PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Desmond
22-02-2013, 06:38 AM
First of all that jump around 2003 was found to be nearly statistically impossible. David Stockwell (http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/#more-3180)Say for argument's sake I give you that concession. Do you agree with the warming trend from 1955 to 2002 or so?


Second, no one's doubting the general trend in rising temperatures that are nothing unusual in the planet's history. The thing that is unusual is that the sun does not account for it. Yes my house gets warmer and cooler over the course of 24 hours and that is not unusual, but if it was getting warmer during the night when the sun is not heating it then maybe that is not so usual.


But the downward steps on the escalator are important because it shows warmist models are exaggerated. No it doesn't. Climate changed is measured over multi-decadal periods, and the fact that it's not hotter every single year is a surprise to no one. In fact it is expected and some of the reasons are well known, understood, and predictable such as the SOI (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/soi.shtml). So that gives you noise such as cooling from one year to the next but does not overcome the long-term signal which is warming over many decades.


That is, they almost never predict them. Which means future warming is almost certainly exaggerated.Already dealt with this last week or so.

Patrick Byrom
22-02-2013, 01:24 PM
First of all that jump around 2003 was found to be nearly statistically impossible. David Stockwell (http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/#more-3180)
That is completely wrong, and not what Tisdale is actually saying. All we can conclude is that the two sets of data are not consistent. This could be due to systematic error in the data, but it is also possible that the data is correct, and measuring a significant physical change. Tisdale prefers the first possibility, but he can't eliminate the second just by using statistics.


Second, no one's doubting the general trend in rising temperatures that are nothing unusual in the planet's history. But the downward steps on the escalator are important because it shows warmist models are exaggerated. That is, they almost never predict them. Which means future warming is almost certainly exaggerated.
The temperature rise isn't unusual, but its speed definitely is.
No model can accurately predict every fluctuation in temperature (some fluctuations could be due to measurement errors). What is important is predicting the long term (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/)trend in the data, which climate models do very well.

Patrick Byrom
22-02-2013, 02:16 PM
This means that the climate is vastly more complicated than simply calculating the effects of various laws of physics using models. Which means the planet is not understood to any extent as to establish AGW or even know how its models are worked out.
We don't need any models - a combination of empirical evidence (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm) and basic physics clearly establishes AGW.

To determine that future warming will be a problem, all that's needed is a simple linear regression.

Rincewind
22-02-2013, 10:54 PM
Even taking this on its face doesn't give you what you want. There doesn't appear to be any acceleration in warming since 1930 even though 85% of the CO2 produced has come since 1945.

We're looking at sea-levels and not "warming". There is no necessity for the sea-level to have accelerated post-1930.


Hardly compelling for AGW. An acceleration from 1900 couldn't have come from CO2 since the vast bulk of the output came post 1945.

We are not looking at the acceleration in 1900 what is important is that sea levels continue to rise. Since you believe the ocean is not warming and steric changes are insufficient to account for the rise, this is consistent with the heat content increasing in the ocean.


of sea level change from 2005 - 2012 show just over 1 mm per year growth which is well down from the rate shown by the chart you put up. In other words, sea level rise is decelerating contrary to AGW hyperbole.

If the ocean was cooling (as you claim) then the rate would not have merely decelerated. It would have changed direction. That is sea-levels would have fallen. We do not see a decrease in sea-levels. They continue to rise.


Its bad deduction committed by warmists (Hansen, Trenberth, Willis)

Science is rarely deductive especially in the area of modelling systems. The idea is to make them complex enough to be realistic but simple enough to be mathematically and numerically tractable.


whose models predicted the warming in those 0-700m which means the models are vastly inadequate.

Vastly inadequate? Since you're model would predict a fall in sea-levels I would say they're models had problems but are better than denialist propaganda.


If it was the simple matter of applying Fourier's Law then there wouldn't have been any mistake about the matter which you mention. This means that the climate is vastly more complicated than simply calculating the effects of various laws of physics using models. Which means the planet is not understood to any extent as to establish AGW or even know how its models are worked out.

I used Fourier's law as a metaphor (for physics in general) in that last post. Climate systems are complex but not beyond understanding. All the physics is well understood despite the complex interplay between components of the whole climate system. In principle a model which sufficiently captures the important physics is not beyond present understanding.

Damodevo
23-02-2013, 12:45 AM
We're looking at sea-levels and not "warming". There is no necessity for the sea-level to have accelerated post-1930.

We are not looking at the acceleration in 1900 what is important is that sea levels continue to rise. Since you believe the ocean is not warming and steric changes are insufficient to account for the rise, this is consistent with the heat content increasing in the ocean.

Which warmist/warmist model says this? The 4th assessment says


Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from th3 19th to the 20th century, the total 20th-century rise is estimated to be 0.17 [0.12 to 0.22] m.



If the ocean was cooling (as you claim) then the rate would not have merely decelerated. It would have changed direction. That is sea-levels would have fallen. We do not see a decrease in sea-levels. They continue to rise.

Where did I say there is cooling? I accept there has been some modest rise in temperature, probably mostly due to natural causes. I just don't accept there has been enough of a rise in warming or sea levels to validate IPCC models.



Vastly inadequate? Since you're model would predict a fall in sea-levels I would say they're models had problems but are better than denialist propaganda.

I haven't given a model. I think there is a vast interplay of natural and man made factors influencing the climate although the former is probably vastly more consequential.

Damodevo
23-02-2013, 12:56 AM
No it doesn't. Climate changed is measured over multi-decadal periods, and the fact that it's not hotter every single year is a surprise to no one. In fact it is expected and some of the reasons are well known, understood, and predictable such as the SOI (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/soi.shtml). So that gives you noise such as cooling from one year to the next but does not overcome the long-term signal which is warming over many decades.

We are not talking about a single year but 17, as Rajendra Pachauri has admitted. But many warmists and warmist models (http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1) said 16/17 years of no warming was needed to present a problem

Rincewind
23-02-2013, 01:43 AM
Which warmist/warmist model says this?

It is not a modelling issue it is a physics issue. If the volume of the ocean increases this is due to either more water, more heat or change in density. As the first and third don't account for the increases then it is most likely more heat. If that heat is not in the 0-700m zone it must be further down.


Where did I say there is cooling? I accept there has been some modest rise in temperature, probably mostly due to natural causes. I just don't accept there has been enough of a rise in warming or sea levels to validate IPCC models.

Really? A couple of week ago you claimed "no warming since 2003".


I haven't given a model. I think there is a vast interplay of natural and man made factors influencing the climate although the former is probably vastly more consequential.

Your statement of no warming of oceans since 2003 would imply the only changes to sea levels would be due to more water or density changes. So your hypothesis (that the oceans are not warming or indeed cooling based on a naive analysis of ARGO data) would predict no change to sea levels. Since that hasn't happened, that's a fail for your model.

Damodevo
23-02-2013, 04:06 AM
It is not a modelling issue it is a physics issue. If the volume of the ocean increases this is due to either more water, more heat or change in density. As the first and third don't account for the increases then it is most likely more heat. If that heat is not in the 0-700m zone it must be further down.

False dilemma. You're leaving out underground aquifers (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_scientists_say_they_have_solved_riddle_of_ rising_sea_999.html#) which may account for nearly half of all rising sea levels.




Really? A couple of week ago you claimed "no warming since 2003".

Please tell me how "no warming since 2003" is logically equivalent to 'cooling'? The trend seams to be that there are pauses in the warming which isn't the same as cooling. But overall there has been some modest warming since we came out of the LIA a couple of centuries ago.


Your statement of no warming of oceans since 2003 would imply the only changes to sea levels would be due to more water or density changes. So your hypothesis (that the oceans are not warming or indeed cooling based on a naive analysis of ARGO data) would predict no change to sea levels. Since that hasn't happened, that's a fail for your model.

So since you think warming is accelerating and CO2 is the main driver then how does your model explain the lack of acceleration in sea level? If the warming is stored in the deep oceans then we should be seeing an accelerating of thermal expansion which we are not.

Damodevo
23-02-2013, 04:27 AM
The flat-lining of temps over the last 17 years are in contradiction to warming models from 1990 which means the models' projections to the end of the 21st century are greatly exaggerated.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/ipcc-1990-2012-temperature-models-reality-a.gif

Desmond
23-02-2013, 05:55 AM
We are not talking about a single year but 17, Actually we were talking about your 2003-2009 figures, but if you want to abandon that discussion (well, at least for a week or 2, and then go back to square 1 with the discussion) I can't say I'd blame you.

Rincewind
23-02-2013, 09:16 AM
False dilemma. You're leaving out underground aquifers (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_scientists_say_they_have_solved_riddle_of_ rising_sea_999.html#) which may account for nearly half of all rising sea levels.

I said "...either more water..." which would include factors like land-ice melts and aquifers. Secondly "may account for half" is quite a weak statement as that sounds like a upper estimate and a more likely estimate is not even half and so you are back to square one: aquifers aren't the answer.


Please tell me how "no warming since 2003" is logically equivalent to 'cooling'? The trend seams to be that there are pauses in the warming which isn't the same as cooling. But overall there has been some modest warming since we came out of the LIA a couple of centuries ago.

You should try to concentrate that we are discussing ocean heat (as measured by the ARGO system and other systems) and not surface temperature or anything else. Over the course of the discussion you have posted a couple of graphs which show a cooling in the 0-700m layer based on ARGO data and claimed this undermined the fundamental viability of AGW.


So since you think warming is accelerating and CO2 is the main driver then how does your model explain the lack of acceleration in sea level?

I don't remember saying that?


If the warming is stored in the deep oceans then we should be seeing an accelerating of thermal expansion which we are not.

No. Thermal expansion (especially in seawater) is nonlinear and so you can't say that without knowing more about where in the ocean the heat is going, its temperature and salinity.

Desmond
23-02-2013, 06:16 PM
B11kASPfYxY

Ian Murray
02-03-2013, 08:18 AM
Hot summer? Yes: the hottest (http://theconversation.edu.au/hot-summer-yes-the-hottest-12505?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Weekend+Conversation&utm_content=The+Weekend+Conversation+CID_ef97cf836 a70786ffc4ed3eb0f83bf30&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Hot%20summer%20Yes%20the%20hottest)
Blair Trewin
Climatologist, National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Karl Braganza
Manager, Climate Monitoring Section, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
The Conversation
1.3.13


This summer hasn’t just felt hot. It’s been hot. In fact, the summer of 2012-13 is now the hottest on record. Average temperatures beat the record set in the summer of 1997-98, and daytime maximum temperatures knocked over the 1982-83 record. January 2013 has been the hottest month since records began in 1910....

When it comes to climate change, there is often confusion as to when one should consider a particular meteorological event to be “just weather” or something more significant in a climatological context.

In general, the individual weather and climate events that scientists consider most significant are those that are both at the extremes of — or beyond — our historical experience, and consistent with quantifiable trends.

In that context, the summer of 2012-13 has had it all.

As far as day-to-day weather goes, numerous individual locations in Australia set daytime records for extreme heat. As far as regional averages go, records were also set for the hottest daytime temperatures averaged over the whole of Australia....

Six of the hottest ten summers on record have occurred this century, and only two occurred before 1990.

Australia has warmed by nearly a degree Celsius since 1910. This is consistent with warming observed in the global atmosphere and oceans. And it’s going to keep getting hotter. Over the next century, the world will likely warm by a further 2 to 5 degrees, depending on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere....

Ian Murray
04-03-2013, 09:19 AM
Released today: The Angry Summer (http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-angry-summer/)
The Climate Commission


Key facts:

The Australian summer over 2012 and 2013 has been defined by extreme weather events across much of the continent, including record-breaking heat, severe bushfires, extreme rainfall and damaging flooding. Extreme heatwaves and catastrophic bushfire conditions during the Angry Summer were made worse by climate change.

All weather, including extreme weather events is influenced by climate change. All extreme weather events are now occurring in a climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago. This influences the nature, impact and intensity of extreme weather events.

Australia’s Angry Summer shows that climate change is already adversely affecting Australians. The significant impacts of extreme weather on people, property, communities and the environment highlight the serious consequences of failing to adequately address climate change.

It is highly likely that extreme hot weather will become even more frequent and severe in Australia and around the globe, over the coming decades. The decisions we make this decade will largely determine the severity of climate change and its influence on extreme events for our grandchildren.

It is critical that we are aware of the influence of climate change on many types of extreme weather so that communities, emergency services and governments prepare for the risk of increasingly severe and frequent extreme weather.

Rincewind
09-03-2013, 10:35 AM
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

Abstract: Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

Science 8 March 2013:
Vol. 339 no. 6124 pp. 1198-1201
DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1228026)

Editor's Summary...

Exceptional Now

The climate has been warming since the industrial revolution, but how warm is climate now compared with the rest of the Holocene? Marcott et al. (p. 1198) constructed a record of global mean surface temperature for more than the last 11,000 years, using a variety of land- and marine-based proxy data from all around the world. The pattern of temperatures shows a rise as the world emerged from the last deglaciation, warm conditions until the middle of the Holocene, and a cooling trend over the next 5000 years that culminated around 200 years ago in the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have risen steadily since then, leaving us now with a global temperature higher than those during 90% of the entire Holocene.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2013, 05:01 PM
Earth Hour Is a Colossal Waste of Time—and Energy (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/03/earth_hour_is_all_wrong_we_need_more_electricity_n ot_less.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_toolbar)
Plus, it ignores how electricity has been a boon for humanity.
By Bjørn Lomborg, slate.com, 17 March 2013


Earth Hour teaches us that tackling global warming is easy. Yet, by switching off the lights, all we are doing is making it harder to see.
Notice that you have not been asked to switch off anything really inconvenient, like your heating or air-conditioning, television, computer, mobile phone, or any of the myriad technologies that depend on affordable, plentiful energy electricity and make modern life possible. If switching off the lights for one hour per year really were beneficial, why would we not do it for the other 8,759?
Hypothetically, switching off the lights for an hour would cut CO2 emissions from power plants around the world. But, even if everyone in the entire world cut all residential lighting, and this translated entirely into CO2 reduction, it would be the equivalent of China pausing its CO2 emissions for less than four minutes. In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2013, 05:02 PM
Earth Hour Is a Colossal Waste of Time—and Energy (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/03/earth_hour_is_all_wrong_we_need_more_electricity_n ot_less.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_toolbar)
Plus, it ignores how electricity has been a boon for humanity.
By Bjørn Lomborg, slate.com, 17 March 2013

continued

And the cozy candles that many participants will light, which seem so natural and environmentally friendly, are still fossil fuels—and almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs. Using one candle for each switched-off bulb cancels out even the theoretical CO2 reduction; using two candles means that you emit more CO2.
Electricity has given humanity huge benefits. Almost 3 billion people still burn dung, twigs, and other traditional fuels indoors to cook and keep warm, generating noxious fumes that kill an estimated 2 million people each year, mostly women and children. Likewise, just 100 years ago, the average American family spent six hours each week during cold months shoveling six tons of coal into the furnace (not to mention cleaning the coal dust from carpets, furniture, curtains, and bedclothes). In the developed world today, electric stoves and heaters have banished indoor air pollution.

antichrist
23-03-2013, 05:37 PM
well Jono what about those candles they burn in that symbolic Jewish candle stick affair holding about 7 candles - should we bar them on pollution grounds and force them to use electricity

In the catholic church they burn a candle whenever Jesus is in the church, tablernacle to be exact, they have burning candle for 2,000 years this was in every catholic church in the world, imagine all the pollution this is causing

god could correct all these problems by just changing laws of physics to that the earth temp stays the same in spite of industrial revolution, the Jewish and Catholic religions owe it to rest of the world either petition god to change law of physics or to desist from burning candles in their churchs and synogues

Ian Murray
23-03-2013, 08:50 PM
About Earth Day Network (http://edu.earthday.org/about-earth-day-network)


The first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, activated 20 million Americans from all walks of life and is widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement. The passage of the landmark Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and many other groundbreaking environmental laws soon followed. Growing out of the first Earth Day, Earth Day Network (EDN) works with over 22,000 partners in 192 countries to broaden, diversify and mobilize the environmental movement. More than 1 billion people now participate in Earth Day activities each year, making it the largest civic observance in the world.

But Earth Day Network does not stop there.

All of EDN’s activities, whether greening schools or promoting green economic policies at home and abroad, inform and energize populations so they will act to secure a healthy future for themselves and their children. With its partner organizations, EDN provides civic engagement opportunities at the local, state, national and global levels. At every turn, EDN works to broaden the definition of "environment" to include all issues that affect our health, our communities and our environment, such as greening deteriorated schools, creating green jobs and investment, and promoting activism to stop air and water pollution.

Over the last 40 years, EDN has executed successful environmental campaigns on issues ranging from climate change and drinking water to voter registration and saving the whale. EDN is a recognized leader in creating civically–oriented innovative programs with partners outside of the environmental movement to tackle new challenges. Our core programs today focus on:

Greening Schools and Promoting Environmental Education ...
Accelerating the Global Green Economy...
A Billion Acts of Green®...

That's what Earth Day is all about. By fixating on light bulbs and candles, Jono can't see the forest for the trees.

Ian Murray
24-03-2013, 12:32 PM
The missing link to renewable energy (http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energ y.html) (Video)

What's the key to using alternative energy, like solar and wind? Storage - so we can have power on tap even when the sun's not out and the wind's not blowing. In this accessible, inspiring talk, Donald Sadoway takes to the blackboard to show us the future of large-scale batteries that store renewable energy. As he says: "We need to think about the problem differently. We need to think big. We need to think cheap."

At MIT, Donald Sadoway has been working on a grid-size battery system that stores energy using a three-layer liquid-metal core. With help from fans like Bill Gates, Sadoway and two of his students have spun off the Liquid Metals Battery Corporation (LMBC) to bring the battery to market.

“If we're going to get this country out of its current energy situation, we can't just conserve our way out. We can't just drill our way out. We can't bomb our way out. We're going to do it the old-fashioned, American way. We're going to invent our way out, working together.”

“The liquid metal battery story is more than an account of inventing technology. It's a blueprint for inventing inventors.”

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2013, 11:06 AM
It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html)
No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive
Fraser Nelson, Telegraph, 28 Mar 2013


Since Sir David’s exhortations, some 250,000 Brits have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. It is horribly clear that we have been focusing on the wrong enemy. Instead of making sure energy was affordable, ministers have been trying to make it more expensive, with carbon price floors and emissions trading schemes. Fuel prices have doubled over seven years, forcing millions to choose between heat and food—and government has found itself a major part of the problem.

This is slowly beginning to dawn on Ed Davey, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. He has tried to point the finger at energy companies, but his own department let the truth slip out in the small print of a report released on Wednesday. The average annual fuel bill is expected to have risen by £76 by 2020, it says. But take out Davey’s hidden taxes (carbon price floor, emissions trading scheme, etc) and we’d be paying an average £123 less. His department has been trying to make homes cheaper to heat, and in a saner world this would be his only remit: to secure not the greenest energy, but the most affordable energy.

By now, the Energy Secretary will also have realised another inconvenient truth—that, for Britain, global warming is likely to save far more lives then it threatens. Delve deep enough into the Government’s forecasts, and they speculate that global warming will lead to 6,000 fewer deaths a year, on average, by the end of the decade. This is the supposed threat facing us: children would be less likely to have snow to play in at Christmas, but more likely to have grandparents to visit over Easter. Not a bad trade-off. The greatest uncertainty is whether global warming, which has stalled since 1998, will arrive quickly enough to make a difference.

No one would wear a wristband or pin on a ribbon for the elderly victims of the cold—and yet freezing weather kills more than diabetes or breast cancer. The cause of death is perhaps too familiar, and the remedy too obvious, to attract much attention. If the money for winter fuel payments was instead used to help insulate homes, we might—like Norway—be able to joke about winter. As things stand, dying of the cold remains a horribly British disease.

Desmond
01-04-2013, 06:59 PM
It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html)

It's not bad (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm)

Health

Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps (Medina-Ramon 2007)
Increased heat stress in humans and other mammals (Sherwood 2010)
Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever (Epstein 1998)
Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen (Rogers 2006)

Damodevo
03-04-2013, 08:22 AM
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/marchmm_thumb.png

MARCH UPDATE: Still no warming.

antichrist
03-04-2013, 10:18 AM
as far as dipping one's toe in the water is concerned, a number of low lying islands claim, with TV footage, that the ocean is creeping up hundreds of metres more inland and reaching buildings etc. and ruining crops. They claim never like this before. ARe they grossly lying?

Ian Murray
06-04-2013, 10:42 AM
MARCH UPDATE: Still no warming.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but Australia just had its hottest summer ever. USA had its hottest year ever in 2012 (in fact no American under 35 has experienced a below-average year).

Davidflude
06-04-2013, 12:16 PM
If global warming disrupts the gulf stream then Europe will freeze especially Ireland, Scotland and Norway.

Siberian winters for Scotland.

Damodevo
07-04-2013, 10:41 AM
Perhaps you didn't notice, but Australia just had its hottest summer ever. USA had its hottest year ever in 2012 (in fact no American under 35 has experienced a below-average year).

In case you didn't notice but the actual satellite data says that temps have been unremarkable and warming ceased 17 years ago (some say 23).

Damodevo
07-04-2013, 10:48 AM
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled


Research (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980) by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Rincewind
07-04-2013, 12:36 PM
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

I hope David Whitehouse and the (anti-) Global Warming Policy Foundation weren't the "scientist" you intended. It is silly to look at short term trends and then claim them as evidence of a cessation of warming.

antichrist
07-04-2013, 12:52 PM
I hope David Whitehouse and the (anti-) Global Warming Policy Foundation weren't the "scientist" you intended. It is silly to look at short term trends and then claim them as evidence of a cessation of warming.

