…
As I keep saying, it’s not that the media has a problem, the truth is the media IS the problem.
If we had accurate and balanced reporting the global warming meme would have crashed and burned long ago, voters would have said “No thanks”; politicians would have wasted less money; scientists would be researching useful things; universities would have to fire professors who can’t reason, and we would all be richer.
So when the budget office says our ABC costs us $1 billion, I say No, the cost is measured in national GDP.
No wonder most of us have given up watching the old media.
Here’s a study, by the Media Research Centre, reported in the Wall St Journal. Hat tip to the HockeySchtick blog and Tom Nelson. It refers to US networks so “ABC” means the American variety. Curiously, the New York Times looks good in comparison to the network news. It told its readers about the global pause only six months after its foreign competitors did. It was only a few years behind the bloggers.
Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming All 92 Times
ABC, CBS and NBC ignore ‘mystery’ warming plateau in favor of alarmism about sea levels, allergies, weather.
- JULIA A. SEYMOUR
From the Media Research Center
Recent years’ slowdown in global warming completely ignored by networks 92 climate change stories in 2013.
Stories citing experts or the latest studies promoting alarmism get covered more than 8 times as often as critical experts and studies.
Old-media bias means 8 times the alarmism
Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about “climate change” or “global warming.” Not a single one of those stories mentioned the “warming plateau” reported even by The New York Times on June 10. The Times wrote, “The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.” Even though the Times piece wasn’t published until June 10, a warming slowdown had been reported by foreign media outlets in November 2012, and by The Economist online in March, Reuters in April and BBC online in May of 2013.
The problems with climate forecasting models weren’t mentioned either, even though a researcher at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg found that many climate models couldn’t correctly model known temperatures in China. Investor’s Business Daily reported on March 28 that “Only half of the 21 analyzed climate models were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China,” he said. “Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change.”
Most of the study involves example after example of the one-sided media coverage we have already discussed here in detail. It would be interesting to see a study of UK, Canada and Australian media statistics.
Perhaps there is some good news? Things have improved since 2007 when skeptics got 1 mention in 13. Back then CBS was practically a climate propaganda machine with a 38 to 1 ratio of alarm versus calm.
There’s a bit of a history of these things in the media:
Another BMI Special Report, Fire and Ice, noted that print media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in 100 years. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling. BMI conducted an extensive analysis of print media’s climate change coverage back to the late 1800s.It found that many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – in the 1970s. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895.Methodology
The MRC’s Business and Media Institute analyzed all stories mentioning “climate change” or “global warming’ on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” “World News with Diane Sawyer,” “World News Saturday” and “World News Sunday,” CBS’s “This Morning,” and “Evening News” and NBC’s “Today” and “Nightly News” from Jan. 1, 2013, to June 15, 2013. A few casual mentions, such as the mention of climate change in a a fashion story, were excluded from the analysis.
Image adapted from wikimedia: OTVbelweder-front.jpg Tube TV-set of 1957-60, model OT-1471 “Belweder”. 14-inch screen diagonal. Designed & made in Poland.
No news is good news, especially when it’s biased news.
Nothing but stenographers for psychopaths.
90
I encountered the correct term a few weeks ago.
290
Bernd,
That is very cleaver – people who lower their literary integrity for money.
It is not in the Shorter Oxford, but should be.
140
You can bet your sweet bippy it won’t make the Updated Daily Macquarie any time soon – but it is damn clever.
100
Lower? I would say they have abdicated the role of ethical journalism. Or maybe they have simmply abrogated the concept of honest reporting.
Either way, I think, Bernd, you libel prostitutes who give full value of service for their pay. Theirs is an honest profession.
120
Bah! It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I proof before posting, I miss something.
“ethical journalism” should be “ethical journalist”, and “simmply” should be “simply”.
sorry,
g
20
You’re not Robinson Crusoe there.
60
Earliest dated reference I can find is from 2006 at (where else) UrbanDictionary although the true author is unknown.
However the sorts of web sites it appears on most recently leads me to believe that its rise in popularity this year is due most recently to Gerald Celente (of Trends Research) and to an older 2011 article by Dr Paul Craig Roberts (formerly of the Reagan administration).
30
Permit me to suggest a collective noun for them: Peloton.
Wikipedia says:
And when one of the leaders falls over, they all get cranky. 🙂
120
Yes! That is quite appropriate. At this rate I guess Infowars.com will get a 2016 International Media Award by winning the Bradbury Way™. But I think it is only telling half the story. It gives the media far too much share of the blame.
They are like teenagers that are particularly sensitive to peer pressure, thus the peloton / flocking behaviour.
But teenagers are all monitoring how “cool” each other is according to an externally-defined meaning of “cool”, which is controlled by other more singularly powerful interests. The Chinese term of harmonization is relevant here.
That’s why “presstitute” is the other half of the explanation.
The media are effectively herded by a Planned Industrial Maoist Pseudodemocracy. 😉
100
The media is the problem.Even though Andrew O’Keefe fights above his weight.
31
Why would someone give me a thumbs-down for pointing out that Andrew O’Keefe is a tool?
I thought the science was settled on that.Tough audience.
31
I’ll give you a thumbs up for that. I wouldn’t piss on Andrew O’Keefe if he was on fire.
He is a condescending smart arse.
40
Thanks Heywood,right back at ya.
It’s not just climate alarmism either.He is wrong on every topic where he ever puts in his lousy two cents worth.He is exactly wrong one hundred percent of the time but beleives the opposite.And he laughs at his own jokes.
but “condescending smart arse” covers it I think.
30
In Australia former PM Rudd was travelling to Perth WA and his RAAF VIP jet diverted to Broome WA for a weekend visit with a well known media major shareholder. Some time later the government reviewed media taxation saving media businesses a total of about $250 Million per year thereafter.
00
At some stage, the media will have to realize their ‘mistake’, surely, or is this deliberate on their part, in which case, it’s ideology.
80
Its similar to coverage and commentary of the Bush Jr “war on terror”. At the time a small group of concerned commentators were saying the media had lost its objectivity and that they would look back and wonder why they were so captivated. Here we are again, they learn nothing, spew the Govt. lines and collect the cheques. It will be the same again in a few years when they look back and navel gaze over how they it so wrong, then shortly after they will repeat the mistake on another topic. Business as usual.
30
‘versus global pause, zero times’, that must be because there is in
fact no stalling!
Has global warming stopped or stalled? R Alley has the answer!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Q8koQXsY
234
.
Were you abducted by Aliens Blackadderthe4th?
You’re just after money for views on YouTube for your alien abductions, climate alarmism, Dr. Karl and the rest of your garbage.
Mods: This guy is a YouTube Troll after views.
This guy Blackadderthe4th, is a dead set nut job and most probably a few kangaroos short in the top paddock in a good season.
272
‘You’re just after money for views on YouTube’ Hahahahaha! And how would that work then? Considering there is no adverts with them? You haven’t thought it trough correctly have you! FAIL!
‘Mods: This guy is a YouTube Troll after views’ No! It is just when I see the anti-AGW mafia distorting the facts, science and the bleeding obvious, I can’t resist pointing out their errors! Of course it is them that may have a hidden agenda!
238
Science is the bleeding obvious (as you said), but you can’t even spell never mind understand what the message in Jo’s post is about.
You need numbers before AdSense or infolinks would even consider putting ads in your junk science of Aliens, Climate Science, and your crazy ANTI-mafia CAGW hatred. What’s your hit rate, 150? 100? no it’s less than 50 per year per video. Look over there – it’s IPCC. LOL.
I would link to some of your stupid YouTube videos but it would give you publicity. But what you have to do is have a good laugh at yourself and your pathetic little promotional video collection of 190 very ODD clips.
The only thing you are after is hits on your sick little site.
191
A picture of Tim Yeo must have flashed into the poor guy’s mind. Have a heart, could happen to anyone.
70
“trough” is almost certainly the correct word for this slimy git.. . . or maybe “swill”
80
@Dave
July 12, 2013 at 9:50 pm
‘but you can’t even spell ‘ and all you have is a typo! No science, but a typo is all you need, must be what passes for cogent argument in the AGW anti-science mafia? I guess that is going to get you a long way in a valid argument! ‘and your pathetic little promotional video collection of 190 very ODD clips’ it seems that I have made an impression on you, well that’s another victory to me!
323
And that’s the way you warmist trolls see it isn’t it.
It’s not about the best outcome for the planet or people, it’s about being proven right and getting one up on someone else.
Deep down you want it to warm catastrophically, just so you can do a little dance and say I told you so.
It just shows that you are weak minded little turds with no character and no ability to apply a little independent thought.
Keep following the leader, it’s what you do best.
30
‘Deep down you want it to warm catastrophically, just so you can do a little dance and say I told you so.’ no I’m just going with the science! Can you offer any valid science to say otherwise? That will be a giant no then!
06
No. I didn’t watch the video and I’m not going to.
I was referring to your arrogance and your attitude. Your little “another victory to me!” statement just proves that you are just here to troll.
30
Golly, you’re an inferior troll; I’d argue the science but I’m sure you’re not here for that.
61
‘ I’d argue the science but I’m sure you’re not here for that.’ well start here then!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo
08
Don’t you love the way he just waltzes in here, links to his own youtube channel, expects everyone to watch and critique each video.
Arrogant turd.
61
‘No. I didn’t watch the video and I’m not going to’ none are so blind as those who will not open their eyes and see the truth!
‘links to his own youtube channel’ not all the time! As you would find out if you took the opportunity to watch them! But you are happy enough to admit you don’t!
So why don’t you make YT vids some yourself? Is it because you don’t have any software? Unlikely, as it’s free. Haven’t got the skills? Could be! Or is because there is no valid AGW anti-science to work with? yep that will be the answer!
17
Why should I watch them. Just because some arrogant warmist cock turns up on a blog and tells me I should?
Wow. You are soooooo cool because you can make a YouTube video. Big deal. You parents must be so proud.
62
‘Why should I watch them’ to educate yourself and see where your logic is going wrong! This is a good place to start!
AGU, Richard Alley and all about co2 and global warming
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
19
Blackblather,
You are either an absolute moron or you are extremely confused.
I watched the video you linked to at comment 3.0. All the guy showed was various examples of an endpoint fallacy. He shows his students how to cherry pick and then the hypocrite does it himself. Ben Santer of climategate fame states that we need a 17 year time frame to see a trend. Well, we are there. So what’s the problem with using the data for the last 17 years?
Your poster boy for alarmism and the antithesis of fashion (Who dresses this guy? The only thing missing is the propeller beanie!) shows a graph that starts with the termination of the LIA which was the coldest period of this interglacial. If he really wants to use a graph he should use this one http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html In the graph you will see that temps peeked 7,000 ybp while CO2 levels were much lower.
BTW, a lot of people get paid for their youtube videos. Obviously, nobody would pay a penny to watch this guy’s climate con routine!
When it comes to making a fool out of yourself, you are consistent!
50
‘He shows his students how to cherry pick’ for students read AGW anti-science mafia! But kept it under your hat, but they already know in fact.
‘states that we need a 17 year time frame to see a trend’ so 1957 to 2013 is more than 17 years, yes!
‘(Who dresses this guy? The only thing missing is the propeller beanie!’, good to see you concentrating on the science! Well done you.
‘shows a graph that starts with the termination of the LIA’ Hahahaha…………! The LIA seems to be a move able feast, depending on what point the anti-science mafia want to make!
‘If he really wants to use a graph…….’ which is not very good, is it?
‘lot of people get paid for their youtube videos’ but I don’t, because there is no advert attached to them! As you can see.
‘When it comes to making a fool out of yourself’ 1 will get you 50 you’re not even at the wicket yet!
05
Offered without comment: The data from HadCRUT4,HadSST3,GISS,RSS, with 17-year trendlines.
Lucia of course has tested the AR4 models again.
30
Santer said AT LEAST 17 YEARS the idea being that you use as much data as you have available and not cherry pick, which I think was the whole point of the video. As to the LIA, recent research of the previous 2000 years shows that we were in a global cooling trend UNTIL industrialisation and that mans emssions and land use changes etc are likely what pulled us out of the LIA. So that is the most relevent time period.
Actual science looks at all the data and the long term trend and not cherry pick a start period that confirms your bias and what you want to present. ANyone can play that came, using your own logic and behaviour over the last 5 years I could legitimately say that since 1999 we have been in a warming trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend
03
What recent research Michael? You really are amazing…. now you “credit” man for bringing us out of the LIA…. of course, the sun had absolutely nothing to do with it…..
11
I know, thanks for the compliment. As always you know that I (unlike you) can always back up my claims with peer reviewed research. I also did say ‘likely’, but the fact remains that we were in a global cooling trend until industrialisation.
“Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html
It is research of 78 researchers from 9 regional working groups from 60 seperate scientific institutions
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/science/foci/focus-2/themes/2k-network
03
This, posted below by Crackar24, might help you a little Michael with understanding what is really happening:
What’s the sun up to?
00
Well then Michael, we had better then keep on going as we have been to keep us here, since slipping back into an ice age would devastate humanity…. think of our children and grandchildren!!!!
11
So Michael… tell us about the period before that cooling trend… you know, when the Vikings settled Greenland. Why was it warm then (warmer than today) and why did it subsequently cool?
Then you can go back to the warm/cool periods before that and explain to us why it warmed again back then.
Don’t you think perhaps there is a very good null hypothesis to go in hand with your alarmist hypothesis (it is only a hypothesis, you do know that, don’t you?)
00
We are only in warming trend if you use that pretty red line “of best fit” on the graph. Otherwise, we are warming, cooling, warming, cooling, and now the graph is headed downward (cooling) rather than upward. Without all that statistical analysis, the data just says the temperature varies. Also, take a specific part of any graph and you can usually establish a trend. I have illustrated this. At several points in the past, the line of best fit would had been in cooling, not warming, if we had lacked the future data. You prove nothing.
00
Not at all Sheri.
Yes the data varies, but climate is long term, research says at least 17 years and the WMO likes 30 years to see a trend in the data. Take any period greater than 17 years in a global data set like GISS and you get a warming trend, we are also not currently cooling, 2005 and 2010 are set as the hottest years on the instrumental record, the decade 1001 to 2010 is measured as the hottest decade on every continent on the instrumental record (research on proxies says for several thousand years) and 2011 and 2012 are measured as the hottest la nina affected years on the instrumental record. How you get we are not in a long term warming trend I will never understand, but to actually say we are cooling is a complete nonsense.
