might be enough there to excite potential hidden voters. But will the voters throw out a one term government? Maybe. The old days of loyalty are over. How much is Canada hurting from political correctness?
According to the Australian ABC the key issues are what the PM wears for overseas trips and what he wore to dress up parties twenty years ago. I feel pretty confident that real Canadians have other concerns.
The news about droughts was banal and obvious, because more water evaporates in a warmer world, and therefore, more rain falls — how could it be any other way? What goes up, must come down. But that quote was very important because it had never been stated so unequivocally by a high ranking believer and modeler. (Thanks to Jim Sternhill for spotting this incendiary and unwittingly honest quote.) Since being posted here, those quotes have been picked up by Maurice Newman, Alan Jones, then Chris Kenny (The Australian editor) and Andrew Bolt — which means the Pitman-drought-admission has become a major headache for the climate machine. Hence, they had to come up with some fogging excuse to muddy up the clarity, and here it is. Pitman forgot one word.
Barry said this “clarification” said Pitman had “left out a crucial word”: that “there is no direct link between climate change and drought”.
“But does global warming lead to changes in rainfall patterns that can lead to drought? Yes. This indirect link is clear … In some regions, this increases the risk of drought, in other regions it decreases the risk.”
As recoveries go, this rates “Good try, but no banana”. Adding just one word leaves open the vague-fortune-teller-type possibility that our car exhausts can indirectly cause droughts — but none of the Global Climate Models can predict regional rainfall reliably, or even unreliably. They can’t even manage to predict the plus or minus sign in precipitation trends. GCM’s are officially up there with coin tosses. So it is a bit (as in, totally) misleading of Pitman to say the indirect link is clear. There’s no definitive evidence that changing CO2 levels has any measurable effect on rainfall patterns at all — if there was, the modelers might have some clue of which regions would get wetter and which wouldn’t, instead of being completely skillless on precipitation. (see Anagnostopolous, 2010 for starters).
Lets not forget what Andy Pitman also said in June:
“…the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.”
Yes, exactly. That’s rather a bomb on the idea that anything might “be clear”. Apparently, even though the forces that drive droughts are a mystery to climate scientists, they “know” that CO2 has a connection somehow, someway. Lo, and Neptune is travelling through the constellation Pisces — causing carp to rain on the GCMs. Expect a mysterious man to steal your heart next month, or perhaps just part of your wallet through your electricity bill.
Meanwhile for people born under The Sun, UNSW is stealing part our inheritance, our tax and sanity with fake science. Enough is enough.
So, you have left out two crucial facts. The first is that there IS a drying trend over the last twenty years. The second is that there is a long-term drying trend in some regions and not in others.
Andrew Bolt called it pathetic deceptive and evasive, pointing out he had put the full quotes on his blog, and that falling rainfall in the last twenty years was irrelevant if there was no trend in the last 100 years, and that even Andy Pitman said that these changes in trends show “how variable Australian rainfall is”.
Today Andrew Bolt has a slide from a Pitman presentation.
…
In the words of Andy Pitman:
“Current science cannot tell us of the sign of the change in future drought.”
Paul Barry has no idea how bad the rainfall predictions are — he’s a lamb to the slaughter. He accuses Bolt of hyping up the Pitman speech:
Paul Barry: Note the emphasis on “admits”, as if he’s known it all along and finally fessed up.
But here’s the thing, that’s absolutely true. The modelers have known all along. A warmer world means more rain.
And all the “evidence” Paul Barry cites are just guesstimates that come from a simulated planet in a galaxy far far away:
Also, if you look at the published research — as Kenny, Jones and Bolt could easily have done — you’ll find any number of climate scientists concluding that global warming is having an effect.
The recent drought in South Africa, for example, in which Cape Town nearly ran out of water, was made three times more likely by climate change, according to researchers led by Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute.
And studies by different researchers of 45 droughts around the world — mapped here by UK website Carbon Brief — have found that 30 were made worse or more likely by human-induced climate change.
So fake evidence from fake planets. And Paul Barry, master journalist of journalists, could have “looked” at the published research too, just as easily as he says Kenny, Bolt, and Jones could have. Obviously he didn’t. Or he could have just googled and found joannenova.com.au and I would have explained for free just how meaningless those modeled calculations of “percentage chances” are when they come from skillless models that even the modelers admit ” don’t understand what causes droughts.”
Might as well ask as astrologer how many droughts were caused by your air conditioner. It’s be better national policy than asking UNSW – it’d have just as much chance of success but be a lot cheaper.
I’ve been pointing out for years how dismal climate modelers are with rainfall, quite possibly because they don’t include solar spectral, magnetic or solar wind variation and solar cycles seem to be linked to rainfall, streamflow, jetstreams, floods and droughts:
[1] Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
Professor Andy Pitman, (2019) Presentation — The SEI forum: Adapting Climate Science for Business, Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.
The Prime Ministers office has announced 
Recent Comments