I would be like going from Melbourne to Cairns but a diversion on the Pacific Highway at Hexham bridge takes you a bit south onto the New England HIghtway, or the old Pacific Highway at the Burringbar Ranges after Mooball going through loops and bends, zigzagging around the mountains - it is insignificant in the long run.

Or like in chess how you try real hard and get an advantage, take your foot off the peddle and the opponent gains a bit but not catches up, but then apply yourself again and shoot further ahead. It is the endgame that counts.

In the Philippines dams are becoming redundant due to excessive flooding. They are becoming flooded as before the dams existed.

Desmond
10-04-2013, 08:27 PM
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

.
I like it how he calls you the skeptical fringe. By the way if you need a re-cap on what has already been explained to you why your line is wrong, have a read:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Ian Murray
13-04-2013, 05:34 PM
In case you didn't notice but the actual satellite data says that temps have been unremarkable and warming ceased 17 years ago (some say 23).
How do you reconcile those alleged findings with the inescapable fact that record high temperatures are now being recorded on a regular basis, as expected with climate change?

Patrick Byrom
13-04-2013, 11:09 PM
How do you reconcile those alleged findings with the inescapable fact that record high temperatures are now being recorded on a regular basis, as expected with climate change?
Not to mention all the other physical evidence (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/#more-6530)that points to warming?

Damodevo
13-04-2013, 11:41 PM
How do you reconcile those alleged findings with the inescapable fact that record high temperatures are now being recorded on a regular basis, as expected with climate change?

Record high by 0.7 degree on average over the last 100 years. But over the last 5000 years they are not record highs. We are yet to hit the highs of the MWP and RWP.

Damodevo
13-04-2013, 11:45 PM
Evidence of a Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica


Was (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/evidence_of_a_medieval_warm_period_in_antarctica.h tml) there a Medieval Warm Period somewhere in the world in addition to the area surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean, where its occurrence is uncontested? This question is of utmost importance to the ongoing global warming debate, for if the Medieval Warm Period is found to have been a global climatic phenomenon, and if the locations where it occurred were as warm in medieval times as they are currently, there is no need to consider the temperature increase of the past century as anything other than the natural progression of the persistent millennial-scale oscillation of climate that regularly brings the earth several-hundred-year periods of modestly higher and lower temperatures that are totally independent of variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Consequently, we here review the findings of several studies that have found evidence for the Medieval Warm Period in a region that is as far away from lands bordering on the North Atlantic Ocean as one could possibly get, i.e., Antarctica.

Rincewind
14-04-2013, 12:51 AM
Let me know when the ``report'' has been through peer-review.

Desmond
14-04-2013, 07:16 AM
Record high by 0.7 degree on average over the last 100 years. But over the last 5000 years they are not record highs. We are yet to hit the highs of the MWP and RWP.Record high means highest on record. Our records do not go back 5,000 years.

Ian Murray
14-04-2013, 02:10 PM
How The Economist got it wrong
(http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/12/3735095.htm)
Dana Nuccitelli and Michael E. Mann
10.4.13


THE ECONOMIST recently published a lengthy article about Earth's climate sensitivity — how much the planet's surface will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles relative to pre-industrial levels (something that will happen in a matter of decades if we continue with business-as-usual fossil fuel burning).

While we are pleased that The Economist brought attention to this important topic, we were disappointed by the shortcomings and inaccuracies in the piece with regard to the current state of scientific understanding.

The article focused heavily on claims that the slowed warming of Earth's surface in recent years implies a dramatically lowered estimate of climate sensitivity. The claim was primarily supported by a single as-yet unpublished article by a group in Norway, which attempts to use instrumental temperature evidence available back through the late 19th century to estimate the climate sensitivity. The authors of that article conclude that use of data to the year 2000 yields a climate sensitivity of 3.9°C, which is at the high end of the generally accepted 2 to 4.5°C range. Yet they find that by including just an additional decade of data (i.e. using observations available through 2010), the estimate falls by nearly half, to 1.9°C.

It should be a red flag that an estimate of climate sensitivity would change by a factor of two based only on the addition of a decade of data. In reality, the climate sensitivity now is not half what it was a decade ago. So where did the Norwegian study go wrong?....

antichrist
14-04-2013, 09:24 PM
Record high means highest on record. Our records do not go back 5,000 years.

but are there records in nature - they seem to find a time line for everything

could be found in algae or ice or rainforests maybe

did the pyramid labourers get penalty rates for heat

Ian Murray
15-04-2013, 05:15 PM
but are there records in nature - they seem to find a time line for everything

could be found in algae or ice or rainforests maybe
Even as you speak, Antarctic ice core drilling has revealed a 1000% increase in summer ice melt over the last 600 years, mostly over the last 50 years.

10-Fold increase in Antarctic Peninsula summer ice-melt (http://news.anu.edu.au/2013/04/15/10-fold-increase-in-antarctic-peninsula-summer-ice-melt/)
ANU News
15.4.13


...“Summer melting at the ice core site is now at a level that is higher than at any other time over the last 1,000 years,” says lead author, Dr Nerilie Abram of the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences and British Antarctic Survey.

Visible layers in the ice core indicated periods when summer snow on the ice cap thawed and then refroze. By measuring the thickness of these melt layers, the scientists were able to examine how the history of melting compared with changes in temperature at the ice core site over the last 1,000 years.

“We found that the coolest conditions on the Antarctic Peninsula and the lowest amount of summer melt occurred around 600 years ago,” said Dr Abram....

“Whilst temperatures at this site increased gradually in phases over many hundreds of years, most of the intensification of melting has happened since the mid-20th century.”...

Damodevo
17-04-2013, 03:11 PM
Even as you speak, Antarctic ice core drilling has revealed a 1000% increase in summer ice melt over the last 600 years, mostly over the last 50 years.

10-Fold increase in Antarctic Peninsula summer ice-melt (http://news.anu.edu.au/2013/04/15/10-fold-increase-in-antarctic-peninsula-summer-ice-melt/)
ANU News
15.4.13


...“Summer melting at the ice core site is now at a level that is higher than at any other time over the last 1,000 years,” says lead author, Dr Nerilie Abram of the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences and British Antarctic Survey.

Visible layers in the ice core indicated periods when summer snow on the ice cap thawed and then refroze. By measuring the thickness of these melt layers, the scientists were able to examine how the history of melting compared with changes in temperature at the ice core site over the last 1,000 years.

“We found that the coolest conditions on the Antarctic Peninsula and the lowest amount of summer melt occurred around 600 years ago,” said Dr Abram....

“Whilst temperatures at this site increased gradually in phases over many hundreds of years, most of the intensification of melting has happened since the mid-20th century.”...

First of all, this is measuring only one core sample in one section of Antarctica as the article admits the story is more complex for other areas. Second, no conclusion is drawn as to the trend in total ice mass is reducing. Third, they don't draw any conclusions as to the cause of the increase in melting. Fourth, here is a more extensive 67 core sample spread throughout Antarctica that shows nothing unusual about the current Surface Mass Balance (SMB) that has increased 10% since the 1960's

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/antarctic/Antarctic-ice-balance-A-web.gif

Rincewind
17-04-2013, 05:44 PM
First of all, this is measuring only one core sample in one section of Antarctica as the article admits the story is more complex for other areas.

First of all this was about collecting and measuring the ice core. While in theory they could have collected and measured more ice cores it would be at least as expensive again as the work carried out so far. Interesting though it did provide new data about the area where the core was taken including the recent trend of extensive icemelts.


Second, no conclusion is drawn as to the trend in total ice mass is reducing.

No that's right. Did it say that it ought to?


Third, they don't draw any conclusions as to the cause of the increase in melting.

Again this was to do with taking a ice core and analysing it. The analysis shows a massive recent increase in the summer ice melt at that site. That is the finding. They were principally generating measurements.


Fourth, here is a more extensive 67 core sample spread throughout Antarctica that shows nothing unusual about the current Surface Mass Balance (SMB) that has increased 10% since the 1960's

The SMB is supposed to increase in a warming climate so no surprises there. That does not mean the massive summer ice melts on the peninsula are nothing to worry about.

Damodevo
17-04-2013, 11:47 PM
The SMB is supposed to increase in a warming climate so no surprises there. That does not mean the massive summer ice melts on the peninsula are nothing to worry about.

The point is that as the chart attests there is nothing unique in the last 50 years in the overall pattern of Antarctic ice extent.

Rincewind
18-04-2013, 12:01 AM
The point is that as the chart attests there is nothing unique in the last 50 years in the overall pattern of Antarctic ice extent.

If you say so. However the scale of summer ice melt on the peninsula is unusual and recent.

Desmond
18-04-2013, 07:38 AM
The point is that as the chart attests there is nothing unique in the last 50 years in the overall pattern of Antarctic ice extent.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticEscalatorv2.gif

Saragossa
01-05-2013, 01:52 PM
http://www.futurity.org/earth-environment/global-warm-up-not-seen-in-last-1400-years/

Damodevo
05-05-2013, 07:44 AM
Emissions debate heats up while experts warn of a coming ice age


In Russia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/emissions-debate-heats-up-while-experts-warn-of-a-coming-ice-age/story-e6frg6xf-1226634874185), one of the world’s leading solar physicists, Habibullo Abdussamatov, says the planet is well on the way to another deep freeze. Abdussamatov is the head of space research at the Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St Petersburg, and director of the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

In an interview with Principia Scientific International, Abdussamatov said results of research from the ISS had indicated a decline in total solar irradiance, which was having a dramatic effect on the global climate.

Data indicated the onset of a mini ice age.

The view from Russia is that solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions, has driven global temperatures. Abdussamatov ... said the lack of any warming for the past 17 years was a result of the decline of the total solar irradiance…

Abdussamatov said a new “little ice age” would start this or next year and hit a low around 2040, with a deep freeze that would last for the rest of the century.

Desmond
05-05-2013, 07:48 AM
The point is that as the chart attests there is nothing unique in the last 50 years in the overall pattern of Antarctic ice extent.

WMO Annual Climate Statement Confirms 2012 as Among Top Ten Warmest Years (http://www.skepticalscience.com/2012-Among-Top-Ten-Warmest-Years_WMO.html)


The World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate says that 2012 joined the ten previous years as one of the warmest — at ninth place — on record despite the cooling influence of a La Niña episode early in the year.
...
Above-average temperatures were observed during 2012 across most of the globe’s land surface areas...

Greenland ice sheet: In early July, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted dramatically, with an estimated 97 per cent of the ice sheet surface having thawed in mid-July. This was the largest melt extent since satellite records began 34 years ago. ...

Arctic sea ice extent reached its record lowest level in its annual cycle on 16 September at 3.41 million km2. This value broke the previous record low set on 18 September 2007 by 18 per cent. It was 49 per cent or nearly 3.3 million km2 below the 1979–2000 average minimum. The difference between the maximum Arctic sea-ice extent on 20 March and the lowest minimum extent on 16 September was 11.83 million km2 – the largest seasonal sea-ice extent loss in the 34-year satellite record. ...

Climate change is aggravating naturally occurring climate variability and has become a source of uncertainty for climate-sensitive economic sectors like agriculture and energy. ...

Ian Murray
05-05-2013, 09:50 PM
Watch the movie leading into Bill McKibben's Do the Maths Australian tour next month.

IsIfokifwSo

Then add your voice to the groundswell (http://350.org/en/about/blogs/get-ready-australian-coal-show-down).

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2013, 12:31 AM
Emissions debate heats up while experts warn of a coming ice age
As the alarm-mongers warned in the mid 1970s. People like IM/LE were probably in the forefront, since many ice-age mongers of that time became warm-mongers later. One of them was the late Stephen Schneider (http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=108), who said:

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

Rincewind
06-05-2013, 01:11 AM
Lest people become confused by Jono typical quote-mining, I suggest looking at the link in Jono's post which shows Schneider's quote in some context. Obviously it was a comment on Science's relationship with the mainstream media and has nothing to do with how scientists approach doing the science (i.e. generating new knowledge) and reporting of their results in science journals, etc. Of course the blog author (a non-scientist journalist) misses this nuance, but at least he has a reasonable amount text so that a reader can judge the context of the quote for themselves.

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2013, 01:45 AM
Lest people become confused by Jono typical quote-mining, I suggest looking at the link in Jono's post which shows Schneider's quote in some context. Obviously it was a comment on Science's relationship with the mainstream media and has nothing to do with how scientists approach doing the science (i.e. generating new knowledge) and reporting of their results in science journals, etc. Of course the blog author (a non-scientist journalist) misses this nuance, but at least he has a reasonable amount text so that a reader can judge the context of the quote for themselves.
Fine. I'm happy to quote more. But then your fellow warm-mongering leftatheopath Pax has whinged that I quote too much. There's no pleasing some people:


Climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider died this week. Although he was one of the leading promoters of climate change fears (in the 1970s he warned against global cooling[1], more recently against global warming), Schneider could also be remarkably candid about what was going on behind the scenes of what is supposed to be a “settled” science.

He is famous for noting that climate scientists will exaggerate if the truth isn’t “scary” enough:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.[2]

Is climate science based on "overwhelming" empirical evidence, as the public is told? Not if you believe Schneider, who wrote: "Computer modeling is our only available tool to perform what-if experiments such as the human impact on the future."[3] In other words, climate science is only as good as its models, models that weren’t accurate enough to predict the non-warming of the past 10 years.

It was Schneider who noted during a debate with Bjorn Lomborg that, in climate science, “We end up with [I]a maddening degree of uncertainty. We end up with scenarios which, if we’re lucky, give us mild outcomes and we end up with scenarios that, if we’re unlucky, give us catastrophic outcomes.”[4]

In a similar vein, Schneider wrote in [I]Scientific American as part of an attack on Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist: “Uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes.”[5] [italics added]

A “maddening degree of uncertainty”? “Impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes”? “Infused with uncertainties”? But isn’t the public told the science on climate change is settled, certain, beyond question, and that we’re heading for catastrophe?

Or are we being bombarded by “scary scenarios” that exist only in computer models?

Based on Schneider’s own words, the answer is obvious.

Rincewind
06-05-2013, 01:57 AM
I'm afraid it is just another case of Paul MacRae not understanding the climate science (and person he is quoting) and mistakenly thinking it furthers his thesis of a world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists making stuff up.

Further to the main quote he also takes a quote about computer modelling being our "only tool to perform what-if experiments" and confuses that with the only source of empirical evidence. Of course we have piles of empirical evidence that do not come from computer models.

While science remains necessarily tentative and climate prediction remains to a degree, uncertain, it does not follow that the rational approach is to allow the uncheck emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2013, 02:27 AM
While science remains necessarily tentative and climate prediction remains to a degree, uncertain, it does not follow that the rational approach is to allow the uncheck emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Once again. the usual false dichotomy fallacy of leftard warm-mongers: either unchecked emissions or consenting to all the hyper-regulation and taxation that the leftards want. However, the free market has been the best thing for the environment; communists had atrocious environmental records. The inventiveness fostered by the free enterprise system has led to increased efficiency power generation, which means less fossil fuel needed for a given electrical power output. Some of the newer ‘combined cycle’ power plants reach 60% efficiency: burning gas drives a turbine (Brayton Cycle), and the heat of the exhaust powers a Rankine Cycle steam engine. But government interference has wasted billions on trying to use diffuse energy sources like solar and wind power.

Ian Murray
06-05-2013, 07:46 AM
...While science remains necessarily tentative and climate prediction remains to a degree, uncertain, it does not follow that the rational approach is to allow the uncheck emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Climate prediction could only become a certainty if scientists could replicate climate in the laboratory and observe the results. To do so would require two planets earth, one as a control and one with introduced variables, so the effects could be observed and compared. There are logistical problems in creating such a laboratory, so climate scientists must be content with the degrees of likelihood derived from computer modelling. However 'uncertainty' in the scientific sense does not mean doubt in the vernacular sense.

Rincewind
06-05-2013, 11:14 AM
Once again. the usual false dichotomy fallacy of leftard warm-mongers: either unchecked emissions or consenting to all the hyper-regulation and taxation that the leftards want. However, the free market has been the best thing for the environment; communists had atrocious environmental records. The inventiveness fostered by the free enterprise system has led to increased efficiency power generation, which means less fossil fuel needed for a given electrical power output. Some of the newer ‘combined cycle’ power plants reach 60% efficiency: burning gas drives a turbine (Brayton Cycle), and the heat of the exhaust powers a Rankine Cycle steam engine. But government interference has wasted billions on trying to use diffuse energy sources like solar and wind power.

If you really want a free market then surely a price on CO2 emissions is required. After all the by-products of all other industrial processes involve a cost for disposal. By not taxing CO2 emissions we have be historically keeping the price of fossil fuels artificially low. The net effect has been to hamper the development of viable alternatives and drive up the emission of CO2 to dangerous levels.

Ian Murray
06-05-2013, 10:03 PM
If you really want a free market then surely a price on CO2 emissions is required. After all the by-products of all other industrial processes involve a cost for disposal. By not taxing CO2 emissions we have be historically keeping the price of fossil fuels artificially low. The net effect has been to hamper the development of viable alternatives and drive up the emission of CO2 to dangerous levels.
Quite so. The 'free market' is not remotely free when it comes to propping up fossil fuel producers and emitters with government grants and subsidies:


...Taking all new developments and policies into account, the world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path.
Global energy demand grows by more than one-third over the period to 2035 in the New Policies Scenario (our central scenario), with China, India and the Middle East accounting for 60% of the increase. Energy demand barely rises in OECD countries, although there is a pronounced shift away from oil, coal (and, in some countries, nuclear) towards natural gas and renewables. Despite the growth in low-carbon sources of energy, fossil fuels remain dominant in the global energy mix, supported by subsidies that amounted to $523 billion in 2011, up almost 30% on 2010 and six times more than subsidies to renewables. The cost of fossil-fuel subsidies has been driven up by higher oil prices; they remain most prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa, where momentum towards their reform appears to have been lost. Emissions in the New Policies Scenario correspond to a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6°C....
World Energy Outlook 2012 (http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf#page=3), International Energy Agency

Damodevo
07-05-2013, 03:37 AM
If you really want a free market then surely a price on CO2 emissions is required. After all the by-products of all other industrial processes involve a cost for disposal.

First of all, what 'cost of disposal'? Are you referring to the greening of the planet that increased CO2 has caused?


Matt Ridley (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/14/a-must-watch-greening-the-planet-dr-matt-ridley/), author of The Red Queen, Genome, The Rational Optimist and other books, dropped by Reason’s studio in Los Angeles last month to talk about a curious global trend that is just starting to receive attention. Over the past three decades, our planet has gotten greener!

Even stranger, the greening of the planet in recent decades appears to be happening because of, not despite, our reliance on fossil fuels. While environmentalists often talk about how bad stuff like CO2 causes bad things to happen like global warming, it turns out that the plants aren’t complaining.


By not taxing CO2 emissions we have be historically keeping the price of fossil fuels artificially low. The net effect has been to hamper the development of viable alternatives and drive up the emission of CO2 to dangerous levels.

But you don't seem to be concerned about the effects (http://www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gbep/docs/BIOENERGY_INFO/0810_Flammini_-_Biofuels_and_the_underlying_causes_of_high_food_p rices_GBEP-FAO.pdf) of subsidies for biofuels on world food prices - called an implicit 'tax on world foods' - which affects the poor.

Or that a tax on CO2 in developing nations (the only way to effectively reduce total world CO2 output) would strangle their attempts at economic development and higher standards of living.

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2013, 05:39 AM
Quite so. The 'free market' is not remotely free when it comes to propping up fossil fuel producers and emitters with government grants and subsidies:
I agree that subsidies for all means of energy production should cease.

Rincewind
07-05-2013, 09:44 AM
First of all, what 'cost of disposal'? Are you referring to the greening of the planet that increased CO2 has caused?

I'm talking about the total CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increasing by 40% over the last 100 years. Almost all of that CO2 has been dumped in the atmosphere as a by-product of industry burning fossil fuels. Not a single cent has been paid to dispose of that waste.

Almost all other dumping of industrial waste is done at some cost.

Ian Murray
08-05-2013, 11:45 AM
Where there's smoke there's China (http://www.smh.com.au/world/where-theres-smoke-theres-china-20130507-2j5lk.html)
Sydney Morning Herald
8 May 13


China, which emits one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, is about to embark on a massive and ambitious experiment in emissions trading...

Rincewind
08-05-2013, 03:14 PM
Adelaide sets heat record for May (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-08/adelaide-sets-heat-record-for-may/4677374)

Little more than three weeks out from winter, Adelaide is having its hottest day for May in more than 90 years.

Rincewind
16-05-2013, 01:49 PM
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024)

From the abstract...


...
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
...
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Hobbes
16-05-2013, 02:20 PM
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024)

From the abstract...


...
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
...
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Oops!

Rincewind
16-05-2013, 02:40 PM
Oops!

How is the denial blogosphere not liking the publication a surprise?

Ian Murray
21-05-2013, 10:22 PM
How is the denial blogosphere not liking the publication a surprise?
Coincidentally I'm doing an MOOC with the Uni of British Columbia at the moment. The Cook et al article at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf is part of the recommended reading.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2013, 01:22 AM
Weathering the Politicians (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/18317)
By Michael Reagan · May 23, 2013

Yesterday I read an interesting article in Newsweek about the connection between tornadoes and climate change.