00
I am going to ask you what no climate scientistic has yet to answer: IF climate is so stable and trends so clear, why do you use 30 years for the time period (yes, I know the WMO made the decision, but it is completely unclear why.)? If climate changes every thirty years in a rolling average, how can we use proxies, etc, that only give trends over 100’s of years. I still have no proof that proxies in any way are comparable to actual instrumental data–in fact, Marcott’s hockey stick was the result of over-zealous headline writers not reading the part about the last 100 years not being statistically robust.) Where, statistically speaking, did that 17 years come from? Wishful thinking? It’s over half the the 30 year period, so that can’t be why. Why 17 years–and please be specific. The scientists said so is not an answer-=-Why did they say this?
It is still not shown that a cooling trend is nonsense. There is nothing in the historical records, proxies or instrumental records that shows that once a trend goes up, it never goes down, especially not quickly. In fact, historically, all those trend lines turn back down and we cool, or we would be baked by now and not having this discussion. There is no possible way to predict the direction a trend line will go in reality. It’s just a statistical construct that climate science mistakes for reality. We do not know nor can any trend line tell us.
10
Because nobody has said climate is that stable or clear. Anti science people say that, when they think they can make conclusions based on a short term graph without considering the natural system. When people look at the graph and say global warming has stopped, they are making decisions on a graph alone out of context and without using the whole data. The context being that there are many natural factors, the majority of these natural factors are quantifiable, and most of them are in cooling directions, despite the fact that we have not cooled.
You also seem to be contradictory on whether the instrumental record is more reliable than proxies or vice versa.
So you don’t seem to understand natural factors, that can and does make us cool and heat, such as, Orbital Variations, ENSO, PDO, Solar, Volcanos, Age of the sun (it warms as it gets older), Distance of the Moon (it has been moving away from us), Composition of the Atmosphere (at one stage it had no oxygen, now the major element) and much more. The earth has been hotter with the consequence being several mass extinction events and colder (there is evidence of a snowball earth at one stage). But you seem to think that because of this variability we don’t know anything. We know that forcings on climate along geological time spans (thousands of years) cannot be the source of recent warming, we know that most other natural forcings are cooling, and we know that there is a greenhouse effect with greenhouse gases that cause warming (basic physics, testable and measurable). One of these, CO2, we have increased by 40%. Do you accept that actions have consequences? Do you accept that we have done many things to this planet that have affected the health of the land, atmosphere, and water bodies?
A cooling trend is nonsense when the 2001 – 2010 decade is the hottest on the instrumental record and the last 2 years were the hottest la nina affected years on record. From what information are you getting a cooling trend from? Why are you so desperate to find a cooling trend despite the evidence? Why do you not look at the data objectively and see what the scientists are seeing, that there is more than enough evidence to support heating by CO2 emissions (as the science says it can do) and that this heating will be bad for the climate and by extension the future habitability of the planet. And as the probability of that is 90% plus it is unethical and immoral of us to do nothing when we could be leaving our children and future generations much unnecessary pain and suffering. What if we accepted that when the ozone layer was being eaten away by cfc’s. If global action had not been taken the amount of UV radiation that would have additionally gotten through the atmosphere would have already drastically changed our lifestyle. The only difference here is fossil fuel money, power and influence.
From WMO
“Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html
Where the 17 years came from
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
01
For the love of God (sorry Backslider),
If CFC’s are the prime reason as to why there is a ozone hole then when do you think the hole will begin to shrink?……….Think about this before you answer remember we stopped using cfc’s two decades ago.
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm
Now onto the pause/non pause in temps, every man and his dog has come out and said the temps have not risen for approx 17 years but yet here you are steadfastly refusing to accept it, still clinging to your belief systems.
The question that must be asked is if CO2 caused the “rapid” warming that you believe is has then why is it not now? Just answer that question………..no bullshit……..no spin……no Michael theories…….just use well established facts.
00
Well I am not an ozone expert, but as I understand it CFC’s have not been completely eliminated, they are still being emitted in some places, it is a dynamic variable that takes a long time to change and it is complicated by climate change. Recent research I have seen says about mid century. Why? do you deny cfc’s destroy the ozone?
As to your 17 year pause I refer you to what I wrote above your post, as well as the warming trend from 1999 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend (so obviously warming continued virtually straight away), and what the world meteorological organisation says (as well as virtually every other internationally recognised scientific organisation). I cannot add much more than what I have said multiple times. If you cannot understand that basically cherry picking a graph out of context to confirm your view is not science, then there is not much I can do.
“A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
“Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
01
I am finished. Call me anti-science, and I’m done. You have no interest in actually discussing this, but rather just insulting me. As for my views on proxies, I told you to click on my name and check out my views. I am guessing you are the one not reading what is provided. You’re the one wasting my time.
You do not understand statistics, trends, etc. You admit nature is controlling the climate to the degree that is convenient to you. Nature’s good if it gives you what you want. You believe that warming must be due to people because nothing else fits–except that is not proof. It’s just the exclusionary principle. We can’t find any other reason so this HAS to by why.
Your view of the world is if something is statistically significant, it is REAL. NO IT IS NOT. That is not science–it’s modeling and fantasy. You have wasted enough of my time. If you really want to know what I believe and why, you can check it out. I don’t expect that to happen, however.
It’s always the climate science believers that steadfastly refuse to read anything that might jar their faith while claiming questioners are “anti-science”. Science is not faith, though from these discussions, you would never, ever know it. Go back to the sacred texts (Yes, that is absolutely the correct term–the peer-reviewed journals are the only data you even consider. Sacred texts. Then you call skeptics “anti-science. What a joke.)
10
Fair enough. There is way to much opinion in science, and with the explosion of the internet everybody is an expert. Yes I look for peer review and internationally recognised science organisations for my science. Science is not opinion and the future of my children is to important to rely on opinion.
01
Well there you go Michael, you have said it yourself. We have 17 years of no warming (that’s pushing 20 years Michael), thus we have “meaningful assessments of climate change”.
End of argument!
20
Dr Karl has lost it, I think hes having early onset senility or something. Some of the stuff he comes out with these days is just nuts.
140
Yes, everybody who does not buy into your confirmation bias is nuts. Why didn’t I think of that. Much easier than using science, data and evidence for making decisions.
“This volcanism, combined with a simple proxy for anthropogenic effects (logarithm of the CO2 concentration), reproduces much of the variation in the land surface temperature record; the fit is not improved by the addition of a solar forcing term. Thus, for this very simple model, solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy. The residual variations include interannual and multi-decadal variability very similar to that of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).”
http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.php
04
Wow! Scitechnol…. so this is where you get your “peer reviewed science” from. LMAO!!!
10
lol, he who has none making fun of peer reviewed science. Seriously.
02
You are in for a very rude shock Michael. Unlike you, I am not a copy and paste fanatic.
You remind me of a religious zealot quoting verses from the bible…..oh wait, you are a religious zealot.
00
What if we add solar forcing and remove CO2? What happens then?
00
Woah! A null hypothesis Sheri…. we can’t have that now, can we?
00
Many studies have investigated exactly this Sheri. If we take into account natural factors, such as solar forcing and ENSO plus volcanos we get an increased warming trend, in fact at the same rate over the 80’s and 90’s due to their cuurent cooling influence over the last decade. If you remove CO2 the temperature trend goes flat over the last 50 years.
So been done, you cannot get the warming we have seen without CO2 and despite natural factors in cooling trends temperatures have been maintained.
00
What did the studies use for the value of the “natural” CO2 that exists in the atmosphere? Do you perhaps have link to some of these? I would love to read the studies and see what the input was. Thanks.
00
You can use these for a start.
“Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-full.htm
Carbon Cycle
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php
00
Baldrick returns !!!
90
Except Baldrick was far, far more intelligent than this moron !!
110
I have a cunning plan and you’ll be the loser!
019
And we all know how Baldrick’s plans pan out.
ABJECT FAILURE !!
70
You mean SIR Baldrick, now!
05
That cunning plan of walking around wearing a sandwich board that proclaims “The End is 97% Nigh” should work a treat.
No one has tried that yet.
121
‘Cunning’, I doubt very much you would be capable of that.
‘deceitful, lying, fraudulent’…
now that I would believe.
101
Hey blackdildothe4th, I’ve got a Spoonerism to describe you “Cunning Stunt”
41
Why would he be stunning??
Sure you don’t mean Cupid Stunt?
91
btw, Which climate trough are you swilling on?
Certainly nothing to do you science, maths, physics or any real science..
that’s PATENTLY OBVIOUS, because you are as ignorant as an amoeba.
Probably a psychology trough, like Lewy.
A moronic brain-dead non-entity.
32
All we need now is Michael…. Michael, where are you?
30
I was whisked away by vikings, lol. Have you checked how your back of the envelope calculations went down? I wouldn’t give up my day job just yet…
05
Have you checked how I have now exposed how you convert “carbon emissions” to being entirely CO2 emissions?
Come back and argue when you have some real numbers.
00
You keep thinking opinion is science, without actually checking anything or reading for yourself. Both Carbon500 and myself have pointed out that if you went and checked the actual figures we, and you, used, then you would have seen they are only CO2 carbon. Because the carbon cycle takes many different forms as it cycles all comparisons need to be converted to the common element carbon. Apart from me proving your calculations incorrect and showing you how to do it myself I have also pointed to several ACTUAL science sources where the calculations have been done for us. Everything confirmed and proved.
00
No, I would not have seen. You are taking “carbon emissions” and convert these directly to “CO2 emissions”. This is patently wrong, which you yourself confirm:
When scientists talk about “carbon emissions” into the atmosphere, this includes ALL carbon emissions, not just CO2.
When you warmists like to paste nice pictures of smoke stacks on your web pages, although usually they are just water vapor, sometimes you manage to get one that really is smoke…. what is smoke Michael?
Again, when scientists talk about “carbon emissions” into the atmosphere, this includes smoke, ash, soot, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.
You CANNOT convert “atmospheric carbon emissions” directly into “atmospheric CO2 emissions”. Or are you going to argue that when scientists talk about the “carbon cycle” they incorrectly omit the rest?
Most of the calculations I have seen, for example “how much CO2 does gasoline emit” are plain wrong. Why? Because the assume perfect combustion, which never happens. I have seen calculations based on how much oil has been produced, which again is plain wrong, since they assume that all of that oil is burnt, neglecting how much of it is used for lubricants, plastics, textiles etc etc.
Come back with some real numbers Michael.
00
My wife and I were walking past a car the other night and I said to her “Do you smell that?”. She said “Yes, what is it?”. I said “That is unburnt gasoline. The car is poorly tuned and probably using 30 percent more fuel than it should”.
How many badly tuned cars do you think there are in the World Michael? How much of gasoline simply evaporates and is never burnt? Do you think that even a well tuned car has perfect combustion? Nope, sorry, it does not happen.
All these things need to be taken into account when talking “carbon emissions” and calculating the numbers. How much of it is CO2? Significantly less than you think.
I have seen the chemistry calculations. They are pretty. But, they assume perfect combustion, which never happens. Thus they cannot be relied upon to make the calculations. This requires experimental science and measurements to come up with reasonably accurate averages.
00
We have to remember what real business the media are in. The price of a newspaper covers the printing and distribution costs (if that), but returns no profit. To make money, the media must sell advertising space, so they are literally in the advertising business, and in reality, that is where they get all of their profit. News items are there to a) fool people into buying the advertising, and b) fill the space between advertisements.
A vast amount of news stories start life as a Press Release. These are usually written by a Public Relations wonk, either to a formula, or to carry a specific message. They always contain some truth, but mostly it is all about the message.
The news papers will usually print the press release verbatim, with perhaps a few changes to suit the style of the publication. Some times the Sub-Editors will take some material out, and sometimes they will cut and paste from a related story.
On occasion, a Sub-Editor will have extra space to fill, so will grab an old story and just rework it to make it look fresh. Or they may use a stock photograph with an appropriate caption.
The press releases come from a number of sources, but in the case of climate, they are invariably one of the stops on the gravy train: Climate Researchers – Universities – Grants Bodies – Government – Lobbyists – Environmental Groups – etc.
The output of the Climate Researchers is used by the Environmental Group as justification for lobbying, and so on and so forth.
It is all very cosy, and nobody wants to risk changing the status quo.
That is why we get the more erudite trolls visiting here. The truth is dangerous to those on the train, and could cause a derailment.
This is why Margot, and Michael, and others, put in so much time and effort here. The bloggers and free thinkers are not on the train, and lose nothing by telling the truth – and the truth is very frightening.
230
Spot on… what sells more papers “Global Climate Melt Down Unavoidable” or “Nothing to see here folks” ?
40
Yep,
As the old saying goes:-
Dog bites Man = NOT news
Man bites Dog = NEWS
20
Good Evening,
Finally, it looks like the climate on climate change is slowly changing. Its quite remarkable that such a large group of quite often extremely sanctimonious individuals i.e. journalists, have been so completely “sucked-in” by the great-global-warming-climate-change snake-oil-salesmen like: Al Gore ($100 mil richer by selling his pay-tv to mid-east sheiks), Prof. Tim Flannery (the most in-correct precipitation forecaster in Aust’s history, & Prof. Mike Moore (the creator of the world’s most incorrect scientific temp. graph)!!
I can’t wait for this Madoff-esque pack of cards to start falling down – although I think it already has!!
After-all; Germany’s just putting off further reductions in solar subsidies until after its elections in six weeks, the EU. has been incredibly quiet about most of the world’s countries refusing to pay its airline carbon taxes since Jan., & secret German report (Potsdam Instit. for Climate Research) last Sep. aims to start siphoning all OECD. member’s super. accounts to keep propping up renewables!!
Not long now & the world’s Greens, & all that collude with them, to be whole-salely rejected by all democracies world-wide.
Regards, Reformed Warmist of Logan
180
I think you mean Michael Mann. 🙂
100
Thanks,
It was actually an in-built observation test!
J.H., You’re the first who’s passed!
(Or, of course, it could be a “Mann-esque” mistake)
Kind regards,
RW/L
61
Actually, it was not Michael Mann, but another fellow with the same name.
60
Manfred Mann?
Tony.
Post Script: Here they are singing Dylan. That’s Manfred on keyboards. (and did we really have hair that big?) One of the best live gigs I’ve ever been too, in, of all places, Newcastle City Hall. They played for almost three hours, and how’s this for warm up bands – Blackfeather and The La De Das.
40
Hi Tony,
Have you looked at the cost of going off the electricity grid?