Newsweek's story explained how top climate scientists were concerned about several ominous and fundamental changes occurring in Earth's weather patterns.

Evidence that Earth's climate was changing in the wrong direction, the article said, included a shorter growing season in England, higher average temperatures at the equator and an increase in tornadoes like the monster than killed at least 24 people in Tornado Alley this week.

"Last April," wrote Newsweek, "in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states."

Newsweek's article went on to say scientists weren't sure what was causing the global climate to change and could not predict how it would affect specific local weather conditions.

But the news magazine said top weather scientists were certain of one thing: They were "almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural output for the rest of the century" and result in "a major climatic change that would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale."

Oh, I forgot to mention a few important facts.

The date on that Newsweek article was April 28, 1975. The headline was "The Cooling World." And the climate change scientists were almost unanimously worried about was a global cooling trend.

Global cooling, the Big Climate Scare of the 1970s, wasn't blamed on humans, and weather disasters like Hurricane Sandy and this week's tragedy in Oklahoma were not politicized by climate illiterates like Babs "The Weather Girl" Boxer and her fellow U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse.

Both Boxer and Whitehouse jumped on the Oklahoma City tornado tragedy this week to exploit it for political gain.

Patrick Byrom
24-05-2013, 03:29 AM
Weathering the Politicians (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/18317)
By Michael Reagan · May 23, 2013
Yesterday I read an interesting article in Newsweek about the connection between tornadoes and climate change.
You can read the actual article here (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf).
Mr Reagan doesn't seem to realise the difference between a one page article in Newsweek and the scientific consensus. Even in the 1970s most scientists were more concerned about warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm)than cooling.


Global cooling, the Big Climate Scare of the 1970s, wasn't blamed on humans
Which is quite funny, since the cooling was blamed on humans - aerosol emissions, which were eventually reduced by government action.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2013, 02:56 AM
You can read the actual article here (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf).
Mr Reagan doesn't seem to realise the difference between a one page article in Newsweek and the scientific consensus. Even in the 1970s most scientists were more concerned about warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm)than cooling.
That is hard to square with the propaganda at the time. Global warm-mongers love to re-write history in their zeal for more big-government control.

Top 3 deadliest tornadoes were in 1925, 1840, and 1896, respectively, despite leftards blaming global warming for them.


Which is quite funny, since the cooling was blamed on humans - aerosol emissions, which were eventually reduced by government action.
Yet another big government blunder, replacing a non-flammable propellant with a highly flammable one.

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2013, 12:51 PM
Top 3 deadliest tornadoes were in 1925, 1840, and 1896, respectively, despite leftards blaming global warming for them.

Possibly not a convincing counter-argument given that early deadly tornadoes have over time resulted in increased construction of tornado shelters, increased tornado warnings etc.

If this week's effort had happened in the absence of either of those things the death toll would have been enormous.

Ian Murray
26-05-2013, 04:57 PM
But I don't believe global warming has been proved. There seems to be just as much of a case for global cooling..
When you say 'not proved' Jon, what burden of proof do you require? It is not possible to prove climate change in a laboratory, in the sense that global climate cannot be replicated in a laboratory (although you can demonstrate the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the kitchen). Surface temperatures, sea levels, extent of sea ice and glaciers, CO2 levels etc can be observed and measured - no proving required.

More scientific research has been and continues to be focused on climate change than any other phenomenon. Of the peer-reviewed papers expressing an opinion, over 97% conclude that the planet is warming and the cause is human activity. There is no counter-view held by 97% that the earth is cooling. You may choose not to believe the evidence, but you become part of a pretty small minority (US polls currently show only 85 being dismissive, with 70% ranging from cautiously accepting to being alarmed.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 06:40 PM
More scientific research has been and continues to be focused on climate change than any other phenomenon. Of the peer-reviewed papers expressing an opinion, over 97% conclude that the planet is warming and the cause is human activity. There is no counter-view held by 97% that the earth is cooling. You may choose not to believe the evidence, but you become part of a pretty small minority (US polls currently show only 85 being dismissive, with 70% ranging from cautiously accepting to being alarmed.
As Crichton said in relation to this:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
when government bureaucrats dole out funding based on whether research is relevant to globull warm-mongering, it's not surprising that lots of papers will support the desired conclusion. It's proven a gold-mine for old leftards like LE, who have seen the collapse of their beloved Soviet Union and discrediting of socialism. But now, this warm-mongering is an excuse to smuggle back socialism and its prerequisite—big government—through the back door of
"saving the planet" from warming.

Ian Murray
26-05-2013, 07:15 PM
...Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
The first resort of the denialist fringe - if the message can't be refuted, then try to shoot the messenger.

IPCC Report on Climate Change - 2007 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/i/ipcc_fourth_assessment_report.htm)
Science Daily


...Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis, the report of Working Group I, "assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change." The report was produced by about 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments.

Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I, which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007. The key conclusions were that: It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring; the probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%; and the probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%. As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century the following will occur. Regarding surface air warming in the 21st century, the best estimate for a "low scenario" is 1.8 degrees Celsius with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

The best estimate for a "high scenario" is 4.0 degrees Celsius with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit). Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature, it is estimated that sea level rise will be, in a low scenario, 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches) and in a high scenario, 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches). It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall...

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 11:06 PM
Possibly not a convincing counter-argument given that early deadly tornadoes have over time resulted in increased construction of tornado shelters, increased tornado warnings etc.

If this week's effort had happened in the absence of either of those things the death toll would have been enormous.
You might have a point there. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have made a similar point about earthquakes, but then he could also provide objective information about the magnitudes for comparison.

Ian Murray
26-05-2013, 11:12 PM
Top 3 deadliest tornadoes were in 1925, 1840, and 1896, respectively, despite leftards blaming global warming for them..
Wrong again.
Evidence to Date Does Not Show Clear Link Between Tornadoes and Climate Change (http://blog.ucsusa.org/evidence-to-date-does-not-show-clear-link-between-tornadoes-and-climate-change-135)
Brenda Ekwurzel, climate scientist
Union of Concerned Scientists
May 22, 2013


In the wake of extreme weather events, people often ask scientists if they can be linked to climate change. Naturally, questions are being asked about tornadoes following the tragic losses suffered in the region of Moore, Oklahoma on May 20, 2013 after an EF5 Tornado.

This historic force of nature was met by heroic stories of lives saved through quick actions by teachers and neighbors to help others seek shelter, which are important to be told in the immediate wake of tragedy. Nonetheless, questions are naturally being asked and stories told about this tornado and connections to climate change.

The short answer is that scientists don’t see a clear link between climate change and the number or intensity of tornadoes over the past several decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on extreme events expressed “low confidence,” mainly due to inadequacies in monitoring systems.

While a warmer planet could theoretically affect tornadoes, such as warmer and moister atmosphere, jet stream location changes, and equator to polar temperature gradient changes, we just don’t yet have enough data over the long-term to draw firm conclusions.

Tornadoes are rare, short-lived, and difficult to measure, and the record also has to account for a change in the tornado classification system. By contrast, scientists have many ways to measure and model heat waves, coastal flooding, and changes to precipitation patterns — and consequently have been able to draw definitive links between those phenomena and climate change...

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 11:41 PM
Wrong again.
Evidence to Date Does Not Show Clear Link Between Tornadoes and Climate Change (http://blog.ucsusa.org/evidence-to-date-does-not-show-clear-link-between-tornadoes-and-climate-change-135)
Of course, I don't disagree with this link. But sure enough, a member of LE's favourite American political party really did make that link: Democratic senator uses Okla. tornado for anti-GOP rant over global warming (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/).

Patrick Byrom
27-05-2013, 08:01 PM
That is hard to square with the propaganda at the time. Global warm-mongers love to re-write history in their zeal for more big-government control.
The article I linked to provides detailed links to the evidence.


Yet another big government blunder, replacing a non-flammable propellant with a highly flammable one.
Are you referring to CFCs (which add to warming)? The article was referring to sulphur dioxide, which cools the planet by blocking sunlight.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2013, 02:58 AM
Are you referring to CFCs (which add to warming)?
Probably, although I thought their main issue was the ozone layer attacked by halogen radicals, although they would also absorb IR in different places from CO2 and H2O.


The article was referring to sulphur dioxide, which cools the planet by blocking sunlight.
Thanks.

John777
30-05-2013, 06:27 PM
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor to rail against his Republican colleagues for denying the theory of anthropogenic global warming. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/

American Democrats

:rolleyes:

Desmond
04-06-2013, 11:54 AM
Interesting article by Peter Costello on the lack of focus on climate change in the May budget.

http://www.news.com.au/news/it-says-a-lot-when-a-dog-doesnt-bark/story-fnii5sd6-1226651692622

Damodevo
05-06-2013, 12:47 PM
Looks like those positive feedback mechanisms are grossly overstated.

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/models33_thumb.png

Desmond
05-06-2013, 02:05 PM
Looks like those positive feedback mechanisms are grossly overstated.

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/models33_thumb.png
Got a link to an article?

Damodevo
05-06-2013, 02:26 PM
Got a link to an article?

Try here (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/)

Patrick Byrom
05-06-2013, 02:45 PM
Got a link to an article?
You can find the plot here (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/#comments). I'm not sure what it is supposed to prove (especially without any error bars), since he is only examining results for the tropics. And linear trends are notoriously dependent on which endpoints are chosen.

And here is the refutation (http://www.skepticalscience.com/lu-2013-cfcs.html)of the recent (and much publicised) CFC hypothesis paper.

Ian Murray
05-06-2013, 05:17 PM
Looks like those positive feedback mechanisms are grossly overstated.

Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say? (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/05/22/202659/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/)

... these two scientists University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) who famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.

... First off, they were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm). As RealClimate wrote...:


We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see New Scientist‘s “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646)“)....

If all the models are predicting higher temperatures, but Christy and Spencer are presenting contradictory data, check their data. Their accuracy record is not good.

Damodevo
05-06-2013, 11:15 PM
Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say? (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/05/22/202659/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/)

... these two scientists University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) who famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.

... First off, they were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm). As RealClimate wrote...:


We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see New Scientist‘s “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646)“)....

If all the models are predicting higher temperatures, but Christy and Spencer are presenting contradictory data, check their data. Their accuracy record is not good.

So present an alternative chart that shows the real temp record. Even the alarmists on this page have admitted the temperature has remained constant for the last 16 years. Even the head of the IPCC says as much.

That you would deny such a thing shows your disconnect from the data.

Desmond
06-06-2013, 07:19 AM
Try here (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/)
The url of your original image is http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/models33_thumb.png

Can you link to the article you got it from?

Anyway if it's just as simple as linear trends, doesn't this defeat out of hand your oft repeated "there has been no warming since <insert year>" arguments?

Desmond
06-06-2013, 07:20 AM
So present an alternative chart that shows the real temp record. Even the alarmists on this page have admitted the temperature has remained constant for the last 16 years. Even the head of the IPCC says as much.

That you would deny such a thing shows your disconnect from the data.
:lol: Look at the graph you just posted.

John777
06-06-2013, 12:48 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CtNOfZ4Fr3s/TQJxko9cxeI/AAAAAAAAAHM/9U3bQ27UqYI/s320/polar-bear-numbers.jpg

:clap:

Rincewind
06-06-2013, 01:26 PM
Any estimate of absolute polar bear numbers before 1970 are just guesses. There is certainly no evidence that the population of polar bears have increased four or five fold over the last forty years are just silly.

It reminds me of the arguments people have constructed to prove the speed of light has been slowing down (known as c-decay) based on poor estimates or limitations in the accuracy of the measurement.

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2013, 10:53 PM
Unfortunately there is a long history of rubbery too-low estimates of numbers of threatened species being constructed early in the history of research around them. Makes for a lot of wolf-crying that not only turns out to be nonsense but that makes it difficult to track increase or decrease.

Ian Murray
07-06-2013, 02:46 PM
Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate (http://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html)
Skeptical Science
27.12.12

There is a new myth circulating in the climate contrarian blogosphere and mainstream media that a figure presented in the "leaked" draft Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report shows that the planet has warmed less than previous IPCC report climate model simulations predicted. Tamino at the Open Mind blog and Skeptical Science's own Alex C have done a nice job refuting this myth. We prefer not to post material from the draft unpublished IPCC report, so refer to those links if you would like to see the figure in question.

In this post we will evaluate this contrarian claim by comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes. We will see what the peer-reviewed scientific literature has to say on the subject, and show that not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians (Figure 1).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions_500.gif
Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2013, 04:57 AM
So present an alternative chart that shows the real temp record. Even the alarmists on this page have admitted the temperature has remained constant for the last 16 years. Even the head of the IPCC says as much.

That you would deny such a thing shows your disconnect from the data.
Pretty much. Hence LE's citation from notorious leftist warm-mongering sites like RealClimate and New Scientist.

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2013, 05:00 AM
Interesting article by Peter Costello on the lack of focus on climate change in the May budget.

http://www.news.com.au/news/it-says-a-lot-when-a-dog-doesnt-bark/story-fnii5sd6-1226651692622
Very good. I think JuLiar Gillardova would never have become PM if Costello had taken over from Howard:

The object of the carbon tax is to make high-energy users pay more for electricity from coal fired power stations. Eventually, as the cost rises, they will stop using it. This policy could be on the verge of working. Ford will close in Geelong in 2016 and Alcoa's aluminium smelter (also in Geelong) is reviewing its operations.

The closure of Ford and Alcoa would make a big reduction in our carbon emissions. The Greens should be happy about that. I have looked carefully and been unable to find any statement where they welcome it. They should. It is evidence that their policies are working. Perhaps they think it is better to go quiet when people are losing their jobs. But when the future of the planet is at stake, what are a few dirty carbon pollution-creating jobs to stand in the way?

Another thought has occurred to me: the faith of the global warming movement is not as fervent as it used to be. Aid agencies were forecasting there would be millions of refugees leaving their sinking islands. Councils were banning development near the coast where seas were thought to be rising. Our climate change ambassadors, like Tim Flannery, were prophesying that the dams would never fill again.

We can't expect those who derive their income in the church of the global warming movement to give up the faith, but I have detected creeping doubt within the Federal Government. The Department of Climate Change has been abolished, some green schemes are being wound down and some, such as the Cash for Clunkers, never got started.

Mr Swan's recent Budget disclosed the rate of the carbon tax is going to collapse in two years. The Government doesn't seem perturbed by that. We will give up punishing our industry more than comparable countries around the world. Instead of leading the world we will follow it. But won't that lead to the melting of the Himalayan ice cap? Doesn't this mean the extinction of the polar bear? Apparently not. Apparently, the Federal Government thinks things are not nearly as desperate as they once wanted us to believe.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/victoria/it-says-a-lot-when-a-dog-doesnt-bark/story-fnii5sd6-1226651692622#ixzz2VYkcD6kb

Ian Murray
09-06-2013, 01:12 PM
Pretty much. Hence LE's citation from notorious leftist warm-mongering sites like RealClimate and New Scientist.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report models clearly show the predicted lull this decade, with the normal ups-and-downs to be expected but concealed when plotted as linear trends:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail_files/image004.jpg
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-09.PDF p18

Ian Murray
20-06-2013, 07:46 AM
What Climate Change Means for Africa, Asia and the Coastal Poor (http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/06/19/what-climate-change-means-africa-asia-coastal-poor)
The World Bank
19.6.13


A new climate report looks at likely impacts of present day, 2°C, and 4°C warming across Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and South East Asia.
It describes the risks to agriculture and livelihood security in Sub-Saharan Africa; the rise in sea-level, loss of coral reefs and devastation to coastal areas likely in South East Asia; and the fluctuating water resources in South Asia.
Turn Down the Heat warns that poor communities will be the most vulnerable to climate change....

Ian Murray
21-06-2013, 07:30 PM
The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-10-dumbest-things-ever-said-about-global-warming-20130619)
Rolling Stone
19.6.13

A list of the dumbest things ever said about global warming is, sadly, almost impossible to curate in any comprehensive fashion. Politicians, talk show hosts, economists, pundits – people are saying dumb things about climate change all the time. But after much exhaustive research, we narrowed it down to 10 prize-winningly idiotic statements on this subject...

Hobbes
21-06-2013, 08:50 PM
The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-10-dumbest-things-ever-said-about-global-warming-20130619)
Rolling Stone
19.6.13

A list of the dumbest things ever said about global warming is, sadly, almost impossible to curate in any comprehensive fashion. Politicians, talk show hosts, economists, pundits – people are saying dumb things about climate change all the time. But after much exhaustive research, we narrowed it down to 10 prize-winningly idiotic statements on this subject...

I agree, all these 10 things were very dumb, and no skeptic that I know of would agree with any of them. (Whether they are as dumb as many hilarious predictions by warmists "There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet." is another story.)

And no matter how much you test the limits of cut and paste by posting these silly links, still there has been no significant warming for a long time, contrary to the models, and I think the fact that you console yourself with this Rolling Stone link speaks volumes!

Capablanca-Fan
22-06-2013, 01:20 AM
I agree, all these 10 things were very dumb, and no skeptic that I know of would agree with any of them. (Whether they are as dumb as many hilarious predictions by warmists "There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet." is another story.)
E.g. look at the almost half a century of false predictions by LE's hero, the population doom-mongering charlatan Paul R. Erhlich. For example (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100153735/paul-ehrlich-still-prophesying-doom-and-still-wrong/),

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate,” he said. He predicted four billion deaths, including 65 million Americans.

Yet despite his idiotic and disproven predictions, he is still a hero of the Watermelon Greens (green on the outside, red on the inside).


And no matter how much you test the limits of cut and paste by posting these silly links, still there has been no significant warming for a long time, contrary to the models, and I think the fact that you console yourself with this Rolling Stone link speaks volumes!
Pretty much. And one of the statements has probably been distorted, the Jim Inhofe to Rachel Madcow claim. One can agree that the world is warming and still disagree about what should be done about it. Many of the proposed "cures" are far worse than the disease. E.g. throwing coal-miners out of work will make hardly a dent in global temperatures, but the resulting unemployment would be a serious health hazard. And banning Edison incandescent bulbs (as in Australia and USA) won't even make a detectable difference to global temp, but the mercury from their dim fluoro replacements is a known dangerous poison.

Desmond
22-06-2013, 09:31 AM
E.g. look atAs per usual on this thread Jono wants to look at anything but the data.

Ian Murray
22-06-2013, 05:15 PM
I agree, all these 10 things were very dumb, and no skeptic that I know of would agree with any of them. (Whether they are as dumb as many hilarious predictions by warmists "There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet." is another story.)
I would hope you don't associate with anyone that dumb, but the fact remains that they are views held by people with power or influence. It would be funny if there was less at stake.


And no matter how much you test the limits of cut and paste by posting these silly links, still there has been no significant warming for a long time, contrary to the models, and I think the fact that you console yourself with this Rolling Stone link speaks volumes!
Reproducing such idiocies does nothing to improve the quality of the debate, I agree (nor do ad hominems). Nevertheless the records speak for themselves:-


2010, an El Nino year, was the hottest ever recorded (average global surface temperatures). 2011 and 2012, successive La Nina years, were the 11th and 10th hottest ever. I would regard that as significant warming

Atmospheric CO2 is rising, from 315 ppm in 1959 to 400 now, which cannot be explained by only natural causes. CO2 reflects infrared radiation from the surface in random directions, some back to the surface, increasing warming.

Sea levels are rising, due to thermal expansion and ice sheet/glacier melt

Damodevo
23-06-2013, 12:21 AM
I would hope you don't associate with anyone that dumb, but the fact remains that they are views held by people with power or influence. It would be funny if there was less at stake.


Reproducing such idiocies does nothing to improve the quality of the debate, I agree (nor do ad hominems). Nevertheless the records speak for themselves:-


2010, an El Nino year, was the hottest ever recorded (average global surface temperatures). 2011 and 2012, successive La Nina years, were the 11th and 10th hottest ever. I would regard that as significant warming

Atmospheric CO2 is rising, from 315 ppm in 1959 to 400 now, which cannot be explained by only natural causes. CO2 reflects infrared radiation from the surface in random directions, some back to the surface, increasing warming.

Sea levels are rising, due to thermal expansion and ice sheet/glacier melt


bellied by the historical data (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/paper-summer-temperatures-were-about-10c-warmer-than-today-even-though-the-concentration-of-atmospheric-co2-was-similar/#more-88537)


Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, in northeast (NE) Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6 to 3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million.

Ian Murray
23-06-2013, 09:09 AM
bellied by the historical data: Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, in northeast (NE) Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6 to 3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million - Brigham-Grette et al (2012).
By recorded temperatures, I meant those measured and recorded by man since ~1880. The fact that temperatures were higher during previous inter-glacials with ~400 ppm CO2 is ominous, as modern temperatures rise and CO2 crosses the 400 mark.


2013 almost certainly marks the first year, since the Pliocene, in which rising carbon dioxide concentrations have breached the 400ppm milestone. What next? As Julie Brigham-Grette [lead author of the paper you quote] notes:

"This could tell us where we are going in the near future. In other words, the Earth system response to small changes in carbon dioxide is bigger than suggested by earlier climate models."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2016

Desmond
23-06-2013, 09:19 AM
bellied by the historical data (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/paper-summer-temperatures-were-about-10c-warmer-than-today-even-though-the-concentration-of-atmospheric-co2-was-similar/#more-88537)
You don't suppose differences in solar irradiance might have had something to do with it?

Ian Murray
23-06-2013, 07:37 PM
You don't suppose differences in solar irradiance might have had something to do with it?
That 200,000 year period covers two full orbital eccentricity cycles, so earth was closest to the sun twice.

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2013, 12:39 AM
True cost of Britain's wind farm industry revealed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html)
Every job in Britain’s wind farm industry is effectively subsidised to the extent of £100,000 per year, The Telegraph can disclose.

A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.
The disclosure is potentially embarrassing for the wind industry, which claims it is an economically dynamic sector that creates jobs. It was described by critics as proof the sector was not economically viable, with one calling it evidence of “soft jobs” that depended on the taxpayer.
The subsidy was disclosed in a new analysis of official figures, which showed that:
• The level of support from subsidies in some cases is so high that jobs are effectively supported to the extent of £1.3million each;
• In Scotland, which has 203 onshore wind farms — more than anywhere else in the UK — just 2,235 people are directly employed to work on them despite an annual subsidy of £344million. That works out at £154,000 per job;

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2013, 12:44 AM
The carbon tax is a crime (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-carbon-tax-is-a-crime/story-fni0cwl5-1226668058889)
PIERS AKERMAN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH JUNE 23, 2013 12:00AM

The Coalition's plan to dump Labor's failed carbon dioxide tax will give the nation a boost should it put the government to rout in 82 days - but the renewable energy scam must be also be axed.

Australians are paying a huge price for nothing more than Green feel-good vanity politics that do nothing for the environment, the economy, the nation or the globe.

Last week, Maurice Newman, a former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange and the ABC, and long regarded as one of the country's most respected business figures, told The Guardian that continuing taxpayer subsidies for the renewable energy target (RET) represented a "crime against the people".

Newman owns a property near a proposed wind farm in the NSW southern highlands and may be considered to have a conflict. But his argument against the expensive subsidies relies also on their effect on poorer households, and the apparent collapse of the scientific argument.

"When we look at the experience of Germany, they have not been successful in reducing emissions; when we look at the science it no longer supports the global warming theory; and when we look at the health and economic effects of wind farms and the obscene wealth transfer from poor to rich we have to ask: 'why are we persisting with them?' I think it is a crime against the people," he said.
The view of Newman, who would chair the opposition's proposed Business Advisory Council, is important.

"It is inevitable energy prices will be one of the issues that will be of concern to business," he said.

"Low energy prices are what has always made Australia internationally competitive and because of the RET and the carbon tax we have lost that advantage."

Our food processing and manufacturing sectors are being annihilated. In 2011-12 alone, 7000 food processing jobs disappeared and 355 businesses closed or moved overseas. Since 2008, 110,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost.

Across Australia, food processors and manufacturers are cutting back to save costs: BlueScope Steel in Victoria, 170 jobs gone; Boral, 790 jobs gone; Penrice Soda in SA, 60 jobs gone; Pentair in western Sydney, 160 jobs; and Amcor, 300 jobs gone. Goodman Fielder will shut 15 factories, costing 600 jobs. Norsk Hydro aluminium smelter near Newcastle is closing, costing 350 jobs. Caltex is shutting its Kurnell refinery, costing 330 jobs.

Other companies are shifting overseas: Kerry Foods, 100 jobs gone; Kresta Blinds, 72 jobs; Cussons soaps, 75 jobs; Aerogard, 190 jobs; Harley-Davidson, 212 jobs; and Bosch, 380 jobs. Golden Circle has moved processing lines and jobs to New Zealand, while our second-last Australian-owned cannery, the Windsor Farm at Cowra, closed in March, costing 70 jobs.

The carbon tax has added around $412 to the price of a local car, while renewables have added about $200. That's twice Europe's car manufacturing costs and four times Asia's costs. Now Holden has shed 500 jobs and is asking those left to take pay cuts.

antichrist
24-06-2013, 12:59 AM
Jono, go and research how much the nuke power industry has been subsided by govts for decades, billions the whole way and billions more when they need to be cleaned up at the end. Be fair and honest in your debates so God will love you and you will reach heaven

Ian Murray
24-06-2013, 12:48 PM

Our food processing and manufacturing sectors are being annihilated. In 2011-12 alone, 7000 food processing jobs disappeared and 355 businesses closed or moved overseas. Since 2008, 110,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost.

Across Australia, food processors and manufacturers are cutting back to save costs:...

Other companies are shifting overseas:...

The carbon tax has added around $412 to the price of a local car, while renewables have added about $200. That's twice Europe's car manufacturing costs and four times Asia's costs. Now Holden has shed 500 jobs and is asking those left to take pay cuts.
We know which political barrow Akerman is pushing.

Quite apart from the fact that there was no carbon tax in 2011-12, the damage to our manufacturing industries is being caused by the high exchange rate on the Australian dollar, making our exports, tourism and foreign-student education overpriced and uncompetitive, and the demand for skilled labour, forcing up the cost of wages.

What causes the high exchange rate? The influx of hundreds of billions of dollars in investment capital for the mining industry to fund new projects awaiting development. And the shortage of skilled labour in manufacturing? The mining industry poaching labour from the manufacturing workforce at inflated wages for the construction of the new projects (once they're operational the workforce will become surplus to requirements and out the workers go, but their old jobs will be gone).

Using Akerman's figures, the carbon tax has increased the cost of a car by around 1%. That didn't force Ford out of local manufacture, it was sales volume - only 707 Falcon buyers last month. Holden, with more than double Ford's sales, is still finding the going tough against imports.

Damodevo
25-06-2013, 12:34 AM
Quite apart from the fact that there was no carbon tax in 2011-12, the damage to our manufacturing industries is being caused by the high exchange rate on the Australian dollar, making our exports, tourism and foreign-student education overpriced and uncompetitive, and the demand for skilled labour, forcing up the cost of wages.

The dollar is one cause but not the sole cause. The carbon tax's goal is to make power more expensive so its hardly a surprise that it does! Let's not forget the high dollar also makes fuel and imported raw materials cheaper. Union demands for higher wages and conditions are another contribution.


What causes the high exchange rate? The influx of hundreds of billions of dollars in investment capital for the mining industry to fund new projects awaiting development. And the shortage of skilled labour in manufacturing? The mining industry poaching labour from the manufacturing workforce at inflated wages for the construction of the new projects (once they're operational the workforce will become surplus to requirements and out the workers go, but their old jobs will be gone).

More half truths. The strong dollar is a result of a combination of things and foreign investment is only one. Many buy the $A because it is universally regarded as a safe haven. Its strength is only relative too given the prodigious money printing by the US Fed and Japanese, both debasing their currency.


Using Akerman's figures, the carbon tax has increased the cost of a car by around 1%. That didn't force Ford out of local manufacture, it was sales volume - only 707 Falcon buyers last month. Holden, with more than double Ford's sales, is still finding the going tough against imports.

No one's saying the CT or the RET are the sole cause but they are a contributing cause which is the last thing our economy needs right now.

Ian Murray
25-06-2013, 09:03 AM
The dollar is one cause but not the sole cause. The carbon tax's goal is to make power more expensive so its hardly a surprise that it does!
The carbon tax's goal, is to help reduce emissions, which is happening - demand for energy has seen an unprecedented fall for the last three consecutive years. Nevertheless in Queensland at least the distribution network (and its major shareholder the Qld Govt) are enjoying profit windfalls:

it was reported that state-owned electricity distributor Energex was pocketing more than $1 million a day in profit while households face a massive spike in power prices.

New figures obtained by The Courier-Mail reveal the southeast electricity network operator made $201.3 million profit in the first six months of the 2012-13 financial year.

The extraordinary profit, likely to be mirrored by the state's other distributor Ergon Energy, is about $50 million more than Energex made in the same period last year and exceeds what it made for the entire 2009-10 financial year.

It comes as the average family faces a $365 increase in its annual electricity bill under a price rise recommendation made by the Queensland Competition Authority.

Under current policy, about 80 per cent of Energex's profit will flow directly into the coffers of the cash-strapped Newman Government.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/energex-customers-kept-in-the-dark-as-electricity-distributor-rakes-in-1-million-per-day-in-profit-power-play/story-e6freoof-1226588815409


Let's not forget the high dollar also makes fuel and imported raw materials cheaper. Union demands for higher wages and conditions are another contribution.
Let's not forget also that the raw materials for renewable energy are free! And unions are not demanding higher wages, miners are already offering much higher wages.


More half truths. The strong dollar is a result of a combination of things and foreign investment is only one. Many buy the $A because it is universally regarded as a safe haven. Its strength is only relative too given the prodigious money printing by the US Fed and Japanese, both debasing their currency.
One leads to the other. Resources investment pushes up the dollar, which makes the Australian bond market very attractive to foreign investors, and more billions flow in. The sequence goes into reverse when resource developments are shelved as commodity prices fall, among other factors, and the dollar falls, as is happening now.


No one's saying the CT or the RET are the sole cause but they are a contributing cause which is the last thing our economy needs right now.
On the contrary, that's exactly the impression Akerman (and Jono) is trying to leave. He even specifically dismisses any effects the high dollar and other factors (like gouging by distributors) may have in his closing paragraph:

The Gillard government and unions have tried to put the blame for rising costs on other factors like the high Australian dollar. The truth is that Labor has given away our natural advantage of cheap and abundant energy in favour of expensive and unreliable renewables.

Damodevo
25-06-2013, 12:01 PM
The carbon tax's goal, is to help reduce emissions, which is happening - demand for energy has seen an unprecedented fall for the last three consecutive years. Nevertheless in Queensland at least the distribution network (and its major shareholder the Qld Govt) are enjoying profit windfalls:

it was reported that state-owned electricity distributor Energex was pocketing more than $1 million a day in profit while households face a massive spike in power prices.

New figures obtained by The Courier-Mail reveal the southeast electricity network operator made $201.3 million profit in the first six months of the 2012-13 financial year.

The extraordinary profit, likely to be mirrored by the state's other distributor Ergon Energy, is about $50 million more than Energex made in the same period last year and exceeds what it made for the entire 2009-10 financial year.

It comes as the average family faces a $365 increase in its annual electricity bill under a price rise recommendation made by the Queensland Competition Authority.

Under current policy, about 80 per cent of Energex's profit will flow directly into the coffers of the cash-strapped Newman Government.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/energex-customers-kept-in-the-dark-as-electricity-distributor-rakes-in-1-million-per-day-in-profit-power-play/story-e6freoof-1226588815409

Right so privatise it! That way the investments will actually be made in the distribution networks and competition will keep prices subdued.


Let's not forget also that the raw materials for renewable energy are free! And unions are not demanding higher wages, miners are already offering much higher wages.

Its not free to harness but incredibly inefficient which is why Green energy costs more jobs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html)than it creates. High wages is one of the reasons our car industries are going under;


Government (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-closure-sends-shockwave-manufacturing-060930876.html) highly invested in car industry Car industry analysts have been talking about Ford shutting up shop since mid last year amid pressure from the high dollar and high wage costs, compared with other countries.

Australian total exports hasn't suffered as a result of the high $A which is not surprising since strong German and Japanese currencies didn't hurt their terms of trade either. And the weakening of the US dollar hasn't helped theirs.

This may be because exporters can switch (http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/how_exporters_use_imports_aussie_Fi6l8fm02D1h7cvJq 0hAMM) to cheaper imports to offset the strong dollar.


One leads to the other. Resources investment pushes up the dollar, which makes the Australian bond market very attractive to foreign investors, and more billions flow in. The sequence goes into reverse when resource developments are shelved as commodity prices fall, among other factors, and the dollar falls, as is happening now.

As this paper (http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%202/Downloads/03_Appreciation_of_the_Aust_dollar.ashx)points out, its probably more accurate to say that its the rise in international commodity prices over the last 15 years or so that has increased our terms of trade and the $A. That rise has coincided with (primarily US) central bank profligacy over the exact same period. Eg the price of oil (https://mises.org/daily/6340/) has surged massively since the early 2000's.

The same paper also points up the flight to $A as a safe haven away from the credit risks in European states as well as the unprecedented monetary easing overseas as additional minor causes. The latter I would say is the flipside of the rise in commodity prices - both caused by o/s money printing.

So it isn't greater resource investment but he higher commodity prices that has helped drive up the $A although the latter will lead to more of the former.

But the higher $A makes us all richer - drives down petrol and food prices.


On the contrary, that's exactly the impression Akerman (and Jono) is trying to leave. He even specifically dismisses any effects the high dollar and other factors (like gouging by distributors) may have in his closing paragraph:

The Gillard government and unions have tried to put the blame for rising costs on other factors like the high Australian dollar. The truth is that Labor has given away our natural advantage of cheap and abundant energy in favour of expensive and unreliable renewables.

It seems to me that they were responding to Gillard scapegoating the high $A as the sole cause.

Ian Murray
25-06-2013, 04:50 PM
Right so privatise it! That way the investments will actually be made in the distribution networks and competition will keep prices subdued.
Fine. In the meantime don't blame carbon tax for higher electricity prices when the tax contributes only a fraction of the price hikes.


Its not free to harness but incredibly inefficient which is why Green energy costs more jobs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html)than it creates. High wages is one of the reasons our car industries are going under;
For a so-called incredibly inefficient energy source, wind power is still in its infancy but already supplies 15% of power in the four states with wind farms (NSW, Vic, Tas and SA). It is cost competitive and much less labour-intensive than coal (if you're concerned about high wages, why are you concerned that renewable enegy is labour saving? It was never intended to be a job-creation scheme).

Levelised energy costs for different generation technologies in Australian dollars per megawatt hour (2006)
Technology Cost (AUD/MWh)
Nuclear (to COTS plan) 40–70
Nuclear (to suit site; typical) 75–105
Coal 28–38
Coal: IGCC + CCS 53–98
Coal: supercritical pulverized + CCS 64–106
Open-cycle Gas Turbine 101
Hot fractured rocks 89
Gas: combined cycle 37–54
Gas: combined cycle + CCS 53–93
Small Hydro power 55
Wind power: high capacity factor 63
Solar thermal 85
Biomass 88
Photovoltaics 120
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#cite_note-19

http://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_embed_image/public/article_images/1005/images/1005-FEA2-fig1.jpg?itok=jCTjCdlm
http://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2010/05/green-job-realities


Australian total exports hasn't suffered as a result of the high $A which is not surprising since strong German and Japanese currencies didn't hurt their terms of trade either. And the weakening of the US dollar hasn't helped theirs.

This may be because exporters can switch (http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/how_exporters_use_imports_aussie_Fi6l8fm02D1h7cvJq 0hAMM) to cheaper imports to offset the strong dollar.
So Akerman is tampering with the truth with his doom-and-gloom stuff on the decline and fall of Australian business?


As this paper (http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%202/Downloads/03_Appreciation_of_the_Aust_dollar.ashx)points out, its probably more accurate to say that its the rise in international commodity prices over the last 15 years or so that has increased our terms of trade and the $A. That rise has coincided with (primarily US) central bank profligacy over the exact same period. Eg the price of oil (https://mises.org/daily/6340/) has surged massively since the early 2000's.

The same paper also points up the flight to $A as a safe haven away from the credit risks in European states as well as the unprecedented monetary easing overseas as additional minor causes. The latter I would say is the flipside of the rise in commodity prices - both caused by o/s money printing.

So it isn't greater resource investment but he higher commodity prices that has helped drive up the $A although the latter will lead to more of the former.
Maybe, but it wasn't until 2011 that the AUD reached equity with the USD. The Business Spectator has this take on it:

Australia nears the edge of a capital cliff (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/23/resources-and-energy/australia-nears-edge-capital-cliff)
...80 per cent of the investment by Australian-listed resource companies, and more than 90 per cent by foreign companies, had been funded internally and that about 80 per cent of that funding had been sourced offshore.

As he said, that has had a material effect on capital flows. Foreign capital flows into the Australian resource sector had grown from an average of about one per cent of GDP in 2007 to about 3.5 per cent in 2012.

That was partly attributable to the funding of the resource investments but also to a big increase in foreign purchases of Commonwealth government securities, offset to some degree by net repayments of offshore borrowings by the banks as they seek to reduce their exposure to offshore wholesale debt markets.

Debelle’s conclusion was that the net effect of the capital flows was that the Australian dollar was higher than would be expected from the fundamentals like terms of trade and interest rate differentials.

The BoA Merrill Lynch research, released to clients last Friday, looks at the resources investment boom and comes to the tentative conclusion that it could end with a bang in 2015-16....



But the higher $A makes us all richer - drives down petrol and food prices.
Perhaps you could explain to our farmers and livestock producers why they're really richer


It seems to me that they were responding to Gillard scapegoating the high $A as the sole cause.
Read again what he said: "blame for rising costs on other factors like the high Australian dollar". There are other factors like the high dollar causing rising costs, much more so than carbon tax, which ranges from $0.0127 to $0.0227 per kWh (from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11)

Damodevo
26-06-2013, 01:25 PM
Fine. In the meantime don't blame carbon tax for higher electricity prices when the tax contributes only a fraction of the price hikes.

Even the government assumes a 10% electricity (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/10/carbon-tax-gillards-clean-energy-future-at-a-glance/) price increase for '12/'13 alone.

Just for the CT that's $171 (http://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/464452/NSW-households-hit-with-rising-cost-of-labors-carbon-tax.pdf) a year for the average household. That is not insignificant. The IPART estimates that's about half of the price increase. Add about the same again if you include the RET.

And according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/06/wind-powers-just-too-expensive-to-actually-use/) (UK)


Meeting the UK Government’s target for renewable generation in 2020
will require total wind capacity of 36 GW backed up by 13 GW of open
cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in transmission
capacity – the Wind Scenario. The same electricity demand could be
met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of
£13 billion – the Gas Scenario. Allowing for the shorter life of wind turbines,
the comparative investment outlays would be about £120 billion for the
Wind Scenario and a mere £13 for the Gas Scenario.


For a so-called incredibly inefficient energy source, wind power is still in its infancy but already supplies 15% of power in the four states with wind farms (NSW, Vic, Tas and SA).

The more accurate figure is to say that wind/solar provides a piddly 1.5% (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/how-much-electricity-do-solar-and-wind-make-on-a-global-scale-answer-not-much/) of world energy according to the US Energy Information Administration.

And no doubt the 15% average for those states are boosted by the 26% to SA making it (http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/10/30/547433_national-news.html) the third highest state/country electricity prices in the world. The highest is Denmark and it too is heavily reliant on renewables.


It is cost competitive and much less labour-intensive than coal (if you're concerned about high wages, why are you concerned that renewable enegy is labour saving? It was never intended to be a job-creation scheme).

It doesn't matter how labor intensive it is but how efficient it is and it isn't efficient at all.



Levelised energy costs for different generation technologies in Australian dollars per megawatt hour (2006)
Technology Cost (AUD/MWh)
Nuclear (to COTS plan) 40–70
Nuclear (to suit site; typical) 75–105
Coal 28–38
Coal: IGCC + CCS 53–98
Coal: supercritical pulverized + CCS 64–106
Open-cycle Gas Turbine 101
Hot fractured rocks 89
Gas: combined cycle 37–54
Gas: combined cycle + CCS 53–93
Small Hydro power 55
Wind power: high capacity factor 63
Solar thermal 85
Biomass 88
Photovoltaics 120
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#cite_note-19

http://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_embed_image/public/article_images/1005/images/1005-FEA2-fig1.jpg?itok=jCTjCdlm
http://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2010/05/green-job-realities


Nice try. The estimate for wind of course is 'high capacity' and the capacity percentage is a measly 20-40% at best estimates which means that figure is a gross exaggeration.


So Akerman is tampering with the truth with his doom-and-gloom stuff on the decline and fall of Australian business?

But it will cost industry! Why else is the government pledging $9.2 billion (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/10/carbon-tax-gillards-clean-energy-future-at-a-glance/) to industry in compensation specifically for the CT?


Maybe, but it wasn't until 2011 that the AUD reached equity with the USD. The Business Spectator has this take on it:

Australia nears the edge of a capital cliff (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/23/resources-and-energy/australia-nears-edge-capital-cliff)
...80 per cent of the investment by Australian-listed resource companies, and more than 90 per cent by foreign companies, had been funded internally and that about 80 per cent of that funding had been sourced offshore.

As he said, that has had a material effect on capital flows. Foreign capital flows into the Australian resource sector had grown from an average of about one per cent of GDP in 2007 to about 3.5 per cent in 2012.

That was partly attributable to the funding of the resource investments but also to a big increase in foreign purchases of Commonwealth government securities, offset to some degree by net repayments of offshore borrowings by the banks as they seek to reduce their exposure to offshore wholesale debt markets.

Debelle’s conclusion was that the net effect of the capital flows was that the Australian dollar was higher than would be expected from the fundamentals like terms of trade and interest rate differentials.

The BoA Merrill Lynch research, released to clients last Friday, looks at the resources investment boom and comes to the tentative conclusion that it could end with a bang in 2015-16....


The reference to terms of trade at the end reflects the higher commodity prices and the fact that the RBA didn't suppress interest rates like it did in the US, Japan, EU etc. I've already pointed this out. 2011 as you point out when we reached parity was not long after the US enormous money printing QE to debase its currency.



Perhaps you could explain to our farmers and livestock producers why they're really richer

Maybe, but farm capital - fertiliser, machinery, chemicals, fuel, etc - at least becomes cheaper. No doubt the silly ALP indonesian export ban was far worse.