I don’ t want to subsidies green energy schemes any more than I have to. Victorian Natural Gas is the cheapest energy available to me present. Hopefully not to be made more expensive with more carbon tax.
My starting point is that it seems feasible at about $1/kWhr. Maybe a gas powered motor generator.
20
Actually the hockey stick has been confirmed again and again and Tim is normally misquoted out of context.
“Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html
14
In whose fantasy world has the hockey stick been reconfirmed? I read it was based on one proxy. If you are referring to Marcott, he did NOT confirm the hockey stick. Headlines confirmed the hockey stick, not science. Temperature higher than any other time in the past 1400 years means just that. It does not mean AGW, continued rising of temperatures, or anything other than the temperature is rising. So we know it was getting warmer. That’s nice. Probably insignificant, but nice.
20
There are many different hoskey stick in climate change. One I pointed to was in the science above. Another bundle of proxies are here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-6-10.gif
We also have the CO2 one
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-2-1-figure-1-l.png
Yes, but the question is why? Research shows that we were in a global cooling trend until the industrial warming set in. Analysis of most natural forcing factors on the climate system show them in cooling directions. The only way the warming can be explained is by AGW.
10
Cool! In the third graph, around the year 1000, I see another hockey stick! No one marked it with a nice line, but if you look closely, you can clearly see a trend just like the one today. (I might even print it out and overlay it to see how closely they match!) How did that happen?
You write of trends as if a line on a graph dictates the direction of climate. All we know is it’s getting warmer. AGW is not the only explanation–it’s just the one the political camp loves. The most likely explanation is we don’t really have any kind of a grasp on the complexities of climate and are no more able to predict 100 year warming trends than we are to predict who will be elected to the presidency in 2020. The graph is nothing but a trend with no actual physical reality until it bears out in nature. Since the atmospheric temperature is what we are looking at, and current trends look nothing like a hockey stick, the graph really has no predictive value.
One additional note: Try graphing the data using the units 1,2,3… on the Y axis instead of the partial degrees. Not much of a hockey stick at that scale, is it? Not very scary, either.
If we were in a cooling trend and industrialization brought us out, we need to keep building industries. Warm is better than cold–thousands died in the LIA. So IF we really could control climate, it would be best to keep it warm.
00
You are not looking at the graph correctly Sheri. The black line is actual temperatures from instruments and the trend is way faster than at any previous period. REgardless I do not dismiss natural factors, investigations of those periods show mainly regional effects, not a global increase like currently, and have accepted natural factors to account for them. Fact is natural factors have been investigated in our current warming (sun, ENSO, PDO, volcanos etc) and none can explain the current warming, in fact most are in cooling trends.
Rescaling the graph to remove the trends is just dishonest and an obvious way to hide anything that people find inconvenient.
10
Actually, I’m really good a reading graphs, thank you (making them too). I know what the graph says. I am not “rescaling” to remove trends–first of all, using .1 increments is scaling to show tiny changes to make people think they are big. So if we are talking about “dishonest”, check out those climate scientists first. When people say the world is warming, no one I know of says “.5 degrees over the last “x” years”. People think in full degrees. So again, “dishonest” with the graphing.
There is no “correct” scale–all scientists scale to what best shows what they want you to see. That’s the point. Rescaling tells us if trends were exaggerated or missed. Again, just because information is graphed one way does not mean there are not 50 other correct ways to graph it, show trend lines, etc. This is not hard and fast science–it’s statistics and we all know how easy it is to lie with statistics. So looking at the data from multiple directions is the only way to see if deception has occurred. If the data fails, then it fails. Bad theory.
I am scaling up (enlarging may be the correct term) to see if the peak at 1000 years matches the one now. It looks like it might be very close. Even if I change the scale completely, as long as I don’t alter the data, it is not dishonest. It’s just a different presentation. If you don’t like what I find, regraph it with your own scale. The data is what is not to be changed, not the graph.
00
It really depends on what you are measuring. There are many instances where fractions of a degree are very volatile. As to temperature the question is global or regional. Globally small changes can mean big differences regionally. If you go through the long term proxy records you can see that the difference between an ice age and an interglacial is about 6 degrees c. This is the difference between earth now and when there were several km of ice over Montreal. Therefore small changes globally are significant. Since industrialisation The BEST study that examined over 1 billion records and with methods supported by the anti science community and with funding from foswsil fuel found a 1.5deg c increase and concluded that most of the temp rise is due to man.
“The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.png
“This volcanism, combined with a simple proxy for anthropogenic effects (logarithm of the CO2 concentration), reproduces much of the variation in the land surface temperature record; the fit is not improved by the addition of a solar forcing term. Thus, for this very simple model, solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy. The residual variations include interannual and multi-decadal variability very similar to that of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).”
http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.php
00
C’mon Michael. Do you really think that with all the “peer reviewed” crap that you spout that you can now make such statements without supporting them with peer reviewed science???
Peer review please. Make sure it debunks the debunks.
10
Soon after Climategate in 19th November 2009 I read a short comment on one of the blogs which pointed to a study of the media. The comment was along the lines that the media took about 7 years to switch over from one hard held position to a newer and probably equally fixated and wrong outlook.
So from Climategate in late 2009 that puts the full change over in the media from the present grossly alarmist warming meme to the next sales boosting frightener of the populace to around mid 2016.
The problem for the media, all of it, is that in following their narrow minded and totally mercenary, fact distorting by ommission line of sales enhancing alarmist policy, they are fast destroying any credibility they have left.
The internet and the mobile phone with it’s Twitter and Facebook mass based social media are far faster albeit much shallower then the popular media if thats possible, in delivering news to a huge range of citizens right across the world.
And that gives the ordinary citizen a source of news that no media outlet can ever hope to match and at the same time provides an view of events that is often at serious odds to what the media will attempt to portray the event as.
So trust in the media is evaporating fast but most media are just too bloody dumb and are blowing smoke out of the nether orifices to even realise that trust in the media is falling fast even amongst the oldsters of which I am one, who placed great trust in the media pronouncements and news of the past but now wouldn’t touch most media with a barb wire insulted tarred pole at both ends at 5 metres.
I was a rusted on ABC listener until a decade ago and now about the only ABC session I listen to is the rural weather report . TV nope. None at all and thats for the lot of them including the commercial stations where I simply can’t stand the program and interest wrecking ads.
And i suspect i have a lot of like minded and increasing numbers of citizens acting in a similar fashion to myself when it comes to the media.
A couple of papers plus many international sources on the internet is where I now get my news and current affairs information.
We are already seeing some shifting of the goal posts in some , emphasis on “some”, media outlets re the toning down of the pro forma over the top alarmist rants on the dangers of global warming and a more questioning attitude with skeptical opinion writers getting a lot more of run.
So my guess is that in around 2015 there will be seen to be a big media switch underway on the alarmist global warming or whatever it is called by then to the next great sales generating alarmist ranting.
By then most of the media will be about a year or more behind public opinion as large swathes of the public have about already reached the stage of only paying lip service to the alarmist cause so as to not be seen to be straying too far out ahead of what they think the herd mentality is.
The timing around 2015 / 16 would be about right for that to occur as many present editors, opinion writers and journalists [ each with a very small “e”, “o” and “j” ] will be moving on or retiring by then and the new crop will want to be “different” as is the way of mankind’s newer and younger generations since time began.
Any bets on “global cooling” becoming the new “cause celebre”, the over hyped alarmist cacklings of elites with Flannery and the left overs from the Climate Commission predicting ice bergs to block Bass Strait by 2060.
Sigh! We’ve been all there before, listened to the crap and are now paying the price in gold plated spades.
And scientists and the media can’t work out why they are increasingly on the nose with the citizenery,
All of which goes to show what a good [ Mc Quarrie? ] university education does for you [ /sarc].
260
A well articulated little rant there, ROM, and I heartily concur!
If the MSM say it is raining, I’ll look outside and check. The percentage of my trust in what they have to say has been deteriorating at a rate inversely proportional to my advancing age. I can’t believe I was once so trusting of it.
A point to remember – the hoi poloi get their “facts” from the MSM, and from what they learn there, vote in the next lot of
liarspoliticians.100
Pretty well hit the nail on the head ROM.
There’ll always be some panic put out by the various media. There’s money to be made from it and it keeps the human herd under control! Not everyone is part of the herd though, thank goodness. Three cheers for Jo and for Anthony Watts et al.
70
I don’t watch the news or read the newspaper – that’s because I would rather be uninformed than misinformed.
The media is simply a monster with one purpose and one purpose only – to brainwash the gullible masses into thinking what they ought the think.
Makes me sick.
150
Okay so our ABC costs ~1060B × 0.8%+¹ == $8.5 billion+ /year.
How the government can count the cost of business investments foregone inside the boardrooms of the world is probably worthy of a Lewandowsky-style survey in itself. “We asked 75 CSIRO scientists how many major business investment decisions they had foregone due to the carbon tax and the answer was zero.”
_____
¹ According to undisclosed Treasury modelling.
60
I forget now how many times I used to mutter that if it was MY ABC it would be a whole lot different from what it is! It makes me grind my teeth as much as ‘our’ BBC, for which we are forced to pay a large tax here in the UK.
70
I am so agreeing with you guys! That nasty media not reporting things right! But don’t worry, I’ll write the article for you, so that you can read it here:
Climate scientists today report that natural variability of the climate means that warming may appear to stall every now and then. “Of course this only happens if you take a short enough time period”, said A Spokesman, “For example if you look at the period 1995 – 2013 you’ll see warming. But this warming trend is a statistical quantity, and if you take a two standard deviation range around this trend, it just includes zero. This means that there is a 5% chance that it hasn’t warmed in that time, and a 95% chance that it has. Some people like to call this a “pause”, and if it makes them happy, well, we don’t mind.”
337
So the head of the IPCC is a liar??
190
Well actually Heywood, the head of the IPCC IS a demonstrated liar as much as Julia Gillard is, so your rhetoric question is rather moot – Perhaps better to say the UK Met, Hadley centre, NASA, UEA, Hansen and Trenbeth are all Liars because they all have recognised the Pause where John refuses to.
By the way, John is perfectly entitled to refute them all, but I guess he’d better have some good evidence if he wants to be believed.
150
Good point.
Interesting that warmists generally argue from authority or consensus, but when the aforementioned scientists/organisations state the inconvenient truth about a warming pause, they are suddenly not to be believed either.
50
Yeah! And it’s actually ten degrees hotter now than you think it is, but the heat went and hid in the oceans, and children won’t know what snow is, it will be that rare, and, and, drought is the “new normal”, and it just won’t rain anymore, and what rain does fall, won’t flow to the dams ‘cos the land will be so dry and parched so you better build multi-bilion $ desalination plants, and . . . and sea levels will rise by a 100 metres, and, and there will be more and worserer everything, even if it hasn’t started yet, and . . and all the ice everywhere will have melted by 2035, and . . . and . . .
.
Just you wait. It’s all gonna start
in 1990,in 2000,tomorrow,next week,next month,next year,next decade, sometime, cos the computer models say so, and, and . . . . my Dad’s bigger than your Dad, so there!!340
I am so glad you used “Dad” in that sentence …
110
Well, he wouldn’t use something that JB doesn’t have……
60
You know, I have never heard of a “Dad” measuring contest before! 😉
20
Well Eddy, all I can say is that you must have had a sheltered, if unimaginative, upbringing.
10
Pah! MY dad taught Daniel Boone how to split the tree!!! So there!!
00
It is equally probable that this is the correct article:
In a surprising twist, climate scientists today announced that humans are in no way responsible for climate change . After years of amateur statistical analysis and pretty graphs showing standard deviation (does anyone really know what that means?), it was discovered that those little “bumps” in the graphs that were called “stalling” actually did have a statistical significance when viewed through the eyes of actual statisticians. These “bumps” showed that nature has much more variability than originally thought. Climate scientists state there is no way they could have foreseen this and it was not their fault they incorrectly identified “warming from human causes” as a planetary threat. This, of course, means that from here on out, there is no such thing as extreme weather. Now it’s back to heat waves and floods brought to you by nature.
120
Sometimes John you can be ridiculous.
One would think you’ve been around here long enough to understand the arguments properly. I actually think you do know the truth of the matter but just have so much fun playing devils advocate.
Statistically the trend between say 1997 and now is indistinguishable from zero, over some substantial period that trend is (insignificantly) negative. Of course this implies that the trend is also indistinguishable from some small positive value (your argument) or a small negative value (somebody else argument) – it’s all moot, they are indistinguishable from each other. However our peer reviewed scientists like Hansen are on the record saying that according to the models there is little probability of this situation occurring over periods longer than 15 years. They all increase monotonically.
This of course shows up some fallacies in the proponents argument
1/ That the magnitude of natural variation is at least equal to CO2 Warming
2/ That the estimates for gain in the climate system are wrong.
Now if 1/ is true then the portion of the temperature rise since the little ice age that can be reliably attributed to Carbon Dioxide is lower than otherwise estimates, which implies 2/ that the estimates of sensitivity are overblown. That is if 50% of the 0.7 deg since 1850 might be natural, then the rise due to CO2 is less than 0.35deg, which implies that the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 is something less than 0.9 deg C.
The only other explanation for it is that you refuse to think for yourself. This also seems to be a problem of your stable-mate Michael who likes to rant Peer-Review when a little math he can do himself will prove CO2 warming cannot possibly be of the magnitude the Australian Government propaganda proposes.
I have never seen anyone who has performed the boundary tests to remain a proponent, there is almost an instant conversion to the Sceptic view. The longer this goes on, the more people fall out of the dogma. You should be one of them, I don’t understand why you refuse to do the math?
So John I challenge you to do the math… Here’s a place to start. Just 2 questions two sanity checks (boundary tests).
Scientists say the all cause rise from blackbody for our earth with an atmosphere is 33 degrees, they also say that CO2 intercepts 85% of the available energy emissions in its stop band so:
CO2 stop band absorbs 85% of available energy allowing only 15% more capture (for a 1 ATM Atmosphere). The Rise so far due to atmosphere is 33 degrees from blackbody from all sources including feedbacks. If CO2 controlled ALL of that warming ( rather than the Gas Law ), what is the maximum rise possible for a 100% CO2 Atmosphere ?
Between 1850 and today the Climate has warmed (thank god) 0.7 degrees and CO2 has increased 120 PPM, from 280 PPM to 400 PPM this represents a ratio of 400/280 or 1.42. Assuming CO2 is responsible for ALL this warming predict the increase for the doubling from 280PPM to 560PPM, remembering the characteristic is logarithmic (Natural log). IE If ln (400/280) x C = 0.7 what is ln(560/280) x C ~ simplified, If ln(1.42) x C = 0.7 then what is ln(2) x C? – Tip, use the first equation (the evidence) to determine C then solve the second using the value of C you found in the first.