Damodevo
26-06-2013, 01:40 PM
Thin, Rotten, Doomed Arctic Ice Grows 15% Since Last Year To Ten Year High

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_227-jun-22-06-41.jpg?w=640&h=481

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/thin-rotten-doomed-arctic-ice-grows-15-since-last-year/

Ian Murray
26-06-2013, 06:07 PM
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_227-jun-22-06-41.jpg?w=640&h=481

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/thin-rotten-doomed-arctic-ice-grows-15-since-last-year/
Arctic sea ice is compared each year in September, at its annual minimum, using a baseline of 15% as ice cover. Current data (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/) so far:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/06/N_stddev_timeseries1-350x280.png

The benchmark IPCC models (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html) were in fact way out with their projected sea ice decline; the ice cover has shrunk much faster than predicted:

http://nsidc.org/news/images/20070430Figure1_thumb.png

antichrist
22-07-2013, 10:25 AM
if Tony Abbott got whacked by a slab of carbon dioxide would he still say that it is a nothing

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2013, 10:47 PM
Mann vs. Steyn: Heresy Shall Be Crushed (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/mann_vs_steyn_heresy_shall_be_crushed.html#ixzz2a9 cunOCx)
By Daren Jonescu
American Thinker, 26 July 2013


In the Michael Mann lawsuit against Mark Steyn and National Review, it is the "award-winning researcher" who is joining the fight for Church orthodoxy, while the defendants are the persecuted Galileos.

Mann, of course, is the creator of the famous "hockey stick graph" that has been employed doggedly throughout the doctrinaire climate science community and the mainstream media as proof that the Earth has shown a marked and unprecedented increase in global mean temperature during the brief period of industrial society's extreme CO2 production, which increase is consequently cited as proof that man's industrial activity is causing the temperature rise. Let us leave aside the climate religion's little logical problem, namely the contradiction between (a) its complete dependence on the premise that rising CO2 levels can and do have an immediate and substantial effect on global temperature, and (b) its attempts to dismiss the significance of the fact that global temperature has not increased significantly since 1995 while CO2 emissions have continued to rise, on the grounds that this is supposedly too short a period to prove anything.

The concern in this context is not so much the truth or falsity of the global warming theory, but the implications of this lawsuit, and its social importance, should Mann actually win.

Mann has taken his critics to court -- all of them, in effect, with Steyn and NRO as stand-ins -- for saying his research is fraudulent and bogus. The court has upheld the legitimacy of his suit by citing the support of his research by precisely the organizations with the greatest vested interest in his vindication -- including government agencies deeply involved in climate change advocacy (EPA and NOAA), and a public university. The message: the State is on board with Mr. Mann, and has had enough of his work being challenged.

There has been much discussion of late of the use of the IRS, the DHS, and potentially the NSA, to thwart and intimidate opponents of the progressive agenda. The concern is not only that such uses of government agencies and resources are unjust in themselves, but that they will -- and are intended to -- have a "cooling effect" (if we're still allowed to talk about "cooling") on opponents and critics of government policy. Mann's lawsuit and the judge's rejection of the defendants' move for dismissal are further evidence of the use of state authority to intimidate and silence private criticism, i.e., to put the squeeze on the unreserved pursuit of controversial but legitimate free speech.

For all the progressive outcry in defense of Mann, his defenders (including, apparently, Judge Combs Greene) seem to have no problem with the smear of all who question the climate change pseudo-orthodoxy as "flat-earthers," "anti-science," "extremists," and "lackeys of big oil." What about the thousands of legitimate, accredited scientists who believe anthropogenic global warming is untenable, including even some (well-buried) dissenters within the UN's IPCC itself?

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2013, 11:22 PM
The Galileo analogy is contemptible rubbish - Galileo got in strife for holding and espousing his scientific opinions, not for defaming people. This isn't a case about whether people are allowed to say AGW is nonsense; it's a case about whether people can go so far as to accuse scientists of malpractice without being able to prove it to the satisfaction of experts in the field.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2013, 01:00 AM
The Galileo analogy is contemptible rubbish - Galileo got in strife for holding and espousing his scientific opinions, not for defaming people.
But he actually did defame people. He had a very abrasive personality. One of the reasons the Pope was against him was that he thought that his own arguments were put in the mouth of Simplicio in Galileo's dialogues. After the Pope and Galileo had died, and the personality issues were no longer important, the Jesuits taught Copernican astronomy to Chinese astronomers. Also, Catholic scholars like his rough contemporary Athanasius Kircher, "The Master of a Hundred Arts", accepted geokineticism without any trouble from the church, (http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1643.htm) and same with Kepler and the Lutherans.


This isn't a case about whether people are allowed to say AGW is nonsense; it's a case about whether people can go so far as to accuse scientists of malpractice without being able to prove it to the satisfaction of experts in the field.
Here again, the AGW proponents are typical mimophants—free with accusations of their own as cited (and I could add, comparisons with Holocaust deniers, and with threats to hold Nuremberg-style trials (http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/23/scientific-nuremberg-trials))

Rincewind
27-07-2013, 01:22 AM
After the Pope and Galileo had died, and the personality issues were no longer important, the Jesuits taught Copernican astronomy to Chinese astronomers.

Note that history is not as simple as Jono's world view.

Galileo died in 1642 and Pope Urban VIII died in 1644 but his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems remained on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum until 1835. Nearly 200 years after 'personality issues were no longer important'.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2013, 02:05 AM
But he actually did defame people. He had a very abrasive personality. One of the reasons the Pope was against him was that he thought that his own arguments were put in the mouth of Simplicio in Galileo's dialogues.

Even assuming that was intentional it is simply not defamation and not near defamation. Satirising someone's argument or casting it in an unflattering light, or even insulting them by insinuating they are a simpleton, is not within a million miles of trashing someone's professional reputation.

I have experience with this, since I was defamed by activists who questioned my science simply because it got in the way of their politics. I could have afforded to sue several of them at the time and I now wish I had done so. Had I done so and had anyone accused me of anything comparable to how the church treated Galileo, I would have reported that person to the mental health authorities with a provisional diagnosis of terminal FITH syndrome/acute stupidity complex. :P


Here again, the AGW proponents are typical mimophants—free with accusations of their own as cited (and I could add, comparisons with Holocaust deniers, and with threats to hold Nuremberg-style trials (http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/23/scientific-nuremberg-trials))

Oh, certainly there are some horrible legal proposals from some zealots who happen to hold pro-AGW views. Especially, those who propose to outlaw climate-change denial - such people are a serious threat to free speech and a far bigger problem in my view than the deniers, irrespective of who is right about the science.

But that does not excuse defaming someone unless that person has shown themselves to be as bad as the defamers.

Capablanca-Fan
15-08-2013, 10:25 AM
Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? (http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf)
Robert S. Pindyck, MIT Sloan School of Management
NBER Working Paper No. 19244
July 2013
JEL No. D81,Q5,Q54

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Emphasis added.]

HT: Spiny Norman

Patrick Byrom
15-08-2013, 01:00 PM
Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? (http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf)
Robert S. Pindyck, MIT Sloan School of Management
NBER Working Paper No. 19244
July 2013
JEL No. D81,Q5,Q54


My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely). Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Group’s $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount. This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.[My bold]

Thanks for this paper which supports a carbon tax, Jono. :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
15-08-2013, 02:44 PM
Thanks for this paper which supports a carbon tax, Jono. :clap:
Actually, it admitted that the highly touted climate models told us "very little", so all he could fall back on was the big-government-lover's last resort: the 'precautionary principle'.

Patrick Byrom
15-08-2013, 04:18 PM
Actually, it admitted that the highly touted climate models told us "very little", so all he could fall back on was the big-government-lover's last resort: the 'precautionary principle'.
You do realise he is only discussing economic models?

It's because the models are not very informative that we need to insure ourselves against the worst outcomes:

"Finally, IAMs tell us nothing about the likelihood and nature of catastrophic outcomes, but it is just such outcomes that matter most for climate change policy."

Ian Murray
17-08-2013, 09:31 AM
Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? (http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf)
Robert S. Pindyck, MIT Sloan School of Management
NBER Working Paper No. 19244
July 2013
JEL No. D81,Q5,Q54

Introduction
There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost. Burning carbon has an external cost because it produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that accumulate in the atmosphere, and will eventually result in unwanted climate change — higher global temperatures, greater climate variability, and possibly increases in sea levels. This external cost is referred to as the social cost of carbon (SCC). It is the basis for taxing or otherwise limiting carbon emissions, and is the focus of policy-oriented research on climate change.

So how large is the SCC? Here there is plenty of disagreement. Some argue that climate change will be moderate, will occur in the distant future, and will have only a small impact on the economies of most countries. This would imply that the SCC is small, perhaps only around $10 per ton of CO2. Others argue that without an immediate and stringent GHG abatement policy, there is a reasonable chance of substantial temperature increases that might have a catastrophic economic impact. If so, it would suggest that the SCC is large,
perhaps as high as $200 per ton of CO2.

So economists agree with climate scientists that burning fossil fuels leads to climate change, and that the coal, oil and gas producers are only paying their production and distribution costs and are externalising the social costs. As society we pay the costs being externalised.

There is no economic justification for continuing to give them a free ride.

antichrist
17-08-2013, 10:06 AM
Friends of the Earth was saying that about 38 years ago when I first joined them. No one cared then and not many care now. The diff is that now they all drive big 4wd killing the planet quicker.. That is why I am anti human

Ian Murray
24-08-2013, 11:08 AM
Welcome to the Age of Denial (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?_r=0)
The New York Times op ed
21.8.12


... Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.

Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.

The list goes on.,,,

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2013, 12:30 AM
Forecast failure: how the Met Office lost touch with reality (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8959941/whats-wrong-with-the-met-office/)
Ideology has corrupted a valuable British institution
Rupert Darwall, Spectator, 13 July 2013


The Met Office’s record of obstruction and denial should give pause to even the firmest believer in global warming and illustrates the profound incompatibility of state science (which climate science has become) and the real thing. ‘We should listen to the scientists — and we should believe them,’ said Ed Davey, the Climate Secretary, earlier this year. Yet his department has officially sanctioned the anti-scientific practice of withholding data. The climate secretary has denounced sceptics and other non-believers as ‘crackpots’ — an attack conforming to a key feature of what the philosopher Karl Popper defined as pseudoscience. Genuine science invites refutation; pseudoscience tries to silence dissent.

Rincewind
31-08-2013, 04:21 PM
Rupert Darwall is a very confused individual. Basically his argument is everything the Met Office does must be scientific when in reality there are many things that need to be done. One is the scientific endeavour which continues to be played out in the literature.

However those interested in science-based policy do have to combat the flood of misinformation that masquerades as climate "scepticism". In Darwall's perverted concept of reality the Met Office would not be able to respond to the misinformation in the popular media because they are meant to be doing science and only science.

However that give climate sceptics untrammelled access to the popular media to sway public opinion with no basis in science. Of course that is exactly what guys like Darwall want and need.

Ian Murray
31-08-2013, 11:00 PM
Rupert Darwall is a very confused individual.
He also fails to understand that weather is not the same as climate. Climate models are not used to predict weather; real-time data is used which is only good for a few weeks ahead.

The recent eccentricity of the northern jet stream (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1967) is unpredictable, making the Met Office's job an unenviable one.

However those interested in science-based policy do have to combat the flood of misinformation that masquerades as climate "scepticism". In Darwall's perverted concept of reality the Met Office would not be able to respond to the misinformation in the popular media because they are meant to be doing science and only science.

However that give climate sceptics untrammelled access to the popular media to sway public opinion with no basis in science. Of course that is exactly what guys like Darwall want and need.
The crackpots hold sway in US red states. Winner of this year's ostrich award is North Carolina (http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/denying-sea-level-rise-how-100-centimeters-divided-state-north-carolina), which framed legislation to make sea level rise illegal!

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2013, 01:48 AM
Rupert Darwall is a very confused individual. Basically his argument is everything the Met Office does must be scientific when in reality there are many things that need to be done. One is the scientific endeavour which continues to be played out in the literature.

However those interested in science-based policy do have to combat the flood of misinformation that masquerades as climate "scepticism". In Darwall's perverted concept of reality the Met Office would not be able to respond to the misinformation in the popular media because they are meant to be doing science and only science.

However that give climate sceptics untrammelled access to the popular media to sway public opinion with no basis in science. Of course that is exactly what guys like Darwall want and need.
More delusion by dogmatic climate alarmists, using this as an excuse to quash any dissent. The Leftmedia are almost all in favour of alarmism anyway. Look at the millions that alGore has made from it.

Rincewind
01-09-2013, 02:10 AM
More delusion by dogmatic climate alarmists, using this as an excuse to quash any dissent. The Leftmedia are almost all in favour of alarmism anyway. Look at the millions that alGore has made from it.

^ Insubstantial drivel.

antichrist
01-09-2013, 02:57 PM
More delusion by dogmatic climate alarmists, using this as an excuse to quash any dissent. The Leftmedia are almost all in favour of alarmism anyway. Look at the millions that alGore has made from it.

the same could be said of some of your delusions - and you are in the business of it, but good luck with it, someone has to get their money

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2013, 01:24 AM
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
By DAVID ROSE, Daily Mail, UK, 7 September 2013


A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Looks like the earth's global temperature is taking care of itself. We don't need economy-harming but climatically useless gestures like a carbon tax that merely serve to justify JuLiar's broken promise and made Dr Byrom, LE, RW, AC and other warm-mongers feel morally superior about themselves.

Desmond
17-09-2013, 06:58 AM
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
By DAVID ROSE, Daily Mail, UK, 7 September 2013
Thanks Jono, I was wondering which muppet would post Rose's latest ravings.

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2013, 07:42 AM
Thanks Jono, I was wondering which muppet would post Rose's latest ravings.
THANKS rr, I was wondering what warm-monger would try to maintain that we have to have a carbon tax even though it would make no measurable difference to world temperature, even in the face of global cooling again.

Desmond
17-09-2013, 07:45 AM
THANKS rr, I was wondering what warm-monger would try to maintain that we have to have a carbon tax even though it would make no measurable difference to world temperature, even in the face of global cooling again.
Where have I ever argued for a carbon tax?
Meanwhile your muppetry may be viewed at #2636.

Patrick Byrom
17-09-2013, 03:36 PM
Meanwhile your muppetry may be viewed at #2636.
But I don't think Jono actually believes Rose's conclusion: Nobody with a PhD in a physical science could possibly think that you can base a theory on only two data points, while ignoring all the others.
However, if Dr Sarfati actually does think this is legitimate, perhaps he can give a reference to the statistics textbook he is relying on.

Ian Murray
17-09-2013, 09:08 PM
Climate policy has made a real difference - power generating emissions down 7%, renewable energy generation up 15% - without bringing the world to an end. The mining industry is still here, Whyalla is still alive and well, despite Tony Abbott's doom-and-gloom predictions. And one of his green promises - a million solar rooftops - is underwhelming. That target was reached in March. It's depressing to see the progress on the verge of reversal.

Hobbes
17-09-2013, 11:57 PM
Climate policy has made a real difference

Good, I can't wait to hear what difference! Maybe it stopped the world from warming, maybe it allowed children to know what snow is!


- power generating emissions down 7%, renewable energy generation up 15%

Oh. A bit disappointing. Was there a reason for trying to do these things, or are they an end in themselves, or maybe is this a Sir Humphrey sort of thing - as long as the Public Service has expanded the project was successful.


It's depressing to see the progress on the verge of reversal.

Well you can cheer up, none of the doom and gloom predictions have come true!

Rincewind
18-09-2013, 01:09 AM
David Rose is an idiot and working at the Daily Fail is about the extent of his abilities. The average monthly sea ice extent is a declining trend and while 2013 saw more ice than 2012 there is no sign of a reversal of trends. The picture over the last several decades is a more chilling tale...

2336

What Rose is getting excited about is the uptick in the final wiggle of that graph. The message. It's OK everything is back to normal.

Right...

Ian Murray
18-09-2013, 06:02 PM
David Rose is an idiot and working at the Daily Fail is about the extent of his abilities. The average monthly sea ice extent is a declining trend and while 2013 saw more ice than 2012 there is no sign of a reversal of trends. The picture over the last several decades is a more chilling tale...

2336

What Rose is getting excited about is the uptick in the final wiggle of that graph. The message. It's OK everything is back to normal.

Right...

Don't disillusion Jono - Rose is his hero

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2013, 03:39 PM
Tim Flannery sacked, Climate Commission dismantled by Coalition
GEMMA JONES POLITICAL REPORTER, NEWS LIMITED NETWORK, SEPTEMBER 19, 2013

PROFESSOR Tim Flannery has been sacked by the Abbott Government from his $180,000 a year part time Chief Climate Commissioner position with the agency he runs to be dismantled immediately.

All other climate commissioners will also be sacked with the move to save more than $500,000 this financial year and $1.2 million next financial year.

Ian Murray
20-09-2013, 08:02 AM
Axing the Climate Commission splits Australians from science (http://theconversation.com/axing-the-climate-commission-splits-australians-from-science-18425?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+20+S eptember+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+20+Se ptember+2013+CID_0347cfd1695e6e872e3f8e0eb8d3c5c2&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Axing%20the%20Climate%20Commission%20spli ts%20Australians%20from%20science)
The Conversation
19.9.13


The new Abbott Government decided today, just one day into governing, to axe the Climate Commission. This decision demonstrates to the Australian public the government is not interested in talking to them about climate change science or climate change action.

I was recently in a taxi on the way to give a talk about communicating about climate science, when I decided to ask the driver if he believed in climate science. “Oh no,” he said, giving me a horrified stare. “I don’t get into politics.”

Climate science has become increasingly politicised over the past five to ten years. People are no longer engaging with the science, but rather engaging or dis-engaging with the politics of the issue. This creates a public controversy, despite almost no scientific controversy...

Rincewind
20-09-2013, 10:40 AM
What I am seeing is that there is a lot of uncertainty among the scientific community at the moment. The governments position on research is very backward (e.g. in the ministry science is in the industry portfolio) and the strong unscientific stance on climate for example is even more cause for concern. I would not be surprised if we see a lot of top researchers moving overseas over the next 3-6 years. And research nowadays is much more group focused than any time in recent memory so for every senior group leader that decides to leave there is every chance that we are talking about a brain drain of many very good scientists.

Ian Murray
20-09-2013, 12:19 PM
What I am seeing is that there is a lot of uncertainty among the scientific community at the moment. The governments position on research is very backward (e.g. in the ministry science is in the industry portfolio) and the strong unscientific stance on climate for example is even more cause for concern. I would not be surprised if we see a lot of top researchers moving overseas over the next 3-6 years. And research nowadays is much more group focused than any time in recent memory so for every senior group leader that decides to leave there is every chance that we are talking about a brain drain of many very good scientists.

My daughter is an ecologist with CSIRO, facing a contract expiry in February. Whether she gets a renewal is in serious doubt.

Capablanca-Fan
10-10-2013, 12:33 AM
Yes! The science is settled! Even MORE sunshine can be extracted from cucumbers! (https://www.embooks.com/blog/single/yes-the-science-is-settled-even-more-sunshine-can-be-extracted-from-cucumbe)
Posted by Melanie Phillips, 7 Oct 2013

It’s over – but its adherents will never admit it. Just as the exposure of the excesses of Stalinism drove many true believers into an ever more fanatical and deluded defence of Soviet communism, so the conclusive destruction of anthropogenic global warming theory is provoking ever more fantastical contortions by warmist zealots who, contrary to all reputable evidence, claim that the planet is about to turn into a furnace and (pace Bob Geldof (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/10353206/Were-facing-a-mass-extinction-event-claims-Bob-Geldof.html)) it’s all over for the human race.

The recent release of the IPCC’s Final Draft Report of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/review-drafts/) revealed, beyond any measure of doubt, the intellectual vacuity, sophistry, and outright corruption of the AGW industry. Presented as an authoritative statement of the current state of climate change evidence, it was nothing of the kind. Indeed, it wasn’t even any kind of statement of evidence. It was instead a politicised draft summary of evidence that was to be amended to ‘ensure consistency between the full Report and the Summary for Policy-Makers’. As Lewis Carroll might have said: conclusions first, rigged evidence to follow.

And while inadequate or opportunistic researchers have lined their pockets with AGW-theory funding, this giant scam has helped derail western economies, inflating the cost of living and causing the poor to shiver in homes they cannot afford to heat because of fuel bills inflated by governmental subservience to the grotesque fiction of the killer carbon footprint.

Yet despite all the evidence to the contrary, despite all the revelations of intellectual corruption at the very core of the theory, despite the denunciations by some of the most distinguished scientists in the various related fields of climate science, still the warmists have not only stuck to but reinforced their warnings of imminent doom. As they doubtless will to their dying day. For how can they do otherwise? Too many reputations, too many claims to scientific scholarship, too many livelihoods depend on the great multi-billion-dollar milch-cow of grant-funding, whose sole purpose is to uphold the conclusion that sunshine can be made out of cucumbers.

And so the warmists continue to make their ever more ludicrous claims, exhibiting that total absence of insight characterising all fanatics – who, by definition, are totally incapable of grasping quite what a ludicrous spectacle they present every time they open their mouths.

But the implications of this epic scam are even more serious and wide-ranging. For what the warmists have done is nothing less than to undermine public confidence in science itself. Science is a synonym for truth-telling, for the exercise of reason, for open-eyed inquiry and the absolute integrity of following where the evidence leads.

Rincewind
10-10-2013, 11:37 AM
Melanie Phillips is not qualified to comment on the scientific evidence and her other angry rants border on ultra-rightwing conspiracy theories (Obama is an Islamist Jew-hater, for example) indicate that she also lost any credible claim to the title of "journalist" many years ago. Now she is just another propagandist.