Now contrast the results you get for these two simple boundary tests with Prof Steffan (Climate Commissioner) prediction of up to 6 degrees warming for a doubling and comment on the reasonableness of Prof Steffan’s assertion.
Remember John we’re relying on your math skills here, no more than high school math is needed, don’t let us down.
121
So true bobl. I have been trying to get Michael to answer this question: How many tons, in total, of CO2 are in the atmosphere.
Once he looks at this figure and compares it to the bullshit he is spouting, that conversion would happen. But, he won’t do it.
60
Well, I just showed Michael, using his own numbers, that Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is only 20ppmv
31
Very neat backslider; and I see Michael trolled it by confusing carbon with CO2.
31
Umm Cohenite look again, it was backslider who confused carbon and co2. I corrected it and it came out virtually perfectly, but I also provided scientific sources for the calculations, as I don’t normally agree with back of the envelope calculations. As you know I have so much science on my side (over 97%) that I can present science to prove all my claims and not rely on personal opinions, blog sites and wonky calculations.
04
Science is not about consensus. Besides, that 97% number is same as the claim that 97% of democrats disagree with republican policies, so republicans are wrong. If you pick a closed group that has virtually complete control over a subject, you can make any claim you want and no one can argue. How about we look at ALL scientists, not just those that publish in the sacred texts? Not quite the same story.
00
I have seen at least 3 studies of climate scientists that point to the same figure. These are people, trained, researching and publishing in the field. Why should we look at all scientists? Most of them would not have any more knowledge of climate science than the average man in the street. There is no sacred texts, there are professional journals, most independently owned, the comment just shows that you have been taken in by conspiracy theories. They are designed to get you to dismiss actual scientists and science so that you get your information from opinion blog sites, often from people with no training in science or the field of climate science.
I have also seen at least 3 studies of the peer reviewed science which all show the science with less than 1% of it casting any doubt on AGW and a list of basically every internationally recognised scientific organisation on the planet, on every continent with statements that agree with AGW.
So, yes consensud does not prove AGW, but consensus this wide normally arises from overwhelming and increasing evidence.
00
Click on my name and check out the entry “As the science spirals” for an explanation of why I do not follow the sacred texts (that is what one calls the special journals written by special scientists, is it not?) You really jumped right to “conspiracy theories”–which means you really have no answer, do you? All the use of “conspiracy theory” does is hold up a big neon sign that says “NO ANSWER”. You might want to limit its use (and maybe look up the meaning, too).
If the evidence was overwhelming and increasing, there would not be a whole community of people questioning it. It is science based on models and models can be very, very wrong. Consensus means nothing with models. Remove Al Gore and the IPCC and how much consensus would there be? See, remove politics, no consensus. If Hansen had not gotten Congress involved, no consensus. Add in other scientists outside the politics, no consensus. It’s all just an illusion of consensus.
00
No it is not. I refer to scientific journals because they are the only way you get science that has been checked and is then subjected to the experts in the field at large by being published. That makes it way better than opinion bloggers and biased sites like yours. I also try to avoid blogger sites and focus on the peer reviewed science or proper scientific sites for my science. This is science of over 100 years in origin, is accpeted globally by virtually every internationally recognised scientific organisation, on every continent, regardless of government type or leanings (eg China, Iran, Russia, US, Canada etc). To consider any credence to a global conspiracy of this nature is nonsense. No secret could be kept that well. The agreement is much to large.
Al gore is not needed and irrelevent to the science, and the IPCC merely pulls together the latest peer reviewed science to produce reports for policy makers, they do not really do much science of their own.
“The list contains scientific organizations around the world that acknowledge the global impact of rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities. While many more organizations could likely be added, the list is limited to those that have either issued a singular statement of their own or signed in agreement to a collective statement regarding the anthropogenic impact of rising emissions on global climate and the global biosphere.
All statements have been issued since 2001.
At present, there are 171 organizations on the list that span all continents outside of Antarctica.”
http://scentofpine.org/consensus/
00
You seem to think the science begins and ends in the politics of the US. Look globally and you will see that the US is poisoned by a political system that has to much money in it, allowing large corporation money to dictate policy and spread disinformation to influence the electorate.
01
From backslider
and then
Spot the error…
04
From Michael:
Spot the error…..
20
OK, if most of the change from 1850 to now is caused by CO2, then we’d have that an increase from 280 to 400 gives a temperature rise of 0.7C (actually closer to 0.8C, I think). This means Ln(400/280) * y = 0.7. So y = 0.7/Ln(400/280) = 2 (or close enough). So the increase for a doubling would be 2*Ln(560/280) = 1.4 C. This is somewhat less than the 2 – 4.5C range usually used for a doubling of CO2.
So yes, you have an argument there. The trouble is that similar (but much more thorough) analysis of this type gives a sensitivity of around 3C.
Still, maybe we’ll be lucky and you guys will turn out to be right.
26
Thought I would come back to this thread and see if you responded – so much to track. I congratulate you for doing one of the calcs, I note you didn’t bother with the other one, and yes I have done them myself but I wanted them to come from your keyboard!
So you substantiate my estimate based on observed warming of about 1.4 degrees for a doubling. Now answer this (though maybe you are no longer reading this thread). Was all of the warming because of CO2 or was some of it due to a more active sun. Science says only part of the rise since the LIA is CO2 driven, so then how sensitive is temperature to CO2 = Something LESS than 1.4. Certainly it is nothing like the 6 degrees of doubling that Gillard/Rudd et-al supported by Will Stephan and Flannery – climate propagandists trot out.
Do the other test (Hint the answer is about 5.2 degrees for a 100% CO2 atmosphere), which suggests a climate sensitivity of about 0.5 deg per doubling.
Now there are other simple tests, for example looking at loop gain of the supposed feedback that also suggest maximum sensitivities of about 1-1.5, I am happy to share them just ask. For example prove that an increased average temperature must have higher maximums – I will challenge you with them later.
Never believe what you are told JB, science is never RIGHT it only represents the state of knowledge at any time, science is always wrong waiting to be disproven, believe in yourself.
10
PS: John, let me make a prediction. I predict you will make some excuse and refuse to do the calculations as I have outlined, like a good little warmist.
80
Ha ha, you are wrong. But of course you could have done the calculations yourself, if you wanted to 🙂
16
An in this case I am happy to be wrong, it took a lot to get out of you though… I give you a thunbs up for doing the exercise. As I previously said, there are more tests you need to do.
I have done the calcs myself of course John, that’s why I’m a sceptic. The problem basically is because all the forcing (IE CO2 and Water) acts logaritmically it 1. Cant get out of control and 2. Cant add up to much. The doomsday scenarios of more than 2 degrees per doubling actually require the sensitivity to CO2 to get greater as CO2 increases ( requires the GHE to accelerate ) and clearly it cant. There is no basis for any claim that the next 100PPM will be any worse than the last 100PPM none at all.
My inspiration for this test came directly from prof Carter who said this. I tested Carter’s assertion and found him to be right. Recent warming supposed to be the WORST EVER demonstrates a climate sensitivity of 1.4 and there is no physical evidence it can ever be worse than that let alone up to 4 times worse! (Computer models yes, but I can model a world that has no gravity if I want – models represent an opinion, they are not evidence)
I look forward to you taking the next challenge
00
Jeez, Jibbers, the proselytising never stops with you, does it?
What’s it going to be, the Green Pill or the Blue Pill? I recommend the Blue Pill.
You see taking 1870 as an example it is at least 10 years delay between when the forcing (sunspots) turns into decline and when the effect (temperature) turns into decline. Due to energy buffering in the oceans the delay will be even longer when the decline starts from a higher level.
Well the recent sunspot decline started in 1980 from a much higher level than 1860 so you would expect the decline in temperature to not begin until … just guessing… 1995 or 2000. Well we have been in a temperature plateau since 2000, right? And so we are close to the temperature turning the corner and going into decline. That’s what the astrophysicists are predicting. 30 years of cooling starting next year. By 2018 it will be unambiguous.
Take the Blue Pill and we stay in Empirical Land and find out how deep the New LIA goes.
Or you can swallow the Green Pill and believe… whatever you want to believe.
70
You consider 18 years to be a short amount of time?
I’ve got new for you – if you want to sell a catastrophe you need arch quicker turnaround.
Approximately zero degrees warming in 18 years really isn’t that scary.
Oh the scary is to come? Well, I for one am getting bored.
Oh wait it’s not just me, “global warming” is boring the entire world.
Google trends is a fantastic tool showing interest in search terms online.
Searches for “Global warming” have steadily declined since 2007. Over the past 5 years the search interest has dropped by approximately 70%
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Global%20warming&cmpt=q
This is great news. Despite the onslaught of climate propoganda in the media, the public are wising up and waking up to the scam.
Ultimately, the scam artists like John are losing. Pity they have walked away with billions!
110
By the way, the boston marathon bombings were [snipped].
[take it some where else] ED
06
You know, with all this conspiracy stuff going on and climate scientists being experts in deception, perhaps when the theory totally disintegrates, the climate scientists can work for those faking terrorist attacks and moon landings. Since the climate scientists have blamed the skeptics for believing in conspiracy theory while they don’t, it would be the perfect place to hide out and use those skills that propelled the idea of AGW to monumental heights. We wouldn’t even have to retrain them.
60
Incredible! I’ve never seen the word “fake” censored before.
[No, you’ve never read the word without believing it in every wacky conspiracy. You’ve been warned many times, no 911, no chemtrails, no moon landing, no false flag terrorist stories. Unless you provide real substantial evidence and if it is on topic. A couple of wacky YouTube vids are not proof either.] ED
40
You have to let them down slowly, Sonny. Too much too fast and they just freak out about it.
Also you’re better off stating the facts and dropping hints that lead to the conclusion and just don’t even say the end conclusion at all. Only a curious mind is prepared to ask the tough questions, and only curious minds will think about what the facts imply. Stick to the facts and let the curious join the dots in their own time.
Plus… it’s not an Unthreaded Weekend yet, so you gave the mods a very good reason for snipping it out.
50
Truth.
00
Off topic!!
Cheers,
11
The topic is “the media is the problem”.
Reporting fake terrorist attacks is a problem don’t you think?
Fake climate catastrophe, fake terror… All in a days work for the filthy presstitutes.
30
Jo, I think you could do a nice post about the google trends result for “global warming” and “climate change”.
It turns out people are far more interested in “Ice cream” and “cup cakes”.
Best regards,
Sonny
40
John, you caught us, of course, there is no bias, and we’re cherry picking one meaningless example. After all, the news channels often show close ups of temperature stations next to air conditioners and air-ports don’t they. Four corners and Lateline went out of their way to interview Harrison Schmitt and Buzz Aldrin to ask them why they are skeptics. 60 minutes did a special on Art Robinson to find out what motivated someone to organise the largest petition ever signed by scientists, and then do it twice. Then there was the Great Floods doco on Channel Nine which compared historical floods with modern ones, and the series on disasters which showed how people were far more likely to die from weather related events in the 1920s… /sarc
I’m sure you can name plenty more… but does your list start and end with “The Great Global Warming Swindle?”
271
‘ start and end with “The Great Global Warming Swindle?”’ you’re right there!
The Great Global Warming Swindle Hoax!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM_rzEJRo5M
224
You lost me… which is the hoax the video or the subject matter ?
Consider this. One of the main arguments of TGGWS is that AGW is a method of suppressing development in the 3rd world to maintain Western power structures.
So when Obama came out last week and told Africans point blank that they needed to abandon notions of a move to a large middle class because the planet would quote “boil over”, that’s just a coincidence is it ?
130
‘You lost me… which is the hoax the video or the subject matter ?’ The Great Global Warming Swindle, of course
AGW and why some people don’t believe!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVnDIolzGQ
18
You could make the same argument about the same circumstances in 1830.
60
BlackAdder was a comedy about a guy who was a complete and utter failure at everything, no matter how hard he schemed and lied.
You have certainly chosen the right character for yourself.
90
‘You have certainly chosen the right character for yourself’, that is a vacuous argument! Can you not offer any science to counter the claims I’m making in the videos? Now that would be worth listening to, but no doubt you can’t, because all you have is name calling!!!
110
Funny how you turn up around the same times as “Michael”…
Is this what you do afterwards instead of having a cigarette??
71
Now thats GOLD Heywood pure GOLD
20
*bows*
Thankyou.. 😉
10
When you offer some.
But you don’t
Just FAILED arguments that have ZERO connection to reality. The World is proving you WRONG !!!
FAIL, FAIL, FAIL…
31
Actually, that was the original Blackadder. From the 2nd series on he became very scheming and very smart.
24
No, he just appeared smart to you.
But a dead amoeba would seem smart to you.
11
John B, do you think that the hiatus just isn’t really a problem for all those who have pounded climate alarmism for years, even decades?
And are you telling us that the ‘climate scientist’ are explaining natural variability to us? My impressions is that they’ve tried to hide and even deny that. And grudgingly start to refer to such first now, that the departure from the model’s predictions is becoming glaringly obvious!
120
Must be difficult to pound anything with a hockey stick growing a long extra handel at the wrong end.
______/——-
70
Ooop not Haendel … Handle. Sheesh.
40
You see what you want to see, Jonas, and I do too.
14
Hell no! The reality I see is nothing like what I wanted to see. All there ever are is curve balls knocking the house built of wild cards down!
“the discovery may bring about the biggest revision of human history ever made.”
http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/03/egyptian-pyramids-on-the-antarctic/
20
John, instead of seeing what you want, try seeing what’s there.
There is a difference you know. It may require you making some tough realisations that you have ultimately been swindled. Don’t worry, it happens to the best of us.
And the best of us realign our thinking and ideology to adapt in accordance with reality.
20
For John, there is no knowable reality except in his fevered fantasy. We are at fault for not seeing his superior view of reality and by not buying into it.
However, there is the little problem that if the only real reality that can be known is one’s own fantasy, how can we know anything but our own fantasy. We can have only a fantasy of John’s fantasy but can’t really know his actual fantasy. If we don’t really know what it is, how can we buy into it? For that matter, how can he know we haven’t? Easy! He can fantasize that we haven’t.
To know his fantasy, we must implicitly accept there is a knowable reality outside of our fantasy of reality. Which contradicts the fundamental belief that our own fantasy is the only reality we can know. Fortunately, John has no problem with contradictions because he truly believes in his fantasy. To rid himself of the contradiction, all he has to do is change his fantasy so that it is no longer a problem. His view of reality becomes whole and pure again. Part of that fantasy is that we are not wise enough to accept his fantasy as the ruling fantasy.
There are more twists and turns in this story than in a snake eating its own tail as it attempts to strangle itself. Yet John truly believes….
00
Considering the so called “scientific community” has spent quite a bit of time recently crying over the fact that they don’t seem to be selling their message effectively, leading to skeptics getting too much credibility, I wouldn’t go poo pooing the value of honest media coverage. Sensationalism sells, so neither the moderate science or the moderate scepticism gets a run, just the alarmist garbage and the tin foil hats. No one is well served by it and that’s the point.
60
Good snow forecasts for Skiing in New Zealand.
Still snowing in parts of Norway. And this is July!
80
Cold doesn’t count–you know that! 🙂
50
Are you sure? It could be the heat ruffling up the cold to duck underneath it. 😉
60
Right Bernd, like what happens in the deep oceans.
40
I like that!
00
-12c in the Southern Highlands here in Tas. Coldest start to winter on record in some towns. Runaway global warming indeed.
50
Same story here Safety, http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1632934/appy-hour-embracing-the-winter-chill/?cs=62
And last month local warmists were predicting a milder winter due to AGW, can’t wait for some snow!
30
Found the link
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1625590/liawenee-hits-record-winter-low/
30
Global warming leads to regional climate change. Considering that the ARctic is warming twice as fast as everywhere else it is not expected that warming will be uniform everywhere at once. Fact is we are adding a lot of energy to the system, this will reveal itself in different ways depending on the situation.
“While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters. ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.abstract
03
Michael,
why don’t they address the cooling caused by increased snow albedo? Why don’t they account for the warmer open waters of the Arctic actually cooling the Earth more than ice and snow covered Arctic?
Maybe you have some more toilet papers?
30
Do you have some actual peer reviewed science to support those arguments? From my understanding and readings of the science the opposite is the case.
03
I asked you “why they don’t address”. To point out the failings of your “peer reviewers” as well as all the failures in the “science”. You did not answer my question. You should be able to produce the peer reviewed science to discredit my question yet you do not have any. I know why, you do not know why.
Do you have some actual understanding or are you in denial about snow albedo? Do you possess the required critical thinking or are you just a sucker for group think?
30
Whenever I make a claim I always support it by peer reveiwed science, but the majority (including you) make unsupported opinion that are assumed as fact. YOU made the claim. Prove it.
00
Do you really want to go toe to toe on this?
The second concept will perhaps take more time but please offer your best “science” WRT snow albedo.
00
I am still waiting for proof of your own claims.
You said “why don’t they address the cooling caused by increased snow albedo? Why don’t they account for the warmer open waters of the Arctic actually cooling the Earth more than ice and snow covered Arctic?”
My claim already came with peer reviewed science (one of the authors was Judith Curry, not generally known as a ‘warmist’)
I am really sick of posters making broad statements without proof as if they are fact, while demanding unending proof from me (which I often supply)
So how long are you going to keep making excuses and dodging the issue. Peer reveiwed proof increased snow albedo and warmer arctic waters actually cooling the globe.
10
Michael,
Go do your own searching and hopefully learn about albedo. You are in denial about something that the science is perfectly clear on. I’m not going to spend my time digging up “proof” of the obvious. If you are lacking this most basic knowledge I’m not going to help you.
The paper you cite in 10.2 does not exclusively support human CO2 caused warming and I’m sick of warmists claiming that every weather event is evidence of AGW.
00
I know what albedo is. So basically you made a statement of fact that was only opinion and now you cannot justify it. This is why I rely on peer reveiwed science and actual scientific organisations for my science, there is to much opinion on the internet, and to many people making things up.
Its a planet, exclusive support for anything to do with climate is not possible, it is a complicated natural system and decisions need to be made on the balance of the science (and physics), evidence and probabilities. It is not the type of science we can stick in a test tube and perform tests on. It is this kind of absolutist argument that proves somebody does not understand science. Most physics cannot be proved ‘exclusively’, though it did not stop us developing computers, mri machines, gps systems (that need adjustments using einsteins formula to work) etc etc. If you need absolute proof before you rely on our science you should go and live in a cave.
00
Tell us all Michael, how are “we” adding a lot of energy to the system?
10
Ok. By our increase of a crucial greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (CO2) by 40% we have increased the radiative forcing of our atmosphere. This means that the IR being emitted by the earth is slowed down from leaving the planet as it gets absorbed and the reemitted in all directions (down and sideways instead of just up). As this energy is slowed down from leaving the system the energy from the sun continues in unabated. This means that more energy is coming in than leaving so that the energy in the system is built up.
As always I can explain and provide actual peer reveiwed science.
“ We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space. Only about 10% of the positive forcing (about 1/3 of the net forcing) has gone into heating the Earth, almost all into the oceans. About 20% of the positive forcing has been balanced by volcanic aerosols, and the remaining 50% is mainly attributable to tropospheric aerosols.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/abstract
02
Please show us again your peer reviewed science which shows we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40%.
20
Was proved in the previous post. You tried to prove me wrong and botched it. You should let it go, it is not a good look.
00
I will not let it go Michael.
You argue that “atmospheric carbon emissions” are equal to “atmospheric CO2 emissions”.
If we are to believe you, then all of the scientists who study the carbon cycle INCORRECTLY omit soot, ash and carbon monoxide when they refer to “atmospheric carbon emissions”.
Are all the scientists wrong Michael, or are you wrong?
Now, when you are able to come up with some REAL numbers, we can continue. You dodge, duck and weave this question, but I will hound you with it.
00
Non-PC language from the 1970s warning, delicate ‘progressive’ souls beware…
120
Whats wrong with that language, it’s exactly what we see when the left is addressing conservatives, progressives invented that sort of language!. The one thing I have to say about conservatives is they are generally far more polite than the progressives. I guess “saving the world” must justify being rude.
80
“Saving the world” is code for “killing off the useless eaters”.
81
A term used like a series of blank dots, for the recipient to hear and fill in with their own perception bias.
Designed by the clever, it is the perfection of the meaningless,
‘all things to all people’
a badge worn by the ignoramus and used by the manipulator.
It is, as we all know, a HUGE RED FLAG.
40
Clearly they are in full panic mode. Contrary to their most dearly held belief, their tightly held beliefs and oft repeated words do not control reality. This is true no matter what the percent consensus they report nor how much data they adjust.
Reality stubbornly insists on being what it is and does not cooperate with the Noble Minions of True Believers. Hence, not knowing what to do about such things, they double down on what hasn’t worked, what can’t work, and what never will work.
When they find it doesn’t work either, they rinse, wash, apply lipstick to more pigs, change the words, and do it all over again only more so. Their level of panic knows no bounds and is the only real world hockey stick associated with them and their pretend science.
We can rest assured that there is a tipping point out there simply because all pyramid schemes collapse. Especially when the formerly willing victims refuse to be victims anymore. The result will be well worth watching for entertainment value alone. Unfortunately, we have a front row center seat from which to watch. The splatter from the collapse is likely to be very messy and wide spread.
100
Try this on for an example how messy it is going to be.
[link fixed] ED
30
The audience members with the plastic sheet will Mann, Cook and their mates – pretending that they have been on the other side all along and doing everything to protect themselves from the mess.
20
Oops. How about this?
10
Poll: Public Esteem for Journalists Collapses to 28%
http://tinyurl.com/n2pxphk
Gee . . . what could be the problem?
40
The Presstitutes are starting to pay attention because the advertisers are following the public.
No reason to buy advertisements in media no one goes to.
I trusted CBC here in Canada once 10 years ago, but their bias is constant, delusional and overbearing, they slander the canadian voters for daring to disagree with the divine wisdom of their Toronto centric group think.
CAGW has turned out to be an intelligence test, our media, politicians and bureaucrats have all failed the test.
With the collision of their wishful thinking (consensus/groupthink) and the real world weather the idiocy of these clowns has been exposed for all to see.
No confusion here, the emperor has no clothes and a bad case of gout to boot.
Thankfully soon we the public will provide these naked idiots a nice white suit and a medicated future.
Right now it is a process of counting the costs and identifying the guilty.
The Press have destroyed their own credibility and spit upon the special privileges we allow them as watchdogs of the greedy and stupid who want to rule.
These presstitutes are comparable to watchdogs that have become rabid.
110
Any “fact” that leftists/socialists/communists don’t want to hear about won’t be reported by the “media.”
Media only report “facts” that can be interpreted within some socialist world view. If there is no explanation within a socialist system, it simply isn’t “fact.”
This philosophy practically defines “socialism.”
80
The problem is multifold. Most western democracies do have strong state television. And who gets “accumulated” in these institutions? Of course politicians, and the ruling government arrange themselves with these and have a lot to say about who enters and who leads the state owned media.
Who will be promoted? Of course people with “relations”.
There was also interesting post, don’t remember exactly where I read it, about why people become less “pro free-market” and more “relation” related. Who is pro free-market? Well especially people who can do it, can work for themselves like farmers, small business, independent workers.
And who is against free-market? Well of course people who learn to get advantages through relations. Why do the work, when a call to the right place might bring in place the right rule? The post was about moving from villages to cities, and why people in cities may be less inclined to be pro free market. A farmer needs to do it by himself or he will not have it. Somebody in the city will need to have it done for him. Somebody somewhere has to fix it.
There is some logic in the argument, and if we apply it to the institution what do we see?
So we have these huge state institutions and the selection in these state institutions favours people of a certain kind. “pro relations” way of thinking people and not “pro free market” way thinking people. This would explain the left bias, against free market, in the state media institutions.
Now CAGW is an anti-capitalistic cult. Its very basis sins are: production, free market and development. They want to stop development, even to de-develop industrialised countries. We consume too much, this level of living is not sustainable, etc etc.
So here you have it, the selection bias ensures that people in state owned media do adhere to this dangerous cult.
And this is only one aspect, one factor, the penetration of this cult in the state media which ensures why mostly the state owned media is so rabid pro CAGW.
100
I think the language barrier is the issue when dealing with $CAGW$ zombie trolls.
And this has leaked “up” ? to the “journalists”.
A friend of mine who is involved in communications for a govt department,,was at a conference and they managed to segue to “climate science”..a public servant stood up and said “…we should make sure there are no sceptical views of climate being presented because the science is settled”.
I asked her why she did not say anything..she replied..“what..and possibly risk my job”?.
Ask a journalist why they dont write about these issues and their eye`s glaze over and they babble on about “consensus”.
Thats it..they dont have anything else..
Its Orwellian english don’t forget.!!
Its pea and thimble at the big end of $CAGW$ and luckily for them..vast unthinking climate climate zombies..whose lives and comforts are built around fossil fuels..need a way to make themselves feel better.
Because by reversing language..they feel better.They can give themselves a little hug at night and high five other climate zombies that they..really do care for the environment.
Its a form of carbon penance…type away..don’t think..just type..
They also have the blood of ???? of people who have perished over the last 20 years due to the billions that didn’t go to feed and cloth the poorest..that funnelled into this gigantic money siphon instead.
The silence of the $CAGW$ zombies each time another example of shite science has been exposed..see climate audit for instance..is understandable of course.
The “missing” and wasted billions..mean absolutely nothing to them.
Carbon Trading is really efficient. HereAnd here
Carbon Trading is very carefully monitored against fraud.Here
The models did not fail.here
Big Oii Gets massive Subsidies.here
Consenus says…insert blather.here
The temperatures are unprecedented.here
The IPCC doesn’t ever make massive mistakes.here
The Sun has nothing to do with climate..err..weather.here
80
Here is a crack in the litany:
In disarray: Climate change not a priority for new govt
ISLAMABAD:
“As soon as the new government assumed charge, the Ministry of Climate Change was demoted to the status of a division as part of a governmental drive to reduce the size of the federal cabinet.
Then, the division’s development budget was slashed to half that of the previous fiscal year.
Amir said the climate change department has become a “parking space” for federal secretaries who are sidelined by the government.”
120
In Western governments, the “Climate Change Department” is a parking spot for radicals
Requirements for the job are minimal: Little or so “scientific” background, with a preferably long history of extreme socialist activism
120
Next time someone tells you that professional journalists are necessary to provide balance, depth, analysis, and quality writing… An example of modern mass media and their quality control procedures in action:
http://boingboing.net/2013/07/12/ktvu-sum-ting-wong-and.html
100
Tel thanks for that, I needed a good laugh but Holy Crap! a genuine Anchorman moment. 🙂
50
Have you noticed something shown here, something almost endemic to the media.
Whenever something goes wrong on a scale like this, as with nearly every other thing that goes wrong with the media, there’s always blame shifting.
Note how the station executive says the following:
As if the the major investigating body for this aircraft accident, the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) the organisation specifically tasked to investigate all aircraft accidents would actually confirm something like this.
They take us for idiots and when we call them out, they shift the blame, and do it with that look of innocence.
Do not ever tell me this was an innocent ‘first read’ by the female anchor, because when she says that third name, she deliberately mispronounces the third part of his name, something that she could only do after having practiced reading the names prior to going with the story ….. practiced so that she doesn’t make a fool of herself when it comes time to show a bloopers program, and that practice shows that she knew exactly what she was saying.
No, they knew exactly what they were doing, and when it backfired, as it was always going to do, then the backup came into play …… shift the blame, an endemic thing with the media, and not just in situations like this, but with everything they do.
NTSB confirmation. They must think we’re idiots. (should I add /sarc here)
Tony.
91
They do indeed, and mostly they are right
It’s why mass marketing works so well
But most of all, meeja denizens like the power – setting the agenda, censoring information they don’t like, character-assassination of individuals who critise them …
50
I guess you hadn’t heard the latest. [ http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130712.html ] They did.
So more likely what happened was KTVU decided to go ahead with their joke knowing they could always blame the NTSB for confirming the names. The intern was going along with the joke not realising they would be used, and at that point the TV journo should have given up.
Yes it’s still spinelessly shifting the blame because KTVU invented those names to begin with. Clearly not even attempting to be a serious news provider.
30
Because if private enterprise ever screws up, the government must take matters into their own hands, to show us how to screw up properly.
10
This comment on Tim Blairs blog “sums” it up.