Desmond
10-10-2013, 04:26 PM
Melanie Phillips is not qualified to comment on the scientific evidence and her other angry rants border on ultra-rightwing conspiracy theories (Obama is an Islamist Jew-hater, for example) indicate that she also lost any credible claim to the title of "journalist" many years ago. Now she is just another propagandist.

Yes, the CAPS and 3 exclamation marks in the heading might be a clue.

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2013, 02:41 AM
NSW bushfires - the fuel was just waiting to burn, experts say (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/nsw-bushfires-the-fuel-was-just-waiting-to-burn-experts-say/story-fni0cx12-1226744123333)
JOHN FERGUSON THE DAILY TELEGRAPH OCTOBER 22, 2013

THE Blue Mountains bushfire crisis was the result of a lack of political leadership over bush management issues and had nothing to do with climate change, one of Australia's foremost disaster management experts said yesterday.

It also demonstrated a failure to learn certain lessons from the 2009 Black Saturday fires in Victoria that killed 173 people and left thousands homeless, according to David Packham, a former deputy director of the Australian Counter Disaster College.

Mr Packham said "a little" had been learnt from the Black Saturday fires - five of which, out of a total 11, were caused by electrical assets - but said the Blue Mountains had been allowed to accumulate fuel for fires with the predictable outcome being large-scale, uncontrollable burning.

"What is happening in NSW is exactly what happens every 10 or 20 years, right back to 1915," he said.

"If you have lots of ... fire fuel you will have lots of unpleasant fire."

Mr Packham also said linking the NSW fire disaster with global warming was "nonsense", because climate change was incremental and could not be blamed for dire fire events such as this.

He has previously accused "latte conservationists" of having too much influence on forest management.

Desmond
24-10-2013, 06:09 AM
["What is happening in NSW is exactly what happens every 10 or 20 years, right back to 1915," he said.If you expect one every 10-20 years and then you have 3 of them in 10 years, that might suggest more frequency than you expected. Climate change would suggest that such events become more frequent, and more extreme.

Record hot year causes fire emergency in Australia (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24440-record-hot-year-causes-fire-emergency-in-australia.html#.UmgsR_lmhcY)

.
..
Climate models predict the worst fire weather will be increasingly common in NSW, but the ferocity of the current fires was not caused by particularly bad fire weather, says climate scientist Andy Pitman from the University of New South Wales in Sydney. Instead, it was the result of a very warm winter – the second warmest on record in NSW and part of Australia's warmest 12 months on record– which was probably caused by climate change, according to Pitman.

"Vegetation that would commonly basically shut down in winter continued to transpire," says Pitman. By continuing to give off water, the vegetation dried out the soil so that in spring, the plants had little access to water and became dry. That primed the landscape for fire: "Really hot days combined with strong winds plus ignition equals a major problem," says Pitman.

Patrick Byrom
24-10-2013, 01:08 PM
There is nothing in the article Jono quotes from about the Greens, even though his heading is: "Thank the Greens and the gutless politicians that won't stand up to them."

NSW has had a Coalition government for over two years, of course (and they also effectively control the upper house). So I'm not sure how the Greens are responsible for anything.

Ian Murray
25-10-2013, 08:46 PM
More frequent bushfires? Fears are being realised, says emergency council (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/25/bushfire-climate-change-emergency-agenda)
Lenore Taylor
The Guardian
25.10.13


Predictions that climate change would lead to a greater frequency of bushfires and a higher average intensity of bushfires are being realised, according to the peak government and private sector body for fire and land management and emergency service authorities in Australia and New Zealand....

In a submission to a 2013 Senate committee inquiry into recent trends in and preparedness for extreme weather events, the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) referred to a 2009 paper it had published reviewing all available scientific evidence on climate change.

It found that scientists were predicting greater frequency of bushfires and higher average intensity of bushfires, among other things.

“In the period of just over three years since September 2009, Australasian fire and emergency services have been involved in responding to the realisation of that prediction, with a number of emergencies and disasters linked to extreme weather events. Examples include, bushfires in Western Australia, notably at Toodyay, Roleystone/Kelmscott and Margaret River, occurring in the context of prolonged dry and warm weather … and the Tasmanian and New South Wales bushfires in early 2013, which were associated with record high average maximum temperatures in Australia,” AFAC says in its submission...

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2013, 12:22 AM
Typical of the watermelon-greens' pseudoscience. Pretend everything else is constant, and blame what is at best a fraction of a degree of average world temp. So ignore the drying dead brush becoming kindling because the Greens don't want controlled burn-offs, and the Labor and gutless pretend-Coalition state governments won't stand up to their radical demands.

Damodevo
26-10-2013, 01:03 AM
More frequent bushfires? Fears are being realised, says emergency council (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/25/bushfire-climate-change-emergency-agenda)
Lenore Taylor
The Guardian
25.10.13


Predictions that climate change would lead to a greater frequency of bushfires and a higher average intensity of bushfires are being realised, according to the peak government and private sector body for fire and land management and emergency service authorities in Australia and New Zealand....

In a submission to a 2013 Senate committee inquiry into recent trends in and preparedness for extreme weather events, the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) referred to a 2009 paper it had published reviewing all available scientific evidence on climate change.

It found that scientists were predicting greater frequency of bushfires and higher average intensity of bushfires, among other things.

“In the period of just over three years since September 2009, Australasian fire and emergency services have been involved in responding to the realisation of that prediction, with a number of emergencies and disasters linked to extreme weather events. Examples include, bushfires in Western Australia, notably at Toodyay, Roleystone/Kelmscott and Margaret River, occurring in the context of prolonged dry and warm weather … and the Tasmanian and New South Wales bushfires in early 2013, which were associated with record high average maximum temperatures in Australia,” AFAC says in its submission...

What complete and utter bollox. Even the IPCC (AR4) (http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/) is reluctant to draw a link between climate change and bushfire disasters.


There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses [that is, adjusted for exposure and wealth of the increasing populations] have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.

More likely the extra tonnage (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/man-made-climate-change-and-bushfires-in-southeast-australia/) of fuel on the ground explains the ferocity of the fires.


Current fuel loads are now typically 30 tonnes per hectare in the forests of southeast Australia, compared to maybe 8 tonnes per hectare in the recent and ancient pasts. So fires burn hotter and longer. (The figures are hard to obtain, which is scandalous considering their central importance. There is also confusion over whether to include all material dropped by the trees, or just the material less than 6mm thick–it is mainly the finer material that contributes to the flame front.)

Note too even the head of the Department of Fire and Primary Industries took aim at Green policies in his submission to the Vic Royal Commission into bushfires for the lack of political will to hazard reduction. WA have always been bigger backburners and haven't had a fire over 30,000 ha in nearly 50 years as opposed to Vic or NSW. California likewise has big hurdles for backburning which caused their 2009 fires of over 130,000 ha with tonnes of fuel kegs on the ground waiting to explode.

Desmond
26-10-2013, 06:01 AM
What complete and utter bollox. Even the IPCC (AR4) (http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/) is reluctant to draw a link between climate change and bushfire disasters.



More likely the extra tonnage (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/man-made-climate-change-and-bushfires-in-southeast-australia/) of fuel on the ground explains the ferocity of the fires.
As already explained in the New Scientist article I linked in #2653, the fuel is attributed to a dry winter, following on from the second warmest winter on record and Australia's warmest 12 months on record. Warming has nothing to do with it? Yeah right.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2013, 06:26 AM
The great climate fiction (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-great-climate-fiction/story-e6frg76f-1226741257158#)
GREG SHERIDAN, FOREIGN EDITOR THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 17, 2013

IT is natural that when Tony Abbott told Asia-Pacific leaders he was going to repeal Australia's carbon tax he found no opposition, and a good deal of support instead. He mentioned it in plenary sessions and bilateral meetings with all the leaders.

In taking this action, Abbott is bringing us into line with Asia-Pacific practice. There is not one significant national carbon tax or emissions trading scheme operating anywhere in the Asia-Pacific.

One of the most disagreeable defects of the Rudd and Gillard governments was the way they so often misrepresented reality, especially international reality. They tried to do this on such a scale that ultimately the public could see through it on many issues, especially boats and climate change.

The politics of climate change the world over is full of rhetoric and devoid of action. If Australians are being asked to pay a tax, even if it's called an emissions trading scheme, they should compare what other countries are actually doing, not what some politician might once have said.

The ABC in particular runs a constant propaganda campaign in favour of the idea that the world is moving to put a price on carbon. But the information is never specific. Any ABC interviewer with a speck of competence or professional standards should always ask the following: Name the specific scheme? Is it actually in operation? How much of the economy does it cover? What is the price of carbon? How much revenue does it raise?

You can impose no real cost on your economy, but still have a scheme to brag about if you have economy-wide coverage but a tiny price, or a big price but a tiny coverage. Either way you have a good headline scheme to fool the ABC with.

To compare ourselves with the world we must be absolutely accurate about what the world is actually, really doing in its physical manifestation today, not what some EU bureaucrat or NGO activist is willing to say in an always unchallenging ABC interview. Even within Europe's compromised scheme there is a great deal of re-thinking as economic logic trumps climate change piety.

The carbon tax and the ETS are based on a complete misrepresentation of what other countries are doing. Australians have never voted for either an ETS or a carbon tax and, unless the world changes radically, are unlikely to do so in the future.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2013, 06:29 AM
As already explained in the New Scientist article I linked in #2653, the fuel is attributed to a dry winter, following on from the second warmest winter on record and Australia's warmest 12 months on record. Warming has nothing to do with it? Yeah right.

Would matter not if the Watermelons didn't whinge about removing it by a controlled burn-off.

Desmond
26-10-2013, 06:52 AM
Would matter not if the Watermelons didn't whinge about removing it by a controlled burn-off.NSW based climate scientist thinks it matters. I'll take him over you any day.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2013, 07:22 AM
NSW based climate scientist thinks it matters. I'll take him over you any day.

I wouldn't. His gravy train depends on warm-mongering, and all of his nonsense would be easily exposed if the kindling-like dry brush were simply removed by a controlled burn-off. But then, too many people might realize that tiny increases in average temperature don't justify impoverishing taxes and strangulating regulations.

Patrick Byrom
26-10-2013, 09:15 AM
What complete and utter bollox. Even the IPCC (AR4) (http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/) is reluctant to draw a link between climate change and bushfire disasters.
But the IPCC does say that there is a link (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3873841.htm) between climate change and bushfires in Australia.


More likely the extra tonnage (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/man-made-climate-change-and-bushfires-in-southeast-australia/) of fuel on the ground explains the ferocity of the fires.
And why is there extra fuel on the ground? Climate change!


Note too even the head of the Department of Fire and Primary Industries took aim at Green policies in his submission to the Vic Royal Commission into bushfires for the lack of political will to hazard reduction. WA have always been bigger backburners and haven't had a fire over 30,000 ha in nearly 50 years as opposed to Vic or NSW. California likewise has big hurdles for backburning which caused their 2009 fires of over 130,000 ha with tonnes of fuel kegs on the ground waiting to explode.
But there are problems (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3873841.htm) with back-burning.

Desmond
26-10-2013, 09:56 AM
I wouldn't.And yet you have not said a single thing to counter his point about warm, dry winter and its effect on vegetation and ultimately fire fuel. Probably because he is right and you are just an ideologue.


But then, too many people might realize that tiny increases in average temperature don't justify impoverishing taxes and strangulating regulations.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2900/29004401.jpg

pax
26-10-2013, 12:32 PM
I wouldn't. His gravy train depends on warm-mongering, and all of his nonsense would be easily exposed if the kindling-like dry brush were simply removed by a controlled burn-off. But then, too many people might realize that tiny increases in average temperature don't justify impoverishing taxes and strangulating regulations.

You do know that controlled burn-offs are a part of fire management in every part of Australia? It's not a simple issue, since the area which needs burning is enormous, and the safe window for doing so is very small. I'm not aware of significant Green opposition to controlled burns. I think that's a figment of your imagination.

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2013, 01:29 PM
Paper company Norske Skog was attacked by many green groups including the Tasmanian Greens last year after conducting fuel-reduction burns in plantations. They did this at the behest of neighbours concerned about fuel load but triggered the ire of other neighbours concerned about smoke pollution. A Tasmanian Green MHA was quoted as saying "the Greens strongly believe Tasmania must free itself from this smoke taint and end commercial forestry burn offs."

Perhaps a special case since the groups in question would be far less likely to object to a fuel-reduction burn conducted by anyone other than the forest industry.

Ian Murray
26-10-2013, 02:05 PM
What complete and utter bollox. Even the IPCC (AR4) (http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/) is reluctant to draw a link between climate change and bushfire disasters...
AR4 Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
Table SPM2 - Examples of some projected regional impacts
Australia and New Zealand
...By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought and fire,

pax
26-10-2013, 03:47 PM
Paper company Norske Skog was attacked by many green groups including the Tasmanian Greens last year after conducting fuel-reduction burns in plantations. They did this at the behest of neighbours concerned about fuel load but triggered the ire of other neighbours concerned about smoke pollution. A Tasmanian Green MHA was quoted as saying "the Greens strongly believe Tasmania must free itself from this smoke taint and end commercial forestry burn offs."

Perhaps a special case since the groups in question would be far less likely to object to a fuel-reduction burn conducted by anyone other than the forest industry.

Hmm, interesting. Burn offs are not an issue in WA at all, except for a case last year when one got out of control a turned into quite a bad bushfire. Land owners can cop criticism for failing to reduce fuel on their land, and the Dept responsible is sometimes criticised after a fire for not having reduced the fuel sufficiently - however, as they point out, it's not easy to manage fuel in a state as large as WA in the narrow windows when it is both safe enough and dry enough to conduct burns.

Damodevo
26-10-2013, 10:21 PM
AR4 Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
Table SPM2 - Examples of some projected regional impacts
Australia and New Zealand
...By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought and fire,

But we haven't even been in a drought for 3 years with rather large rainfalls.

Ian Murray
26-10-2013, 11:19 PM
But we haven't even been in a drought for 3 years with rather large rainfalls.
What do you call conditions in western Queensland over the last three years?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml

Damodevo
27-10-2013, 02:08 AM
What do you call conditions in western Queensland over the last three years?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml

Last thing I checked the fires weren't in western QLD

Ian Murray
27-10-2013, 06:39 AM
You said:

But we haven't even been in a drought for 3 years with rather large rainfalls.
I replied:

What do you call conditions in western Queensland over the last three years?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml
And you reply:

Last thing I checked the fires weren't in western QLD
So make up your mind - are you talking about drought or fire? IPCC projected both worsening over the 2007-30 period.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2013, 05:30 AM
Kevin Rudd to be questioned over botched insulation scheme after Abbott Government orders formal inquiry (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-to-be-questioned-over-botched-insulation-scheme-after-abbott-government-orders-formal-inquiry/story-fni0fiyv-1226747562242)
RENEE VIELLARIS THE SUNDAY MAIL (QLD) OCTOBER 27, 2013

KEVIN Rudd will be ordered to reveal the secrets of his deadly home insulation program before a judicial inquiry to be commissioned by the Abbott Government.

Draft terms of reference exclusively obtained by The Sunday Mail reveal the judicial commission will demand answers of the top echelons of the former Rudd government.

Matthew Fuller, Rueben Barnes, Mitchell Sweeney and Marcus Wilson died between 2009 and 2010 while installing insulation in the former government’s rush to save the economy after the global financial crisis.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who has previously called for Mr Rudd to release all correspondence between him and his ministers, wants the report finalised by June 30 next year. He also wants evidence given publicly and not behind closed doors.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2013, 06:46 AM
No end to the Bill shock for Shorten (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/no-end-to-the-bill-shock-for-shorten/story-e6frf7jo-1226747830640)
ANDREW BOLT HERALD SUN OCTOBER 28, 2013

TO celebrate his 50 days since winning the election, Tony Abbott made a special meal - of "Electricity Bill" Shorten.

What the Prime Minister did last weekend to the Opposition Leader in just one sentence should terrify Labor. He put a label on Shorten that will stick like Tarzan's Grip, reminding voters Shorten is keeping power bills too high by stopping Abbott in the Senate from scrapping the carbon tax.

"That's what people will be thinking every time their power bill comes in until the carbon tax goes - that's Electricity Bill who's responsible," Abbott said.

Labor's fantasy then shattered.

Since the election, Shorten and Labor have kidded themselves that they lost government just by being bastards to each other - that whole Rudd and Gillard thing.

Otherwise, they'd done a great job.

Truly.

Labor must now know it cannot dodge the debate it's refused to have since its defeat. How can it drop the carbon tax and walk from the green faith that ruined two prime ministers and made Labor seem dictatorial?

What new causes should it take up to prove it's still the party for idealists? This is serious work, and Shorten, a smart man, can do it. Electricity Bill cannot.

Rincewind
28-10-2013, 02:25 PM
Name calling? Just further evidence that the "adults" are in charge?

Damodevo
28-10-2013, 08:00 PM
You said:

I replied:

And you reply:

So make up your mind - are you talking about drought or fire? IPCC projected both worsening over the 2007-30 period.

But SE Australia is experiencing anything but a draught in recent years.

2374

Ian Murray
28-10-2013, 08:58 PM
But SE Australia is experiencing anything but a draught in recent years.

That chart shows that SE Australian rainfall has been below the mean for 13 of the last 16 years. Hardly drought-breaking. There's more to eastern Australia than the SE corner -Queensland (http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/more-than-60pc-of-qld-in-drought/2671832.aspx) and NSW west of the Divide have been in drought for years.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive/20131003.2.lr.col.gif

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2013, 10:55 AM
Electricity Bill retreats (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/electricity_bill_retreats/#.Um6xBz0cFBs.facebook)
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 29 Oct 2013

Turns out voters might get a win-win out of this:


Mr Shorten is also worried an endless focus on the carbon tax would distract from serious flaws in the government’s $3.2 billion Direct Action policy, which Labor will oppose.

So we might get neither Labor’s carbon tax nor the Coalition’s equally useless, albeit much cheaper, Direct Action policies.

Excellent.

Rincewind
29-10-2013, 11:05 AM
So we might get neither Labor’s carbon tax nor the Coalition’s equally useless, albeit much cheaper, Direct Action policies.

Labor won't need to put up much of a fight to block Direct Action since it is useless and lacks any really political will in the LNP to see it through. Direct Action was never more than a cynical election "promise" that made sure the LNP ticked the box on the climate. No one really expected it to be implemented let alone make any sort of difference.

Desmond
29-10-2013, 12:15 PM
Labor won't need to put up much of a fight to block Direct Action since it is useless and lacks any really political will in the LNP to see it through. Direct Action was never more than a cynical election "promise" that made sure the LNP ticked the box on the climate. No one really expected it to be implemented let alone make any sort of difference.
Politically it might be best for them to allow the direct action bill so it can be shown to be the fizzer it will be.

However I think they should not allow the Carbon Tax repeal unless it is replaced with something meaningful - Eg an ETS.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2013, 12:54 PM
So we might get neither Labor’s carbon tax nor the Coalition’s equally useless, albeit much cheaper, Direct Action policies.

Excellent.

Too good to be true

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2013, 02:12 PM
Too good to be true

Having an LDP senator should help though.

Damodevo
29-10-2013, 03:54 PM
That chart shows that SE Australian rainfall has been below the mean for 13 of the last 16 years. Hardly drought-breaking. There's more to eastern Australia than the SE corner -Queensland (http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/more-than-60pc-of-qld-in-drought/2671832.aspx) and NSW west of the Divide have been in drought for years.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive/20131003.2.lr.col.gif

The bush fires have nothing (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/long-bow-to-blame-nsw-fires-on-manmade-global-warming-20131024-2w3uc.html) to do with climate change



Many factors, both man-made and natural, contribute to the severity of a bushfire. For the current NSW fires some key factors are clear.

Data for the Blue Mountains is not easy to find but as a whole, after nine years of below average rainfall, NSW rainfall totals in 2010 and 2011 were 47 per cent and 21 per cent above average, with 2012 very close to average. This pattern will have encouraged plant growth. Not surprisingly, other bad bushfires were preceded by one or two years of good rainfall.

Rincewind
29-10-2013, 04:18 PM
However I think they should not allow the Carbon Tax repeal unless it is replaced with something meaningful - Eg an ETS.

That is probably a good strategy but again the LNP will just propose a Direct Action style of thing and LNP will not care about it failing since many of them are like the wingnuts here who rely on Andrew Bolt to tell them what to think.

Ian Murray
30-10-2013, 06:13 PM
The bush fires have nothing to do with climate change

If you like to believe that hotter summers and drier winters do not increase the fire risk, then dream on.

Ian Murray
30-10-2013, 06:19 PM
What will Abbott's sound bite be when the carbon tax is gone but not the 70% increase in electricity bills? Axe the gold-plating?

Damodevo
31-10-2013, 12:27 AM
If you like to believe that hotter summers and drier winters do not increase the fire risk, then dream on.

The satellite global temperature hasn't changed in 15 years.

Also, the October temperature for Bathurst, which is just west of the blue mountains where the fires occurred, hasn't been anything special.

2376

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2013, 02:10 AM
Why greenies only make me see red (Why greenies only make me see red
Icon - Comments 128 Comments | Permalink Miranda Devine Blog Icon Arrow
Miranda Devine
Tuesday, October 22, 2013)
Miranda Devine, October 22, 2013


How many warnings do councils need before they understand that tea trees and eucalypts and other lovely natives, not to mention shrubs and organic litter on the ground, are lethal near homes in fireprone areas.

It’s bad enough that properties are being burned out by unstoppable infernos that erupt out of neglected national parks. But to actively stop people from protecting their homes by forbidding them to remove fire fuel on their own land is insanity.

Gosford Council is not alone, or even the worst.

Wyong Council has recently sent residents in Lake Munmorah warning letters about clearing bush adjoining their properties where dead lantana poses a serious bushfire hazard.

It’s the same all over the country wherever green sensibilities have overwhelmed sensible decision making.

Who could forget Liam Sheahan, who was fined $50,000 by his local council for clearing trees around his house, only to find that his property was the only one in a 2km area which survived the Black Saturday fires in Victoria in 2009. Yet we still haven’t learned the lesson.

In 2009 Blue Mountains residents signed a petition condemning the state government for failing to carry out enough burn-offs as experienced firefighters warned the area was a “time bomb”.

Where 10 tonnes of ground fuel per hectare is regarded as hazardous, one veteran firefighter estimates there was 40 tonnes in areas that have been burned out in the past week. That’s despite a significant improvement in national parks and firetrails management in recent years.

But greenies are brilliant at warping the narrative, so instead what most people are hearing is that the bushfires have been caused by climate change, a claim not even the IPCC has made.

The ABC has allowed itself to shill for climate alarmists, claiming that the bushfire season has never started so early, when a simple record check shows raging October bushfires near Sydney on several occasions in the last century.

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2013, 02:12 AM
ABC's preaching not based on fact (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/abcs-preaching-not-based-on-fact/story-fnj45fva-1226745593355)
ANDREW BOLT HERALD SUN OCTOBER 24, 2013


So let's do some of the fact-checking the ABC didn't.

Claim: NSW faced an "unprecedented fire disaster", reported Radio National Breakfast.

Fact: NSW suffered serious fires in 1951-52, 1968-69, 1984-85 and 1993-94. These latest fires have burned perhaps 100,000 hectares and killed one person, but the 1984-85 fires burned 3.5 million hectares and killed four.

Australia's biggest known bushfire, Victoria's "Black Thursday" disaster in 1851, burned five million hectares. Our deadliest, Black Saturday, killed 173 people.

Claim: "It's certainly the first time bushfires of this magnitude have happened in October," reported Lateline. Added Radio National's Fran Kelly: "We've always dealt with fire, but not necessarily in October."

Fact: In October 1928 the Sydney Morning Herald reported Sydney was "encircled by bushfires".

In October 1948, the Herald reported "the village of Termeil, 12 miles from Ulladulla, was practically destroyed" ...

In October 1951, 100 bushfires raged around Sydney in what the Herald described as "the worst in history". NSW has in fact had more than a dozen big fires in October or earlier in the past 90 years.

Claim: On AM, Christiana Figueres, a UN climate change bureaucrat, said - unchallenged - these fires were "introductions to the doom and gloom that we could be facing", adding: "We are really already paying the price of carbon ... with wildfires, we are paying the price with drought ..."

Fact: Global temperatures have been flat for 15 years and even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conceded last month it had only "medium confidence that globally the length and frequency of warm spells, including heatwaves, has increased".

But behind all this hype is the biggest deceit of all - a delusion that the carbon tax could make a difference to future fires and Abbott will make fires worse by scrapping it.

In fact, Abbott still promises to cut our emissions.

But so what? Both Abbott's "direct action" scheme and Labor's carbon tax would at best cut the world's temperature this century by 0.0038 degrees, according to IPCC author Professor Roger Jones.

Does anyone believe this infinitesimally small change would spare us one fire?

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2013, 03:56 PM
Let's get rid of all the useless wind farms (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/lets-get-rid-of-all-the-useless-wind-farms/story-fni0d8gi-1226750008876)
TERRY MCCRANN HERALD SUN OCTOBER 30, 2013

I STILL have a dream. Of that one day when we start pulling down all the utterly useless, landscape-blighting, bird-killing, people-punishing, so-called wind farms.

We'll leave a few, some stripped of their turbines, some left with a blade to turn lazily and even more uselessly in the occasional breeze; all, like fragments of the Berlin Wall, as testimony to the time when insanity engulfed our supposed intellectual and policymaking elites.

The Climate Change Authority's 177 pages of sheer drivel, released today, as disconnected from reality as an abandoned wind farm is from the grid, comes close to ranking as the high-water mark of this insanity. Although it came after a pretty competitive week, after the hysterical fires fanned by the ABC and Fairfax media, and in particular down at Climate Frenzy Central, the Age broadloid newspaper.
For the Big C, as the CCA styles itself, was not content with just doubling down on the climate stupidity, it tripled down in its draft report. Indeed, it was even gathering its collective loins, to quintuple down in its final, and hopefully FINAL, as in ever, report early next year. Thanks to Julia Gillard and Bob Brown—endorsed so memorably by that in-chamber kiss from the squibber, Kevin Rudd—Australia is legally committed to cutting its emissions of carbon dioxide by 5 per cent by 2020.

The CCA report is worse than a disgrace. It proposes wilful pain on all Australians and extraordinarily serious damage to the economy.

To cut emissions by 25 per cent in just seven years would require us to send the economy into recession, or write out multi-billion dollar cheques to foreigners, just for ‘permission’ to keep our lights on and (any remaining) factories operating.

And all for utterly no point. Even if you believe the climate hysteria, it would make no difference to global or indeed Australian temperatures; and the CCA lies aside, the rest of the world is NOT following anyway.

Rincewind
31-10-2013, 04:33 PM
...bird-killing,...

Funny that Terry McCrann is still on that hobby horse after everyone else knows his bird-killing factoid (based on a totally dodgy estimate from the Spanish Ornithological Society) is totally bogus. Bird deaths from windfarms is relatively low and much lower than that caused by other human activities (such as keeping domesticated cats).

See: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2013/Apr/bird-fatalities-wind-turbines-behind-the-headlines-page-1.aspx

Desmond
31-10-2013, 07:39 PM
The CCA report is worse than a disgrace. It proposes wilful pain on all Australians and extraordinarily serious damage to the economy.

To cut emissions by 25 per cent in just seven years would require us to send the economy into recession, or write out multi-billion dollar cheques to foreigners, just for ‘permission’ to keep our lights on and (any remaining) factories operating.

And all for utterly no point. Even if you believe the climate hysteria, it would make no difference to global or indeed Australian temperatures; and the CCA lies aside, the rest of the world is NOT following anyway.

Tragedy of the commons much?

Desmond
01-11-2013, 06:14 AM
7NMTzNazfTI

Igor_Goldenberg
01-11-2013, 08:34 AM
I think peddlers of Global Warming Scare should post in a non science section of different subforum (http://www.chesschat.org/forumdisplay.php?84-Religion-and-Science)

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2013, 08:57 AM
Funny that Terry McCrann is still on that hobby horse after everyone else knows his bird-killing factoid (based on a totally dodgy estimate from the Spanish Ornithological Society) is totally bogus. Bird deaths from windfarms is relatively low and much lower than that caused by other human activities (such as keeping domesticated cats).
Really?
How Do Wind Turbines Kill Birds? (http://www.livescience.com/31995-how-do-wind-turbines-kill-birds.html)
Marc Lallanilla, Assistant Editor, Live Science, 14 May 2013


Wind turbines kill more than 573,000 birds each year in the United States, according to The Associated Press, including federally protected species like bald eagles and golden eagles.

Even bats are falling victim to wind-turbine blades: The Pennsylvania Game Commission estimates that more than 10,000 bats are killed in the state each year by wind turbines, the Wall Street Journal reports.

On a related note, Bats fall victim to wind turbines; bugs proliferate (http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/science_tech/Bats-fall-victim-to-wind-turbines;-bugs-proliferate)


Call this the bat effect: A bat killed by a wind turbine in Somerset, Pa., can lead to higher tomato prices at the Wichita, Kan., farmers market.
Bats are something of a one-species stimulus program for farmers, every year gobbling up millions of bugs that could ruin a harvest. But the same biology that allows the winged creatures to sweep the night sky for fine dining also has made them susceptible to wind turbines.
The 420 wind turbines now in use across Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year -- mostly in the late summer months, according to the state Game Commission. That's an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030.

Rincewind
01-11-2013, 10:31 AM
Really?

Yes really.


How Do Wind Turbines Kill Birds? (http://www.livescience.com/31995-how-do-wind-turbines-kill-birds.html)
Marc Lallanilla, Assistant Editor, Live Science, 14 May 2013


Wind turbines kill more than 573,000 birds each year in the United States, according to The Associated Press, including federally protected species like bald eagles and golden eagles.

Even bats are falling victim to wind-turbine blades: The Pennsylvania Game Commission estimates that more than 10,000 bats are killed in the state each year by wind turbines, the Wall Street Journal reports.

On a related note, Bats fall victim to wind turbines; bugs proliferate (http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/science_tech/Bats-fall-victim-to-wind-turbines;-bugs-proliferate)


Call this the bat effect: A bat killed by a wind turbine in Somerset, Pa., can lead to higher tomato prices at the Wichita, Kan., farmers market.
Bats are something of a one-species stimulus program for farmers, every year gobbling up millions of bugs that could ruin a harvest. But the same biology that allows the winged creatures to sweep the night sky for fine dining also has made them susceptible to wind turbines.
The 420 wind turbines now in use across Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year -- mostly in the late summer months, according to the state Game Commission. That's an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030.

There are a few ornithologists who are giving large estimates of bird mortality. The Spanish Ornith Soc was the one which Terry McCrann picked up on. The article you have googled upon was based on a study by Smallwood who is a guy that is publishing avian mortality numbers far in excess of other groups. For a criticism of Smallwood's methods see the comment by Mike Bernard in the comments on the story you linked to.

The article itself is an example of bad journalism as well as they have taken a study which published a huge outlier as if it was generally accepted science. It isn't and it should not be portrayed as such.

Desmond
01-11-2013, 10:36 AM
I think peddlers of Global Warming Scare should post in a non science section of different subforum (http://www.chesschat.org/forumdisplay.php?84-Religion-and-Science)Actually this thread is in a non-science section (it is in the politics section, Igor), and the one you suggest moving it to is the "...and science" one!

Rincewind
01-11-2013, 02:47 PM
Politically it might be best for them to allow the direct action bill so it can be shown to be the fizzer it will be.

However I think they should not allow the Carbon Tax repeal unless it is replaced with something meaningful - Eg an ETS.

Looks like this is exactly what the shadow cabinet has decided.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/bill-shorten-says-labor-wants-carbon-tax-replaced-by-ets/5064352

Move from the carbon tax to an ETS which is exactly Labor's policy had they won government.

Ian Murray
01-11-2013, 08:40 PM
The satellite global temperature hasn't changed in 15 years.
The average surface global temperature has been steady for 15 years. But that doesn't mean climate change is all over, and it's back to the 1960s business as usual. The average temperatures are sill the highest in the instrumental record, and the laws of physics still apply. Greenhouse gases continue to deflect radiation back to the surface. The law of conservation of energy hasn't been repealed - it has to be going somewhere.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/mystery-of-the-missing-global-warming.html



Also, the October temperature for Bathurst, which is just west of the blue mountains where the fires occurred, hasn't been anything special.

October temperatures are irrelevant. It's the hot summer and dry winter which dried out the bush, ready for an early fire season
http://world.time.com/2013/10/23/australias-epic-wildfires-likely-affected-by-climate-change-no-matter-what-prime-minister-says/#ixzz2jCrcPlyS

Damodevo
02-11-2013, 12:47 PM
The average surface global temperature has been steady for 15 years. But that doesn't mean climate change is all over, and it's back to the 1960s business as usual. The average temperatures are sill the highest in the instrumental record, and the laws of physics still apply. Greenhouse gases continue to deflect radiation back to the surface. The law of conservation of energy hasn't been repealed - it has to be going somewhere.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/mystery-of-the-missing-global-warming.html




October temperatures are irrelevant. It's the hot summer and dry winter which dried out the bush, ready for an early fire season
http://world.time.com/2013/10/23/australias-epic-wildfires-likely-affected-by-climate-change-no-matter-what-prime-minister-says/#ixzz2jCrcPlyS

No its the wet winter which has had rainfall for 2010 and 2011 well above average (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/long-bow-to-blame-nsw-fires-on-manmade-global-warming-20131024-2w3uc.html) which created the fuel for the fire. Australia has also had major bushfires in October before.

To backup my point, the studies (http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/ES11-00345.1) show that sometimes warmer and dryer conditions contribute to less fires (depending on the climate model used) because there is less of a buildup of fuel due to less rain.


The latest peer-reviewed study on global fire, run with a record 16 climate models, tells us that sometimes heat and dryness lead to more fire, but sometimes lead to less fire. This is because with less precipitation the biomass burns more easily, but with less precipitation there is also less growth and hence less biomass to burn.

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2013, 01:59 AM
Burnout is no cause for alarm (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/burnout-is-no-cause-for-alarm/story-fni1hfs5-1226751564513#)
BJORN LOMBORG THE AUSTRALIAN NOVEMBER 02, 2013

UN climate change chief Christiana Figueres told CNN that global warming and bushfires were “absolutely” connected, and former US vice-president Al Gore made it even clearer on the ABC: “When the temperature goes up and when the vegetation and soils dry out, then wildfires become more pervasive and more dangerous. That’s not me saying it, that’s what the scientific community says.”

The problem is, that is simply not what the science says. The latest peer-reviewed study on global fire, run with a record 16 climate models, tells us that sometimes heat and dryness lead to more fire, but sometimes lead to less fire. This is because with less precipitation the biomass burns more easily, but with less precipitation there is also less growth and hence less biomass to burn. For Mediterranean-type ecosystems, such as southwest and south Australia, it turns out that more than half the time, future drying means less fire.…

Even Figueres accepts that. “The World Meteorological Organisation has not established the direct link between this wildfire and climate change,” she said, though she optimistically added a prophesying “yet” to her sentence....

Moreover, global fire activity is estimated to have declined 10 per cent from its maximum around 1950. For the past 60 years we have seen less global fire activity, despite rising temperatures. Even with global warming, the fire activity decline will likely continue until about 2025 and only then start going up.

Rincewind
03-11-2013, 10:40 AM
Why is something with a PhD in the physical sciences promoting a guy like Lomberg who pontificates on climate science while his training is in political "science"?

BTW the recent bushfires were not Mediterranian-type climates. The mediterranian-type climates in Australia are restricted to the SE corner of South Australia and the SW corner of WA. While less rain will mean less fires for us, it's does not apply to the recent fires in NSW.

Patrick Byrom
03-11-2013, 01:56 PM
Why is something with a PhD in the physical sciences promoting a guy like Lomberg who pontificates on climate science while his training is in political "science"?
The Courier Mail is (possibly) worse - it had a whole week of commentary on this issue: three pieces by Bolt and one by Lomborg, with not a single physical science degree between them, let alone an actual qualification in climate science.

Damodevo
03-11-2013, 10:18 PM
The Courier Mail is (possibly) worse - it had a whole week of commentary on this issue: three pieces by Bolt and one by Lomborg, with not a single physical science degree between them, let alone an actual qualification in climate science.

What about John McLean (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/long-bow-to-blame-nsw-fires-on-manmade-global-warming-20131024-2w3uc.html) writing in a Fairfax paper?


John McLean is the author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and was an expert reviewer for the IPCC's latest climate report.



Natural forces can account for the severity of these fires and fires in the past.

Damodevo
04-11-2013, 01:01 AM
A paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-071.1?af=R&) published today in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology finds (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-paper-finds-us-extreme-heat-waves.html) that US extreme heat waves have decreased over the period from 1930-2010. According to the authors, "Several daily maximum [Extreme Heat Events] near the 1930’s led to 1930-2010 trends of daily maximum [Extreme Heat Events] decreasing" and "Maps indicated negative trends in the interior of the [continental United States] and positive trends in coastal and southern areas. Continental scale increases between 1970 and 2010 were mostly offset by the decreases between 1930 and 1970." In other words, the overall trend of US extreme heat waves was a decrease from the 1930's to the ice age scare of the 1970's, and then a return to levels still shy of those in the 1930's

2390

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2013, 01:45 AM
The Courier Mail is (possibly) worse - it had a whole week of commentary on this issue: three pieces by Bolt and one by Lomborg, with not a single physical science degree between them, let alone an actual qualification in climate science.

What do you care? The biggest warm-monger of all, alGore, has no scientific training. And Australia's own leading warm-monger Tim Flummery is a paleontologist not a climate scientist.

Desmond
04-11-2013, 07:09 AM
What do you care? The biggest warm-monger of all, alGore, has no scientific training. And Australia's own leading warm-monger Tim Flummery is a paleontologist not a climate scientist.
As opposed to your buddies, running a cigarette-companies-arguing-tobacco-doesn't-cause-lung-cancer style campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Tobacco_lobby

Efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the determined efforts of tobacco lobbyists, in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. ""Doubt is our product," boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come."[55] In 2006, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about similarities between the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.[12]

Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Frederick Seitz, who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned about US$585,000 in the 1970s and 1980s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,[56] went on to chair groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute alleged to have made efforts to "downplay" global warming. Seitz stated in the 1980s that "Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate." Seitz authored the Oregon Petition, a document published jointly by the Marshall Institute and Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in opposition to the Kyoto protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed:


The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ... We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.[12]

George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that this petition, which he criticizes as misleading and tied to industry funding, "has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth." Monbiot has written about another group founded by the tobacco lobby, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), that now campaigns against measures to combat global warming. In again trying to manufacture the appearance of a grass-roots movement against "unfounded fear" and "over-regulation," Monbiot states that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to halt [climate change] than any other body."[12]

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2013, 10:45 AM
As opposed to your buddies, running a cigarette-companies-arguing-tobacco-doesn't-cause-lung-cancer style campaign.
There is actually credible evidence for the latter, such as lung cancer in heavy smokers. There is none that minuscule temperature increases are worth impoverishing the country the country and empowering more bureaucrats. So the above is typical warm-mongering smearing.

Rincewind
04-11-2013, 11:37 AM
There is none that minuscule temperature increases are worth impoverishing the country the country and empowering more bureaucrats. So the above is typical warm-mongering smearing.

Really??? None??? None whatsoever???

Ian Murray
04-11-2013, 05:15 PM
What about John McLean (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/long-bow-to-blame-nsw-fires-on-manmade-global-warming-20131024-2w3uc.html) writing in a Fairfax paper?
Strangely, Google Scholar can't seem to find any of the three peer-reviewed climate papers the SMH says he authored, nor is he listed as a reviewer to IPCC AR5 Working Groups 1, 2 or 3.

Damodevo
04-11-2013, 08:26 PM
Strangely, Google Scholar can't seem to find any of the three peer-reviewed climate papers the SMH says he authored, nor is he listed as a reviewer to IPCC AR5 Working Groups 1, 2 or 3.

Here's one (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011637/abstract) I found after 2 minutes of google search.

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

The paper credits ENSO and not human emitted CO2 with much of the global temperature increase in recent decades.

Rincewind
04-11-2013, 09:20 PM
Here's one (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011637/abstract) I found after 2 minutes of google search.

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

The paper credits ENSO and not human emitted CO2 with much of the global temperature increase in recent decades.

BTW Have you seen

Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
by G. Foster, J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt and K. E. Trenberth
DOI: 10.1029/2009JD012960

Which shows that Mclean et al (2009) "greatly overestimates the correlation between temperature anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2–6 year time window while filtering out variability on longer and shorter time scales. The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations."

Rincewind
04-11-2013, 09:56 PM
For a more popular aimed article here is a piece by Prof Lewandowski on the John McLean affair...

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39148.html

This is all a couple of years old of course (although not as old as problems caused by the Wharfies during WWII and that seems to be a burning issue) but why Damodevo is citing a long since and devastatingly discredited paper as science is a question worth asking.

Damodevo
05-11-2013, 12:34 AM
BTW Have you seen

Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
by G. Foster, J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt and K. E. Trenberth
DOI: 10.1029/2009JD012960

Which shows that Mclean et al (2009) "greatly overestimates the correlation between temperature anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2–6 year time window while filtering out variability on longer and shorter time scales. The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations."

Bit hard to discredit it now since his new (2013) paper (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27382) along with de Freitas says this


All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling. Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.

Rincewind
05-11-2013, 01:22 AM
Bit hard to discredit it now since his new (2013) paper (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27382) along with de Freitas says this

:lol: Oh you mean the one that was published in a scirp journal. :lol: You may as well be linking to something in the arxiv, or better yet an article from Patriot Post. That's where I go to get my really good science denial.

In case you missed it SciRP is a joke, approaching vanity press. No one I know of takes them seriously.

Patrick Byrom
05-11-2013, 01:25 AM
Bit hard to discredit it now since his new (2013) paper (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27382) along with de Freitas says this
The publisher of their paper, Scientific Research Publishing, doesn't have a very good reputation. For example, one of their journals was hoaxed by a computer-generated nonsense paper (http://boingboing.net/2012/10/19/math-journal-accepts-computer.html).

The results in the 2013 paper are not very impressive, and the reference to "natural climate forcing associated with ENSO" doesn't make sense, as ENSO isn't a climate 'forcing'.

Of course, if McLean was able to make accurate temperature predictions using his theory it might be worth more consideration, but his predicted global cooling (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349)never eventuated: "Taking into account the seven-month time lag it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier, McLean says".

Damodevo
05-11-2013, 01:35 AM
The publisher of their paper, Scientific Research Publishing, doesn't have a very good reputation. For example, one of their journals was hoaxed by a computer-generated nonsense paper (http://boingboing.net/2012/10/19/math-journal-accepts-computer.html).