“Sum Wun Fuk Dup”
00
Gold
10
Here is some quality media work:
Asiana Pilots names from KTVU News
(youtube. 0.36 secs.)
50
Classic!
01
You know what else is classic?
Your face! 🙂
(Seriously, you are quite the looker)
20
I’m worried now Sonny!
10
imagine if MSM, including GE-owned NBC (CNBC/MSNBC) etc had to declare any conflicts of interest each time they promoted CAGW!
no doubt Ikenson is a Republican, but so is GE’s Jeffrey Immelt:
2011: Forbes: Dan Ikenson: The Unholy Marriage Of GE And President Obama At The Altar Of Industrial Policy
The angry Left has been calling for President Obama to fire Jeffrey Immelt from his position as head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. I think that would be a good idea, but for different reasons…
In particular, GE is a major player in several industries that President Obama has been promoting as part of his administration’s cocksure embrace of industrial policy. With over $100 billion in direct subsidies and tax credits already devoted to green technology, President Obama is convinced that America’s economic future depends on the ability of U.S. firms to compete and succeed in the solar panel, wind harnessing, and battery and other energy storage technologies…
Well, just yesterday GE announced plans to open the largest solar panel production facility in the United States, which nicely complements its role as the largest U.S. producer of wind turbines (and one of the largest in the world)…
Tim Carney gave his impressions of this budding relationship between GE and the Obama administration in the DC Examiner last July :
“First, there’s the policy overlap: Obama wants cap-and-trade, GE wants cap-and-trade…”…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/04/08/the-unholy-marriage-of-ge-and-president-obama-at-the-altar-of-industrial-policy/
40
Thanks pat,
Yeah! That’s going to work real fine!
Look at what it says at this link, and be careful as you read it. Some highlights I would point out. my Bolds()
Oh ho ho ho!
A 500Watt heater run for one hour in Winter. That’ll work!
Take out your power bill and look at where it says average daily consumption. It’s written there in most cases, and if not, then just divide your total consumption for the billing period by the number of days for the billing period.
The average daily consumption for a residence here in Australia is 20KWH, and even that’s conservative as it’s probably closer to 25/30KWH a day, but hey let’s even go with that lower figure.
Here they are talking about the overall power your batteries can deliver if there are periods of long overcast. Note how it says 24.5KWH as consumption for SEVEN days. The absolute minimum you might be quoted is three days, and if a Company quotes you three days, you’re getting incorrect information, as five days is usually the absolute minimum.
So then, with daily consumption the average of 20KWH, then five days is 100KWH, in other batteries capable of supplying your daily needs for five days of overcast.
Now, look at the list at this link for costings for solar power batteries, and these are for Battery Banks in the U.S. and Australian prices are no different. The only reason I have linked here instead of an Australian Battery Company is that this U.S. one lists whole battery banks as the one unit. Most Australian ones just list the cost per single unit battery, and here I would add (probably somewhat cynically) that they do this because if they listed them as the whole unit total cost, then that would tend to scare people away. So, just sucker them in with obscure statements and when they are on the spot in person, then tell them the full news in as pleasant a way as is possible.
Scroll down until you see the last one on the top list, the one that says in the power column 76,800. That’s almost 77KWH or just on three days average consumption. Now note the cost of that battery bank ….. $11,800.
A good quality battery bank will last you (if everything goes absolutely perfectly) 7 years, so for the 25 year life span (Oh yeah, as if!) you’ll need the original bank and then two more of them, or $36,000, base cost for this smaller unit.
Oh! and another thing worth noticing at the first link is the following absolute classic:
So, let me see if I have this right. Instead of ONE huge power plant to supply everyone’s needs, that one plant that emits CO2, then we’re umm, suggesting thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of little (Umm, CO2 emitting) generators.
Now the point of my saying all this, is that, without even bothering to check, the media that bows down at President Obama’s feet just parrot this ….. “We need to invest in battery and other storage technologies.”
What I have said above is for (tiny) single residential applications. Imagine the scale, and the damned cost for Industrial scale umm, storage technologies.
Oh, please save me from these idiots.
Tony.
91
Don’t be such a pessimist, Tony, those “energy” sources can be made to work just fine – all that is required is an adequate amount of hashish
50
You’re perfectly correct Brian.
I should have looked to another source for some more pertinent information.
I’ve just noticed that the adviser to the Obama Administrations Secretary for Energy Ernest Moniz is that renowned energy storage technology expert ….. David Copperfield.
Tony.
51
Evidently the salary requirements to fill the job were too high for this individual
30
Ahhh…. see, of course it will work! They have a magician in the House.
30
Battery and storage technologies are a really good idea… but our current technology is not sufficient to do the job. However, things like lithium ion batteries that are commonplace in mobile phones today were unheard of just a few decades ago. There’s no reason to believe that battery technology will not improve.
However, government projects like Solyndra are not pushing the research envelope, they are a waste of resources and a burden on society in general. On the whole, government does more to hold technology back than push it forwards. There’s a good reason for this, any new technology is disruptive. Governments are primarily focussed on keeping themselves in power, they want stability, not disruption. Every change hurts some political special interest group, and they go and demand government fix it for them.
60
The world’s best and brightest chemical engineers have beavered away at this for over 200 years … still nowhere
There’s every reason to believe that battery technology will never be adequate to energise a city like, say, Shanghai
Hydro and nuclear remain the obvious options to supply reliable, affordable energy for both domestic and industrial use in lieu of coal and gas
The Achilles Heel etc. Been pointed out innumerable times
Sorry,Tel, but blind Polyanna optimism is NOT a choice
60
Still nowhere?
So you are saying that batteries now are exactly the same as they were 200 years ago?
12
Nope
That’s just your straw man
00
Well yeah… gee, my lithium battery runs my laptop for a few hours… and my cellphone runs for a few days! (because I got no mates)
60
My last laptop had the bigger battery and easily did 4 hours, often more depending on usage. My current laptop only has a small battery pack and also easily does 4 hours of continuous usage. Have a talk to some tradies about battery powered power tools, basically no one uses power cords any more, any entire industry switched over to batteries.
I never thought I would live to see a battery powered helicopter, until I saw them on sale for less than $50 so I bought one and yes it really does fly. Admittedly only for 5 minutes or so, but it flies on 4 AAA cells. I’ve seen a lot better out there, but at significantly higher prices. Apple has an electric quad-rotor for sale that will loft a camera.
21
Well gee Tony, haven’t you ever heard of woolies?…. I’m sure that Obummer has them.
30
Wool doesn’t burn at all well.
20
Maybe they could follow Aus Gov advice and just cuddle the dog, or was that burn the dog ? Maybe set fire to the dog then cuddle it ? I dunno
40
Did you say dog?? One of these will definitely keep Tony warm.
The first time I touched one I just said “Wow! That’s hot!”.
20
What makes you think that one could succeed in politics by nurturing a sense of proportion?
BTW: My daily power consumption is usually less than 20 kWh/day; averaged over the usual 60 day billing period. There’s only me in the house but I’ve got servers, etc. sipping between 200W and 1200W (depending on workload) from the power outlets (via UPS) around the clock. The laser printer only runs for a few minutes a month so its peak requirement of about 2kW is neither here nor there.
30
“As I keep saying, it’s not that the media has a problem, the truth is the media IS the problem.” Exactly Jo. Been saying this since I first came to this site. In the final washup of this shameful chapter in our history I’d like to think that theirs would be the first corpse subject to a postmortem. We know our pollies are hopelessly tribal and subjective, we now know that many in our academia have sold their souls for trinkets and favours but we have every right to demand and expect that in the face of all that our fourth estate should be our rearguard defense of the truth. If they are as compromised as the evidence suggests then we are in the shite. Maybe I’m too idealist and expect too much. Then again maybe our fourth estate has as much credibility as Pravda ever did.
20
BTW, I am far from being an expert but I suspect our battery technology is just not up to it yet. Imagine spending a fortune designing and building a state of the art airliner only to have it grounded because of a stupid little battery FFS. We seem to be far from battery nirvana. Maybe the answer lies in the storage of potential energy, I don’t know.
30
Apart from the fact that the media more often ignores AGW when reporting massive weather events and statistics related to increasing heatwaves and the like, the fact is there is no pause. This comes from a basic misunderstanding of AGW, that all of the heat is going into the atmosphere and it should increase non stop and everywhere at once. Also that the only thing that drives climate is CO2, which is incorrect, there are many natural fluctuations.
So in short, the 2001 – 2010 decade is the hottest on the industrial record, and likely for several thousand years, on every continent. That the last 2 years were the hottest la nina affected years on record, and that energy is building in the deep oceans unabated. Basically no pause, just normal short term natural fluctuations, within a distinct long term warming trend.
“A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
“Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
“Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
112
I’m confused. If there is no pause, why did they he head of the IPCC, the
UK Met, Hadley centre, NASA, UEA, Hansen and Trenberth all acknowledge that there was one?
90
@Heywood Your question though completely valid will be ignored or deflected. If answered it will be so esoteric it will defy rational comprehension.
70
I merely asked him to prove his claims. What was ignored was the information I provided from the World Meteorological Organisation that on decadal time scales the warming is unprecedented and significant. This is despite the fact that the WMO state that 30 years is needed for a trend in climate.
06
Pay Michael little mind Heywood but understanding and sympathy, he know not what he parrots. Be not confused at his disorientation to reality but be gentle with him. He is damaged goods and Jo’s blog is an ecumenical and forgiving place. The NDIS is coming and Michael will be cared for.
91
I parrot information from the peer reviewed science and actual scientific organisations, unlike the stuff made up here which is full of opinion and misrepresentations.
07
Yes, it is confusing isn’t it Heywood? But lets try. Lets say you want there to be a pause from 1995. Then get the trend for say 30 years leading up to 1995. Then get the trend from 1995 onwards. Now are these trends significantly different? Because if they aren’t, then there isn’t a statistically significant pause, is there?
18
Spin it any way you like John, but why did these people/organisations acknowledge a ‘pause’?
61
Actually John, in my haste I nearly missed it… 1995? From what I have read, the period of non statistically significant warming commenced in 1997. Using your 30 years prior and from 1997 onwards, the trends are significantly different. .
51
I recall Phil Jones being asked if there had been any statistically significant warming since 199x. He truthfully answered that there hadn’t been. If you want to interpret this as a pause, you can. But if you do, you should realise that these “pauses” have occurred a few times before, only to be followed by warming that is statistically significant.
So by all means get excited by what you call a pause, but it doesn’t mean much.
24
So correct John. This is the point they keep missing. It is a planet, with many natural cycles in the global climate. It isn’t going to go steadily up like CO2 is the only parameter in play. What we do know though is that there is a long term warming trend (with many short term fluctuations), that it is currently hotter than it has ever been on the industrial record (decade wise on every continent) and that despite several strong natural cooling trends temps have stayed high.
If somebody thinks that means we can jump up and down and say ‘problem solved’ then they have huge problems on the logical and common sense side of their thinking processes.
13
We also know that warming trends have peaked, then dropped dramatically. Why are all the scientists who study what the sun is doing saying that we are headed for a cooling…. and a dramatic one at that?
10
Proof thanks. The actual peer reviewed science that I have read say no such thing. It is natural fluctuations whil energy is being transferred into the oceans and that when the warming kicks up again (as the trend shows it always has) we will be in big trouble.
I did read how the scientist John Mclean said that 2011 was going to drop to 1957 levels, how did that go? Or when Watts said that the ARctic was going to recover in 2010 I think. How did that go? Maybe you should find other people to listen to.
04
Oh look!
20
Oh dear…. look at that
00
John Brookes
July 14, 2013 at 1:42 am
Actually John, I don’t get excited, I get hopeful that the lack of warming continues, unlike some warmists. There are some that WILL get excited if and when it starts warming again because to them, being proven right is more important than the planet not heading for catastrophe.
20
Michael was kind enough to inform us that industrialisation pulled us out of the LIA. I doubt that is true (think sun), however if that is his argument then we had better just continue as we have, since if we don’t we would slip back into an LIA, which would devastate humanity.
00
More appropriate is to look at the trend for at least 30 years, which is the time for climate specified by WMO.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/giss79.jpg
As you can see from the graph, all the years since 1997 are above trend.
All you can look at it on decadel time scales. 2001 – 2010 was the hottest decade on every continent on the instrumental record and hotter than the decade before it, which was hotter than the decade before that and was hotter than the decade before that. It is dishonest to pick a starting date on an anomalous el nino year (probably so hot due to AGW) and finish on back to back la ninas (by the way the hottest la nina affected years on record). It is dishonest to not look at the whole record and see many natural variations over the record of a decade or more duration but with an obviously upwardly long term trend. It is dishonest to ignore other places where the energy is going such as the oceans, melting the Arctic etc. That is not science, that is trying to manipulate the data to confirm your bias.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
06
Or we can look at previous Holocene warm periods and see that they were warmer today… then cooled dramatically…. or the previous, or the previous or the previous.
What can we expect to happen Michael?… just looking at the data, not models.
What was the cause of those warmings/coolings?
What makes you think that this period is in any way different from the past? Your CAGW is only an unproven hypothesis.
01
Feel free to post specific links to all the organisations and peoples mentioned full acknowledgement of the pause.
07
Firstly, I should clarify what I define as a “pause”, which, I agree, is probably not the best term. I am referring to a period of non-statistically significant warming of the atmosphere.
Here you go, most of them anyway. I actually had better links but lost them during a recent computer faux pas, so these will have to do. I am sure that you will claim they aren’t credible and build a strawman about multi decadal warming or 10 hottest years in history blah blah… I’m not denying that, I am talking about since 1997, there has been no statistically significant warming of the atmosphere, and that several climate scientists/institutions, have reluctantly acknowledged it.
Rajendra Pachauri
“Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises,”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
Uk Met Office
“The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period”
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Phil Jones (Hadley CRU – UEA)
“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
“Yes, but only just.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
James Hansen – NASA
“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade…”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
Kevin Trenberth
The fact is that I can’t account for Trenberth saying that at the moment and it is a travesty that I can’t.
20
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” – Climategate1, 2009
20
Good to see you got the joke Backslider 😉
10
The thing is Heywood that you are talking to MICHAEL…..
20
Thanks Heywood, I am not used to posters here actually providing any proof for their claims, so I appreciate the effort.
As to the Australian, it is paywalled and a search of the internet has not found any actual quote from Rajendra Pachauri saying any such thing. This seems to be a typical media outlet misquote on the subject from a paper often chided for incorrect reporting on climate change. Appropriate it would come up on this post.