The results in the 2013 paper are not very impressive, and the reference to "natural climate forcing associated with ENSO" doesn't make sense, as ENSO isn't a climate 'forcing'.

Of course, if McLean was able to make accurate temperature predictions using his theory it might be worth more consideration, but his predicted global cooling (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349)never eventuated: "Taking into account the seven-month time lag it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier, McLean says".

Like the persistently incorrect IPCC model predictions? But the Xie and Kosaka (2013) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html) paper comes to very similar conclusions and credits ENSO with much of the recent climate variations (something the modelers have traditionally omitted and the likes of Bob Tisdale have been saying for many years)

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

Patrick Byrom
05-11-2013, 02:01 AM
Like the persistently incorrect IPCC model predictions?
A picture (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif)is worth a thousand words:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif

Rincewind
05-11-2013, 02:04 AM
Like the persistently incorrect IPCC model predictions? But the Xie and Kosaka (2013) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html) paper comes to very similar conclusions and credits ENSO with much of the recent climate variations (something the modelers have traditionally omitted and the likes of Bob Tisdale have been saying for many years)

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling


Oh... The one that said...


Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

?

Damodevo
05-11-2013, 03:19 AM
Oh... The one that said...


Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

?

Yes the one where they found that around half of the warming since the 1950's can be explained by natural ENSO cycles alone contradicting the IPCC's AR5 and what most warmists attribute the warming.

Damodevo
05-11-2013, 03:26 AM
A picture (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif)is worth a thousand words:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif

This is obviously not the Second Order Draft of the AR4 which clearly shows the dud IPCC predictions.

2391

And this paper (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309)

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years


Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2013, 07:53 AM
Heal the Planet or Follow the Money?
Anita Folsom, 4 Nov 2013

In his five years in office, President Obama has refused to consider the data pouring into the academic community from scientists worldwide. Last Friday, November 1, 2013, he issued an executive order “directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.” According to the Washington Times, “The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build ‘resilience’ against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.”

Even Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever recently resigned from the American Physical Society. Giaever supported Obama in 2012, but in a letter to APS earlier this year, he resigned from that society, stating that he couldn’t support the APS statement that global warming was “incontrovertible.” Giaever said that global warming is a theory not supported by scientific data.

Likewise, in an interview with Forbes on May 26, 2013, meteorologist Joe Bastardi stated:


Right now we’re seeing the same kind of major events on a regional scale that occurred the last time the Pacific Ocean shifted its temperature phase from warm to cold when the Atlantic was in a warm phase, and globally, the Earth’s temps have fallen about .05C in the last four years. . The European winters also look very similar now to those in the early 1950s. People familiar with circumstances during the Korean War can note that cold conditions that existed in the Far East were also comparable. Alaska has once again turned much colder, just as it did then when the Pacific temperatures cooled and sea ice expanded.

Why, then, does President Obama cling so tenaciously to the myth of global warming? One explanation is simple: “Never let a good emergency go to waste, even when it is manufactured by misuse of data.”

Politicians know that threats to national security provide a quick and easy means to rally public support. The energy crisis and global warming have served as such an emergency, but many concerned thinkers are coming forward to debunk this manufactured crisis. In the words of Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author and analyst of political policies, ”We must ask whether a ‘climate-industrial complex’ is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.”

In other words, in order to explain the “global warming emergency” just follow the money.

Rincewind
05-11-2013, 09:07 AM
On the say so of a guy with a Nobel prize in tunnelling phenomena is solids and a weatherman? How about some climate specialists at least?

Rincewind
05-11-2013, 09:08 AM
Yes

OK so now you are saying that CO2 does lead to warming and continued CO2 emissions will lead to further warming?

Desmond
05-11-2013, 10:58 AM
Heal the Planet or Follow the Money?
Anita Folsom, 4 Nov 2013

In his five years in office, President Obama has refused to consider the data pouring into the academic community from scientists worldwide. ...

Interesting snippet in the Nature Podcast last week, regarding looking back at how science and scientists were handled in Germany in the 1930s. When asked if this could happen again, as part of the answer the author Philip Ball said it was clear that there was tampering with climate science under Bush.

listen here (http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index-2013-10-31.html) (around 10:50 on) (not sure if there's a transcript, I couldn't see one).

Patrick Byrom
05-11-2013, 01:11 PM
This is obviously not the Second Order Draft of the AR4 which clearly shows the dud IPCC predictions.
The observations appear to be within the error margins of the IPCC models, which confirms the models.

I'm not saying that the IPCC models are perfect, but the alternatives are clearly much worse - the predictions of McLean's model are ridiculous.

This is why commentators on these issues should have training in science: so that they understand that there is no perfect model, but that models produced by mainstream climate scientists are definitely better than any others.

Damodevo
05-11-2013, 10:39 PM
OK so now you are saying that CO2 does lead to warming and continued CO2 emissions will lead to further warming?

CO2 may contribute to warming. I doubt any skeptic would deny that. Its how much. It doesn't seem to me that the contribution is that great and certainly no where near enough to justify carbon abatement especially given that a certain amount of warming will be beneficial for the climate.

Damodevo
05-11-2013, 10:41 PM
The observations appear to be within the error margins of the IPCC models, which confirms the models.

I'm not saying that the IPCC models are perfect, but the alternatives are clearly much worse - the predictions of McLean's model are ridiculous.

This is why commentators on these issues should have training in science: so that they understand that there is no perfect model, but that models produced by mainstream climate scientists are definitely better than any others.

Have another look at the chart from the second draft. Some of the models aren't even consistent on the lower end. All this proves is that no one knows what influences the climate.

Rincewind
05-11-2013, 10:58 PM
CO2 may contribute to warming. I doubt any skeptic would deny that.

"May contribute" does not sound like much of a commitment at all. Nowadays concessions like this are not uncommon (despite the warming hiatus). Even Jono whose beliefs are more strident than most sane people admits "minuscule temperature increases". But this is certainly not a uniformly held position. Joe Bastardi for example is a skeptic who really does deny the role of CO2 in global temperature. See: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/09/fox-news-science-again/186029


Its how much. It doesn't seem to me that the contribution is that great and certainly no where near enough to justify carbon abatement especially given that a certain amount of warming will be beneficial for the climate.

When you cherry pick papers as you have shown to here it might be possible to deceive oneself into believing that. But an honest assessment of the current state of knowledge cannot possibly support that position. There is clear evidence that we are changing the climate in a real and direct way, we know it is the CO2 emissions doing most of the forcing and we know that we have to change our dependence on fossil fuels to overcome the problem. It is clear it is simple and there are plenty of alternatives. Sure there is some short term pain but to believe the propaganda financed by the fossil fuel industry is just untenable. It is like believing Philip Morris on the health advantages of cigarette smoking.

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2013, 12:57 AM
When you cherry pick papers as you have shown to here it might be possible to deceive oneself into believing that. But an honest assessment of the current state of knowledge cannot possibly support that position. There is clear evidence that we are changing the climate in a real and direct way, we know it is the CO2 emissions doing most of the forcing and we know that we have to change our dependence on fossil fuels to overcome the problem. It is clear it is simple and there are plenty of alternatives. Sure there is some short term pain but to believe the propaganda financed by the fossil fuel industry is just untenable. It is like believing Philip Morris on the health advantages of cigarette smoking.
Once again, leftards like RW think it's not necessary to prove that a little warming might be useful, as it was in the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period. He would much rather push for silly gesture politics like carbon taxes for Australia, which, even if we accepted the claims, would not make a detectable difference to global temperatures. We also see the common smear as if “propaganda financed by the fossil fuel industry” is bad but propaganda financed by government bureaucracies is good.

Patrick Byrom
06-11-2013, 10:08 AM
Once again, leftards like RW think it's not necessary to prove that a little warming might be useful, as it was in the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period.
Can you explain how we can limit ourselves to "a little warming" (without reducing emissions)? The greenhouse effect doesn't just stop at a certain point.

Rincewind
06-11-2013, 10:10 AM
Once again, leftards like RW think it's not necessary to prove that a little warming might be useful, as it was in the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period. He would much rather push for silly gesture politics like carbon taxes for Australia, which, even if we accepted the claims, would not make a detectable difference to global temperatures. We also see the common smear as if “propaganda financed by the fossil fuel industry” is bad but propaganda financed by government bureaucracies is good.

I realise you have difficulty discerning propaganda from science but for most people it is not that hard. Despite the ravings of the right-wing sites you frequent, here is no world wide conspiracy of science and government to enslave the general population of the globe. There is however a significant problem. We as a species are having unprecedented negative impact on the climate of the planet. The good news is we know there is a problem, we know what is causing it and we know how to fix it. The bad news is there is a small group of individuals who are financially wedded to CO2 producing industries who are try to block the path to the solution and who will use any method available to them to do so even if to ruins the planet as a result. And there are other who are naive enough to believe the polluters' propaganda.

Patrick Byrom
06-11-2013, 10:12 AM
Have another look at the chart from the second draft. Some of the models aren't even consistent on the lower end. All this proves is that no one knows what influences the climate.
The IPCC models are clearly better than McLean's model, so presumably they understand climate much better than he does.

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2013, 12:47 PM
One religion is enough (http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9071781/one-religion-is-enough/)
The global warming activists are as misguided as they are alarmist
Former PM John Howard, Spectator, 5 November 2013

We are all aware of the climate enthusiasts, who advocate quite substantial, and costly, responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the world’s climate faces catastrophe. By employing a sanctimonious tone against people who do not share their view, they show their true colours: to them the cause has become a substitute religion.

Increasingly offensive language is used. The most egregious example has been the term “denier”. We are all aware of the particular meaning that word has acquired in contemporary parlance. It has been employed in this debate with some malice aforethought.

An overriding feature of the debate is the constant attempt to intimidate policy makers, in some cases successfully, with the mantras of “follow the science” and “the science is truly settled”.The purpose is to create the impression that there is really no room for argument; this is not really a public policy issue; it is one on which the experts have spoken, and we would all be quite daft to do other than follow the prescriptions, it is asserted, which flow automatically from the scientific findings.

Writing recently in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said of those with political agendas who found it useful to employ science, “This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former.”

Desmond
06-11-2013, 02:58 PM
Lindzen is another who's modelling is less predictive than the IPCC.

Rincewind
06-11-2013, 04:34 PM
Writing recently in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said of those with political agendas who found it useful to employ science, “This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former.”


Lindzen is being silly here. Yes science is a mode of inquiry but it is one that leads to a contingent knowledge. What the experts have been saying (for some time) is that there is warming caused by CO2 emissions and the problem is not going away but getting worse as we put more CO2 into the atmosphere. This is the best knowledge we have and to not act on that knowledge would be irresponsible. To quote Dr Kerry A. Emanuel also from MIT (but unlike Lindzen not retired), on Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."

Patrick Byrom
06-11-2013, 08:54 PM
In a nice ironical twist, on the same day Jono posts ex-PM John Howard's climate change denial, in Virginia another (even worse) denier, Ken Cuccinelli II, also became a failed politician, losing the race for Governor. Cuccinelli is infamous for his witch-hunt (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436702/virginia-supreme-court-dismisses-ag-ken-cuccinellis-fishing-expedition-against-respected-scientist/) against prominent climate scientist Michael Mann.

Damodevo
06-11-2013, 11:14 PM
The IPCC models are clearly better than McLean's model, so presumably they understand climate much better than he does.

No they are not (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html).


The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.

The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.

The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave, in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.

Damodevo
06-11-2013, 11:21 PM
The IPCC models are clearly better than McLean's model, so presumably they understand climate much better than he does.

The IPCC models also have no explanation for the now massive evidence for the MWP (and even evidence (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/#more-96578) of a warmer ocean then) and the RWP but other models - such as Nicola Scafetta's (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/scafetta-2013-simple-solar-astronomical-model-beats-ipcc-climate-models/) - that don't propose CO2 as the main forcing do.



But Scafetta’s work suggests it’s madness not to pay attention to astronomical cycles, and points to major flaws in the IPCC simulations. Compare the two types of models: Scafetta’s simple model uses [natural astronomical] cycles and assumes there is a connection [there might be, it is speculative] but curve fits to produce predictions**. The unverified IPCC models assume CO2 has a powerful influence (backed up by laboratory experiment, but not backed up with empirical data from the climate) — then the IPCC assume powerful positive feedbacks that more than double the effect of CO2 (without empirical evidence to support those assumptions) and in a sense, curve-fits volcanic, solar, and aerosols to flex the line to match the data. We know the IPCC models don’t work, they don’t hindcast the last 2000 years, and didn’t predict the last 20. It obvious from Scaffetta’s work that we ought be investigating these natural cycles, and that the IPCC models are hopelessly incomplete.

Rincewind
07-11-2013, 12:44 AM
No they are not (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html).

Yes they are.

The rather confused piece of typing from the DailyFail seems to believe any contrariety view without question and cherry pick till the cows come home. Firstly it conflates the unrelated work of Wyatt/Curry and Hawkins and secondly it claims the Stadium Wave hypothesis "explains" the unexpected pause. The Stadium Wave is not grounded in physics and so explains nothing. It is just a comment on various indices and the out of phase correlation between geographically spaced measurements. There is no physical mechanism which explains this and so which such a wave might be forcing more energy into the ocean and less in the atmosphere is no clearer with the Stadium Wave hypothesis than it is without it.

Hawkins is just plain wrong unless you define the climate as simply Global Surface Temperature. If you include the ocean temperature, the total global temperature has continued to rise at a significant rate since 1997 until at least 2011.

Rincewind
07-11-2013, 12:49 AM
The IPCC models also have no explanation for the now massive evidence for the MWP (and even evidence (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/#more-96578) of a warmer ocean then) and the RWP but other models - such as Nicola Scafetta's (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/scafetta-2013-simple-solar-astronomical-model-beats-ipcc-climate-models/) - that don't propose CO2 as the main forcing do.

Much like Wyatt and Curry, Scafetta's work does not explain anything. It is an exercise is time series matching followed by the speculation that the proposed cycles have some physical basis but no credible physical basis is proposed for say his 60 year cycle.

Furthermore (unlike the CO2 forced models) Scafetta's model does not account for the significant ocean warming.

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2013, 02:23 AM
Lindzen is being silly here. Yes science is a mode of inquiry but it is one that leads to a contingent knowledge. What the experts have been saying (for some time) is that there is warming caused by CO2 emissions and the problem is not going away but getting worse as we put more CO2 into the atmosphere. This is the best knowledge we have and to not act on that knowledge would be irresponsible. To quote Dr Kerry A. Emanuel also from MIT (but unlike Lindzen not retired), on Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."
More alarmism, but as Mr Howard pointed out in the above article, one of the most catastrophic fires in Australia, "which burnt out a quarter of the land mass of that State [Victoria], destroyed one million sheep, and killed 12 people", occurred in 1851, long before loads of SUVs and alGore's private jets.

Mr Howard identified the real reason why alarmism is so popular with socialists like RW: it's another excuse for more wealth distribution:


The flood of emails coming from the University of East Anglia, the admitted errors regarding the Himalayan Glaciers, as well as the nakedly political agendas of some of those allegedly giving impartial scientific advice have degraded the image of the IPCC as the unchallengeable body of scientific experts on global warming. For example, Otto Edenhoper, Co-Chairman of the IPCC Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, demonstrated his commitment to impartial scientific enquiry with his remarkable statement, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Revealing his real agenda he has stated: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Desmond
07-11-2013, 06:44 AM
The mechanism for the "unexpected pause" was known to be a possibility as early as 1979.

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf


“One of the major uncertainties has to do with the transfer of the increased heat into the oceans. It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer. The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well- mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so…It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb heat has been seriously underestimated, especially that of the intermediate waters of the subtropical gyres lying below the mixed layer and above the main thermocline. If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat.

“Our estimates of the rates of vertical exchange of mass between the mixed and intermediate layers and the volumes of water involved give a delay of the order of decades in the time at which thermal equilibrium will be reached. This delay implies that the actual warming at any given time will be appreciably less than that calculated on the assumption that thermal equilibrium is reached quickly. One consequence may be that perceptible temperature changes may not become apparent nearly so soon as has been anticipated. We may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable. The equilibrium warming will eventually occur; it will merely have been postponed".

“…the upper*-thermocline reservoir communicates effectively with the mixed layer on time scales of several decades. Therefore, the effective thermal capacity of the ocean for absorbing heat on these time scales is nearly an order of magnitude greater than that of the mixed layer alone”.

Those smokers would have got cancer anyway, right?

Damodevo
07-11-2013, 07:07 AM
Much like Wyatt and Curry, Scafetta's work does not explain anything. It is an exercise is time series matching followed by the speculation that the proposed cycles have some physical basis but no credible physical basis is proposed for say his 60 year cycle.

Furthermore (unlike the CO2 forced models) Scafetta's model does not account for the significant ocean warming.

Scafetta gives correlations between the astronomical/solar and 60 year cycles. How can you say he gives "no crediblce physical basis"? That was the whole basis of his paper;

Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.

The Curry/Wyatt work is proposing subsystems interrelated with each other in controlling the earth's temperature. Scafetta proposes a mechanism for such and their work also predicts global cooling out to the 2030's.

Rincewind
07-11-2013, 10:12 AM
Scafetta gives correlations between the astronomical/solar and 60 year cycles. How can you say he gives "no crediblce physical basis"? That was the whole basis of his paper;

Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.

That paper hinges on a very speculative amplification effect. He acknowledges that tidal signals alone are too small to modulate solar radiation and therefore speculates that the is some amplification that occurs which is of the order of one millions times the strength of the tidal signal. No physical basis is given for this amplification factor or its value other than this is the number his theory needs to work.

The other issue with his methodology is that he applies it to fit the cycles he sees but does not exhaustively apply it to all existing planetary cycles. For example in the introduction he claims that


Ogurtsov et al. (2002) and Komitov (2009) showed that millennial sunspot and cosmogenic isotope records such as 14C and 10Be are characterized by major cycles such as at about 45, 60, 85, 128 and 205 years. These cycles can be easily associated to some combination of planetary cycles. For example: ∼45-year is the synodic period of Jupiter and Uranus; ∼60 year is the great conjunction cycle of Jupiter and Saturn (which is made of three J/S conjunction periods); ∼85-year is the 1/7 resonance of Jupiter and Uranus; and ∼205 year is the beat resonance between the 60-year and the 85-year cycles.

Indeed if you are free to play the numbers game with all the planetary cycles you would be hard pressed to find a number you could not match. However that is not an explanation of why some cycles are seen and others are not.

Rincewind
07-11-2013, 12:11 PM
More alarmism, but as Mr Howard pointed out in the above article, one of the most catastrophic fires in Australia, "which burnt out a quarter of the land mass of that State [Victoria], destroyed one million sheep, and killed 12 people", occurred in 1851, long before loads of SUVs and alGore's private jets.

More evasiveness here for one of the boards more ridiculous "contributors". The point is that science is a method of inquiry which leads to knowledge. To not act on that knowledge because to do would would be authoritarian is just a none argument to do nothing. What fires have to do with anything is anyone's guess. We know the planet is warming and has continued to do so unabated since the year 2000. To pretend there is not a problem is a dangerous fantasy of the right, many of whom have a vested interest in the fossil fuel industries.

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2013, 04:19 AM
In a nice ironical twist, on the same day Jono posts ex-PM John Howard's climate change denial, in Virginia another (even worse) denier, Ken Cuccinelli II, also became a failed politician, losing the race for Governor. Cuccinelli is infamous for his witch-hunt (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436702/virginia-supreme-court-dismisses-ag-ken-cuccinellis-fishing-expedition-against-respected-scientist/) against prominent climate scientist Michael Mann.
Proves very little. A Losertarian (http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/10/the-losertarian-party.html) plant of the Democrats acted as a spoiler in the imbecilic Yankee "first past the post" voting system; the Dems have learned from the futility of Ralph Nader but evidently some professed conservatives and libertarians are repeating the same mistake (http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/11/libertarians-are-the-ralph-naders-of-the-conservative-side.html).

Patrick Byrom
09-11-2013, 09:00 AM
Proves very little. A Losertarian plant of the Democrats acted as a spoiler in the imbecilic Yankee "first past the post" voting system ...
So why did so many people vote for the Libertarian candidate instead of the Republican one? The relatively moderate Republican Chris Christie didn't seem to have any such problems.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2013, 07:27 AM
So why did so many people vote for the Libertarian candidate instead of the Republican one? The relatively moderate Republican Chris Christie didn't seem to have any such problems.
There wasn't a fake libertarian spoiler with Christie. The Yankee FPP system is moronic but they are too stupid to realize the problem. They still don't use metrics after all.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2013, 07:29 AM
This wind turbine will pay for itself in 452 years, generates $8 a month (http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/07/this-wind-turbine-will-pay-for-itself-in-452-years-generates-8-a-month/)
Daily Caller, 7 Nov 2013

The wind turbine was built near the headquarters of the Labour Party-controlled Welsh government in 2009, but it’s performance was not monitored until a year ago. The turbine has only generated 33 kilowatts of power per month in that year, meaning it only generates about $8 worth of electricity per month.

Even if the turbine is repaired, it will still not run at full capacity and won’t generate much more electricity.

“If this project had been started when Elizabeth I was on the throne, it would only be reaching break-even point now, sixty years into the reign of Elizabeth II,” said Jonathan Isaby, political director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance. “It would seem that the turbine’s installation was nothing more than an obscenely expensive vanity project, with unwitting taxpayers footing the bill.