As to the Met office you only used part of the quote, and the ahole page is an explanation of why the MET office does not accept there is a pause in warming. I urge everyone to read the whole article.
“but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different.” http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
As to Phil Jones, he has since clarified, but from your own article.
“Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. “
So again, the period is to short and cherry picked.
And finally Hansen. Again you have taken out of context. From your paper.
“Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions,
while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1). Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades. We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.”
Basically what I have been saying all through this thread. The short term trend is affected by natural cooling factors, but despite this the temperatures have been maintained and energy is still being built up in the total system (ie, when including the whole system you have energy build up in the oceans). When taken in decadel time scales the warming is significant and at the hottest point in the instrumental record, on all continents. What you guys are doing is taking your science from a graph, out of context and, a cherry picked period, and ignoring all other evidence and science.
05
Michael…..you forgot Trenberth……
10
Of course Michael, suddenly the oceans decided to intervene and grab all the excess heat, this is why the warming stopped.
The ocean ate my Global Warming!
Of course you ignore the fact that we talk of 16 years not a decade.
And of course you ignore the fact that the measured ocean warming is within the error margin (could be no warming at all) and is well below models estimation. But this does not bother you. Take a look at the ARGO data compared with model projections. (Even ARGO post “adjustment & calibration”!)
That the last 2 years were “La Nina” years is again a lie, but who cares:
Look at the index for the last 24 month:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Btw, speaking of blaming La Nina, the warmista were just bragging some time ago that El Nino is now becoming permanent due to Global Warming. And now blaming La Nina?
50
Lars,
Don’t you know that all the heat that’s transferred to the ocean has sunk to the deepest parts such as Marianas Trench hiding there waiting to be found/discovered by some warmist scientist/journo/true believer/ANYONE!!
What a joke these grubs/liars/fraudsters/cheats are.
In relation to batteries, lead acid are still being used to start cars today after first being used over 120 years ago (doesn’t show a whole lot of progress – does it?) . Yes, you COULD/can use Lithium Ion batteries to power a car (such as Tesla) for LIMITED use BUT not at all practical for manufacturing/industrial base load power applications.
My bet is on nuclear (for large manufacturing/industrial use) with supplemental small LENR devices for use in homes/cars etc – makes MUCH more sense than wind/solar/batteries.
Cheers,
40
Yes and even with the argo data removed the warming trend continues.
“We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data. The strong interdecadal variability of global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain similar to our earlier estimate.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037155/abstract
Link please.
“A relatively new type of El Niño, which has its warmest waters in the central-equatorial Pacific Ocean, rather than in the eastern-equatorial Pacific, is becoming more common and progressively stronger, according to a new study by NASA and NOAA. The research may improve our understanding of the relationship between El Niños and climate change, and has potentially significant implications for long-term weather forecasting. ”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/elnino20100825.html
As to the temperature, see my information above. Cherry picking is not science and dishonest.
06
Yep. They can show nothing without the biased corrections and omissions.
Next please……
00
ENSO from NOAA
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
07
Is Trenberth’s invalid analysis of the ARGO float vertical temperature profiles your only justification? Even that doesn’t account for most of the heat that your suggesting is being absorbed by the ocean deep.
10
just to pass on my post over at Watts Up—If you think its been fun watching the AGW ants twist and squirm under the magnifying glass of “the Pause” in recent years , just wait for the downside of Cycle 24 folks. Its only gonna get better! And the Cycle 25 …….. the noncycle to finally sweep away the nonsense of CO2 dominated AGW? Be patient meine liebchen.
111
Yep, we have heard false claims before like when John Mclean said that 2011 would be as cool as 1956 and when Watts said that the Arctic was going to recover in 2010. How did they go with those?
Problem is they were not taking into account AGW. Sure, going on natural factors we would normally have seen cooling but they are being overwridden by AGW. That is why skeptic claims are always so woefully wrong.
011
Michael. You claim that AGW pulled the World out of the LIA. Thus, following your reasoning, we should do absolutely nothing about this supposed AGW because to do so would risk sinking us back into a new LIA which would be devastating…. think of your children and grandchildren.
Measures to try to “stop global warming”, which are costing billions of dollars, starving millions and killing tens of thousands through fuel poverty will do absolutely nothing to change temperatures. Look at the numbers sonny. Think of those people also.
The latest science in fact shows we are heading for a major cooling: What the sun is doing
00
Well it is the legacy media, or as some call it the Lame Street Media, losing the Main Street Media to the Internet. Maybe it is caused by global warming and should come on the warmlist:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
60
.
Love the contribution renewables are having in the UK. Notice how nuclear runs nearly 8.05 GW constantly, where wind is like a roller coaster.
This even has Smith Gauges like the old cars dash board.
30
Dave,
thanks for this link. Another to add to my collection.
This is where those verdant green sympathisers lose out every time.
All this data has to be documented somewhere. What these green supporters fail to realise is that the average person can go to sites like this and see just how
muchvery little Wind Power contributes to the overall total power consumption.Those green
foolssupporters just believe what they want to believe, or what the media tells them to believe without realising that some people actually know what sites like this tell them, something they have absolutely no comprehension to be able to do for themselves.So the people who do understand what sites like this say can just point at this data and tell interested people just where their hundreds of billions of dollars and Pounds have gone, as Dylan might say Blowin’ In The Wind.
They can then see that in this case, for the UK, total Wind Power comes in at 2.3% of power delivered to grids for consumption.
They can then see that in the case of Australia, total Wind Power comes in at 2.6%.
They can then see that in the case of the U.S. total Wind Power comes in at 3.5%.
They can see that in the case of China total Wind Power comes in at 1.6%.
Just imagine if those hundreds of billions of dollars had have spent on things that were actually needed.
Tony.
40
Well apart from the fact that in most cases the solution is a mix of renewables, the idea is to focus on improvement and solutions, rather than arguing about accepted science. Many countries are going gangbusters
“Over the last three months wind farms produced more electricity than any other power source in Spain for the first time ever, an industry group has said.
The country delivered over six terawatt hours of electricity from wind farms during January, according to data from grid operator Red Electrica de Espana, the Spanish Wind Energy Association said in a statement.”
“The performance means wind energy exceeded output from both nuclear and coal-fired power stations and represents more than a quarter of Spain’s total power generation.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/04/windfarms-break-energy-record-spain
05
Wow Michael… you believe anything, don’t you?
10
They must have been lucky and had a windy month…
“wind farms produced more electricity than any other power source in Spain for the first time ever”
A little old but,
“Wind energy met 16.3% of this demand and was the fourth largest contributing technology in 2011. Other big contributors to the system were nuclear power plants (22.6%), gas combined-cycle power plants (19.8%) and coal (17.0%)”
Spain also has a relatively large Hydro-electricity input as well. So they have a roughly even mix of Coal, Nuke, Gas, Hydro and Wind (Solar also, but negligible compared to the others)
Contrast this with Australia, where Nuclear is not likely to happen and our ability to create vast amounts of Hydroelectricity is limited and therefore it is a little more difficult to obtain the “mix of renewables” you mention. IMO, our only reliable method of maintaining baseload power requirements for the short to mid term is Coal, unless, of course, some politicians grow some balls and explore the nuke option.
30
WHEN THE WIND WAS BLOWING. That one hour or so the wind made lots of electricity–at 3 am, if I recall correctly. First, renewables are NOT renewables, except geothermal and hydro. They are variable power sources available at random. Also, renewable, even if that is what these were, does not mean “infinite”. Geothermal and hydro both have limits, too. This was made clear when the corn crop partially failed, ethanol prices went up and the idiots who thought ethanol would give them cheap gas are now paying more for gas. Renewables are for people who don’t understand 24/7 electricity and/or math. They are not cheaper, better for the environment, or anything other than a “gosh I feel so good I’m helping the planet even when I’m not” fest.
10
A friend of mine has a full on solar system as he is off the grid. It cost close to $50,000. He runs a full electric house, i.e. Stove, fridge, washing machine and drier, solar hot water with electric booster. He does not have a swimming pool and he has a wood heater.
For every household in NSW to have a similar system would cost around $136.5 billion. NSW total Revenue in 2012-13 is forecast to be $59.6 billion.
40
So it will take just over 2 years?
08
Please think before you type John.
00
Good information. People tend to think that “off the grid” means cheaper. Your friend does not have a monthly electric bill, but solar systems do take maintenance. The “renewables” are not as simple as tying into the grid. If you live too far from the grid, then that’s the only solution if you want electricity.
40
That’s right Sheri – where he is it would cost over $100K to get the power bought in.
10
Not to mention the upkeep. The batteries need to be replaced every 7 years or so, at a cost in the tens of thousands…
10
Comedians..ya got to love em. 🙂
Tell me this oh terrified one..exactly what weather event will you guys not try and link with AGW..
Or did your $CAGW$ zombie coder not give you a cut and paste answer for that.?
I cannot remember a week going by where the ABC/Herald?The Age did not try and link anything happening that is not caused by AGW..yet you seem to have missed all those “stories”.
Yet that isnt enough.. 🙂
Show us all the long term trends showing that AGW has CAUSED an increase in heatwaves.
And where the “answer” has had UHI removed..
And short term trends using the satellite networks..how did that “angry summer” go for ya..that sort of meme died pretty quick didnt it.. 🙂
But you would have loved it..weep..
30
What I love is I get told off for being insulting and I get insulted in nearly every post. Can’t anyone just stick to the science? Firstly in a warming world you cannot remove one effect on climate from another. Every event has been influenced by mans emssions as well as changes in the suns intensity, changes in ocean currents for ENSO and PDO and volcanos. You cannot separate them it is a global climate. So yes, you need to look for changing trends in all weather anomalies, and there are many. The changing intensities in floods is very prominent and ongoing, but I will stick to science.
Well you have asked questions so I am sure I am allowed to answer them.
“‘ The four classes of extremes — high heat, heavy precipitation and floods, duration and intensity of droughts and extremes related to higher sea levels –have changed in the last 50 years, Field said.” http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/world/unusual-world-weather/index.html”
“Extremely hot temperatures around the world are 40% more common today than 60 years ago according to new research from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.”
https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/146-extreme-hot-temperatures-increase-40-world-heats
“Monthly temperature extremes have become much more frequent, as measurements from around the world indicate. On average, there are now five times as many record-breaking hot months worldwide than could be expected without long-term global warming, shows a study now published in Climatic Change. In parts of Europe, Africa and southern Asia the number of monthly records has increased even by a factor of ten. 80 percent of observed monthly records would not have occurred without human influence on climate, concludes the authors-team of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Complutense University of Madrid. “
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/monatliche-hitzerekorde-haben-sich-durch-die-erderwaermung-verfuenffacht
Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706
“The last decade has produced record-breaking heat waves in many parts of the world. At the same time, it was globally the warmest since sufficient measurements started in the 19th century. Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming. This implies that on average there is an 80 % chance that a new monthly heat record is due to climatic change. Large regional differences exist in the number of observed records. Summertime records, which are associated with prolonged heat waves, increased by more than a factor of ten in some continental regions including parts of Europe, Africa, southern Asia and Amazonia. Overall, these high record numbers are quantitatively consistent with those expected for the observed climatic warming trend with added stationary white noise. In addition, we find that the observed records cluster both in space and in time. Strong El Niño years see additional records superimposed on the expected long-term rise. Under a medium global warming scenario, by the 2040s we predict the number of monthly heat records globally to be more than 12 times as high as in a climate with no long-term warming.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0668-1
04
What- more than one monthly extreme per month? An absurd generalisation.
00
“We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1°C/100 yr since 1950 in the land average from Figure 5A).”
http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-104.php
and one for you on the increasing trend in extreme precipitation
“The outcomes are that statistically significant increasing trends can be detected at the global scale, with close to two-thirds of stations showing increases. Furthermore, there is a statistically significant association with globally averaged near-surface temperature, with the median intensity of extreme precipitation changing in proportion with changes in global mean temperature at a rate of between 5.9% and 7.7% per degree, depending on the method of analysis.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00502.1
I would be happy to supply a bundle of links about Australias hot summer but I have already probably done enough links and wanted to focus on global trends.
05
Forgot to add..nice mendacious sleight of hand with the addition of “massive weather events”..great meaningless advertising slogan to place in your rant..
Emotive and meaningless term..back to be reprogrammed ya go tiger..
Your 100% on solar..dont use cars etc etc..?????
Oh the hypocrisy..it must eat you away…hence the religious and meaningless religous zeal.. 🙂
Too easy..
30
You have to have your eyes closed to not see the increase in extreme weather. In the 80’s scientists predicted we would see the weather part of climate change kick in in the early 2000’s. They were spot on.
2010
Looking back through the 1800s, which was a very cool period, I can’t find any years that had more exceptional global extremes in weather than 2010, until I reach 1816. That was the year of the devastating “Year Without a Summer”–caused by the massive climate-altering 1815 eruption of Indonesia’s Mt. Tambora, the largest volcanic eruption since at least 536 A.D. It is quite possible that 2010 was the most extreme weather year globally since 1816.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1831
2011
“2011 will be remembered as a year of extreme events, both in the United States and around the world,” said Deputy NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment. This annual report provides scientists and citizens alike with an analysis of what has happened so we can all prepare for what is to come.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120710_stateoftheclimatereport.html
2012
“Review of 2012 – environment: shrinking Arctic sea ice, record temperatures, flooding, droughts, hurricane Sandy and super-typhoon Bopha; the year abnormal weather became normal”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/dec/18/weekly-review-2012-weather-environment
…and 2013 is continuing that trend, just look in India and Canada recently, plus much more.
03
Yes, most of this is anecdotal but read it with an eye on the increasing trends posted above. It takes a long time to see trends in very extreme weather because they generally do not happen that often (though this is changing)
04
“SuperStorm Sandy was only “super” because the news said so and so many people live in the area. The fact that they are still waiting for the government to “fix” the mess speaks volumes to the lack of ability in humans. It’s not the storms getting worse, it’s people getting whinier.
20
Sandy was the largest hurricane in the Atlantic on record and was also unusual for turning into land at that time of year (normally they go out to sea) with a record breaking storm surge. So yes, storms getting worse, and the cost and time to fix the damage is very expensive and time consuming and disruptive to peoples lives. Much easier to accept the science and start mitigating the damage we are doing and adapting for a much more variable future.
01
Sandy was 20% wider than the four next ranking storms. This has nothing to do with intensity and may fall within measurement error. It was catagory 1 hurricane–the least powerful on the ranking scale. Wind speeds were around 70 to 80 mph, with some nearing 100. That’s actually not that much wind–I live where there are routinely 40 mph sustained winds and 70 to 80 mph gusts. The flooding is what is generally seen in a hurricane. Sandy was a Cat 1 storm that was adopted as poster child for climate change. It really was not that big except in the eyes of the media. It made a mess–that storms do and have done for thousands of years. We adapt (or continue collecting on that cheap government flood insurance and rebuilding.)
By the way, according to actual scientific data (NOAA) hurricanes and tornadoes are not increasing in number or intensity, at least not in the US. So I guess the first thing that needs to be decided is what constitutes a “storm”. Tornado numbers for F5 tornados in the US are half what what they were 30 years ago, so those much not be storms. What exactly is a storm?
10
The wideness of it was the issue. For a category 1 storm it was HUGE, and this is consistent with climate change where it is drawing moisture from a warming ocean and a warmer atmosphere that can hold more moisture. You are looking for excuses, it made a mess because of the huge storm surge, exacerbated by rising sea levels and due to the time of year, where they do not normally get storms of this type reaching landfall.
Yes we need to adapt, a lot more than we have, because we have already changed the climate, but we also need to mitigate, so as to stop it from getting worse than it has to.
01
Actually it was more Sandy’s track that did the damage.
“[1] Hurricane Sandy’s track crossed the New Jersey coastline at an angle closer to perpendicular than any previous hurricane in the historic record, one of the factors contributing to record-setting peak-water levels in parts of New Jersey and New York. ”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50395/abstract
Also, an interesting point of view from here about ocean temps (or lack thereof) where the hurricane spawned. (Yes, not peer reviewed, tough)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/19/hurricane-main-development-region-sea-surface-temperatures-anomalies-plus-a-couple-of-other-regions/
No. No
20
Michael–So it’s wider, weaker storms that hit very populated areas. Isn’t that what I said? More people, more problem. No matter how intense or weak the storm. Since stopping AGW won’t stop all storms and there’s apt to be a lot of wider, weaker storms hitting very populated areas even if the world cools down, how is stopping climate change going to help? It looks to me like we need to stop living on the shore and about 100 miles inland to avoid hurricanes. But then there’s tornados. Wait, the IPCC has no idea if stopping climate change will have any effect on this, right? Remind me again what the problem was……
20
Actually that is not what I said. But you will continue to misrepresent the storm because you are trying to hide how large and how unusual the storm was for that time of year. You are trying to give the impression it was ‘just another storm’ and it was not.
00
And you Michael would like us to believe that “climate change” had something to do with it.
Peer reviewed science please.
10
You actually only need a memory–people who can remember past two hours ago can remember that weather has always been changing and know the new “extreme” is the old “everyday” event. Floods, hurricanes, drought all have been around at varying rates since it rained a million years and created the oceans. Actually, it was probably worse then. People with memories know that NOAA and the media are crying “wolf” and trying to induce hysteria over normal times. Sadly, there seem to be some awfully forgetful people out there.
20
Luckily we don’t need to rely on memory. There are many records kept by most countries that show that current events are increasing in severity and many 1 in 100 to 500 year events are happening over multiple times in one decade and over the whole globe. This is in addition to the many actual scientific studies on increasing trends in climate.
02
Michael,
You are a useful idiot.
Goodbye.
10
See my response above: The US has fewer F5 tornados than 30 years ago and no increase in other storms. I have no idea what data you are using, except the media maybe. (Oh, just a little tidbit–a “500 year event” is not a scientific term and really means nothing–it’s that memory thing again. About 4 years ago, we had a “once in a lifetime” overflowing of the spillway at a dam near where I live. Problem was, I had taken pictures in the early 80’s of the same thing. Worse, the exact same thing happened the following year. So much for “once in a lifetime”.)
10
I never talked about the number of storms and tornados. Actually IPCC research does not predict an increase in number of storms and do not know which way tornados will go, some changes point to less, some more. So you debunk stuff not said.
What they do say is that the intensity will increase. They also say that we will have bigger floods (due to the higher moisture capacity of a warmer atmosphere), longer heat waves and bigger droughts. All being seen and trends provided above.
01
Fewer F5 tornados in the last 30 years means LESS intense. How long do we have to wait?
Same question on the floods and droughts–how long do we have to wait? What constitutes “increased intensity”? Drier, longer? By what percentage? Numbers, please.
00
I don’t think you are really interested, just trying to waste my time, but I will try to oblige.
Attempt at using statistics to attribute extreme weather
Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00021.1
The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/
00
The warming arctic affecting the northern hemisphere weather.
“While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters. ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.abstract
00
Heat trends
“Extremely hot temperatures around the world are 40% more common today than 60 years ago according to new research from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.”
https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/146-extreme-hot-temperatures-increase-40-world-heats
“Monthly temperature extremes have become much more frequent, as measurements from around the world indicate. On average, there are now five times as many record-breaking hot months worldwide than could be expected without long-term global warming, shows a study now published in Climatic Change. In parts of Europe, Africa and southern Asia the number of monthly records has increased even by a factor of ten. 80 percent of observed monthly records would not have occurred without human influence on climate, concludes the authors-team of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Complutense University of Madrid. “
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/monatliche-hitzerekorde-haben-sich-durch-die-erderwaermung-verfuenffacht
“Results showed widespread significant changes in temperature extremes associated with warming, especially for those indices derived from daily minimum temperature. Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights. Some regions experienced a more than doubling of these indices. This implies a positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature throughout the globe.” http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706
“The last decade has produced record-breaking heat waves in many parts of the world. At the same time, it was globally the warmest since sufficient measurements started in the 19th century. Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming. This implies that on average there is an 80 % chance that a new monthly heat record is due to climatic change. Large regional differences exist in the number of observed records. Summertime records, which are associated with prolonged heat waves, increased by more than a factor of ten in some continental regions including parts of Europe, Africa, southern Asia and Amazonia. Overall, these high record numbers are quantitatively consistent with those expected for the observed climatic warming trend with added stationary white noise. In addition, we find that the observed records cluster both in space and in time. Strong El Niño years see additional records superimposed on the expected long-term rise. Under a medium global warming scenario, by the 2040s we predict the number of monthly heat records globally to be more than 12 times as high as in a climate with no long-term warming.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0668-1
00
Finally, extreme precipitation events. Note anecdotally you need only look at the last 4 years to see the explosion in floods, both in amount and intensity, but I will stay with the peer reviewed science.
“The outcomes are that statistically significant increasing trends can be detected at the global scale, with close to two-thirds of stations showing increases. Furthermore, there is a statistically significant association with globally averaged near-surface temperature, with the median intensity of extreme precipitation changing in proportion with changes in global mean temperature at a rate of between 5.9% and 7.7% per degree, depending on the method of analysis.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00502.1
00
I do thank you for providing links.
Record-breaking temps: Only an abstract but I am not buying to the article. This is based on “larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming”. This is like saying “The US Economy would be better without Obama being elected.” Maybe, maybe not. Models show it. Models are not reality. So we do not have hard facts, at least not in the abstract. There are more problems in that I don’t know where the records are, where the data stations are.
A definition of “extreme” would be good. Is 100 degrees extreme? Some crazy woman yesterday on the radio said children die in 107 degree heat. This is what often passes for “extreme” and “science”.
“Statistically significant” only means that using a specific statistical analysis, the results were greater than chance. It says nothing about the methodology, the accuracy of the data, the proper use of the statistical technique, etc. Statistics are NOT reality and very often not predictive or even meaningful. That is the problem with this “science”.
If I were trying to waste your time, I’d be more subtle. I do read and analyze what people provide. However, if you mean by “waste your time” I will not automatically believe everything you report and become a follower, then definitely, I am wasting your time.
00
The first link–Ammetsoc–was useful. It’s has the entire study, all 17 pages. I printed it out and will go through it. Thank you.
00
Sure, I see your point. But its a PLANET!!! What other sources can we have? We cannot stick the climate in a laboratory and run 100 year tests on it. Looking for trends statistically, developing and understanding the basic physics, looking for as many lines of evidence and fingerprints as possible etc is all we really have. and most of that is strongly supportive to 90% plus confidence according to the IPCC that we will gravely damage the habitability of this planet for future generations due to AGW. Do we wait until we have a car crash to buy insurance?
00
We never turn on our tv anymore.
We dl anything we wish to view through our unlimited internet connection.
That we don’t get any BS and PROPAGANDA…….
30
More sea level alarmism
What is interesting here is that they actually manage to report that there are alternative views, with even a “Sceptics” heading on the page. Shame they could not take it a little further, however it is a definite change from what we are accustomed to.
20
The government that has been charging us carbon dioxide tax costing $9 in every $100 of electricity bill (9%) has announced that it is no longer necessary (an election will be held soon, major consideration) and instead the timing to join the collapsing EU emissions trading scheme will be brought forward.
Thank you Australians for contributing several billion of dollars a year to your government, ten per cent for the UN, your government has admitted to being short of money and has not yet worked out how to achieve the 2013/14 Budget with the carbon tax loss of revenue but intends, as usual, to find new budget savings.
Kevin4Kevin promises this will happen, and that in the near future his government will achieve a budget surplus, never achieved since the Howard Coalition left office in 2007.
Please don’t mention global warming.
30
An Ode to the Sun King 🙂
Two weeks ago, I remarked that Rudderless will do some sort of meaningless spin dance with Indonesia on the boat issue and then dump the CO2 tax onto the current EU price … and voila!
I have a bet with my accountant that The Prattling Populist Ponce will win … a majority of the electorate really is that stupid
20
Well, they got into government in the first place, didn’t they? So yes…. scary.
20
Well, they a saying now that the Rudd government is equal favourite.
Looks like I won’t be returning to Australia any time soon….
00
You have to have your eyes and your mind closed to use the anecdotes and meaningless terminology you are using.
You Ditched “Massive weather events”..
But then without blushing used “extreme weather.”
The weather part of climate change….meaningless..and climate change..another meaningless term again.
And now “global extremes”..
And you use a blog comment..a press release and a Guardian article
as evidence for researching extreme weather increases.. 🙂
I can play that game..what about “The Storm”..July 1977..when global temps were down..115 mph..That was when it was cooler..if that had happened now..you would have said it was due to increases in temperatures right.??
I was kidding asking you a question you would have answered..like when I asked you “Tell me this oh terrified one..exactly what weather event will you guys not try and link with AGW..”
I wasn’t insulting you tiger..I was taking the piss..mucking around..your terrified right of the consequences of CAGW right..
Which means in your mind…everything is caused by CAGW.!
And you maladroitly didn’t answer my question..
Your first quote was from CNN..for a 50 year time span..
And there was this gem
“It’s tempting to simplify things and blame it all on global warming…But weather can be complicated”
yeah it is..but what the hell we will do it anyway right. 🙂
And the next quote was for a 60 year time period.Yawn..
And my question was Show us all the long term trends showing that AGW has CAUSED an increase in heatwaves And where the “answer” has had UHI removed..
Your first paper was not answering my question..it was talking about contribution or lack of it of UHI to the global temperature records.
“The goal of this paper is to evaluate the urban heat island
contribution to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature global air temperature average over land.”
I could make a Phil Jones I lost the data for the UHI paper on China we did joke but you and Carbon John would not get it..:)
And the second paper is behind a paywall..and is titled “Global Increasing Trends in Annual Maximum Daily Precipitation”,,
So neither two examples is answering my question.
But hell..run with it anyway..co2 taxes and co2 trading will help you sleep better at night though.. 🙂
40
Nope, as I pointed out the climate is influenced by many factors, the sun, volcanos, ocean currents like ENSO and PDO etc as well as increasing greenhouse gas emissions that change the radiative properties of our atmosphere. Thats a fact. You cannot separate any of them, you cannot grab a weather event and say 56% of that was the sun, 22% la nina etc.
The UHI paper proves that the effect is minimal on the temperature records. That takes your whole question out of the equation.
The extreme weather articles are the ones that are anecdotal as it takes a long time to see trends in something that by its very nature does not happen often, but eyes wide closed if you don’t think things have been increasing in the last decade. There is some research that is attributing statistically some extreme events to climate change because they are so out of the ordinary there is only a tiny chance that they would have occurred without it. But this is developing science.
Not sure what your problem is with the length of periods on the trends? if a trend is occurring it will be able to be seen over 50-60 years. You guys thing a decade is a trend, so your point is? The WMO consider 30 years for a trend in climate.
American Meteoroligical Society
Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00021.1
The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/
“An increasing number of studies are making the connections between human activities, climate change and a rise in extreme weather events. While it is difficult to point to climate change as causing a single weather event without in-depth research, patterns are emerging.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/climate-change-effects-global-warming_n_1662046.html#slide=1277061
01
I give you two stories about one subject, the first giving quotes by actual scientists and the second telling you what to believe. It is an interesting example of how media manipulate the facts……enjoy (note the different headlines)
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/sun-s-bizarre-activity-may-trigger-another-ice-age-1.1460937
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-solar-cycle-in-100-years-20130711,0,6978639.story
Oh and why i am here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362762/The-dirty-secret-Britains-power-madness-Polluting-diesel-generators-built-secret-foreign-companies-kick-theres-wind-turbines–insane-true-eco-scandals.html#ixzz2Z47g7HXD
10
Yep, more “Green” bullshit…..
01
Craker, not really sure what your point is? They both refer to falling sun activity that scientists are unsure of. I have been pointing to the static tsi and falling activity for years everytime people say its the sun for global warming. Fact is as I have pointed out here as well, most natural factors are cooling, the only way you can explain the current warming and the 2001-2010 being the hottest decade on every continent is by greenhouse forcing by mans emissions of CO2. Our actions are overwhelming natural processes and destabilising the system.
While we may take some comfort that some warming may have stopped us from a cooling trend, we are now going way to far the other way.
11
Michael,
I have read all your recent comments and have come to the conclusion that you are either reading off prepared (by someone else) debating points or what you say is of your own words and if so you then must have the personality of a pin head.
In reference to comment 35,
The point of difference between the two stories is that one quotes the scientists as saying we may be heading back into another LIA whilst the other completely ignores this fact.
Just in case……..the third link shows that renewable energy is a complete and utter failure.
Regarding the slumping sun, according to the IPCC the only impact the sun has on climate is the TSI and the TSI barely ever changes, ergo the sun has no affect on the climate or the change therein (how very sciency of them).
The UV, X-ray, solar wind, sunspot number-length of cycle and the relationship with GCR’s has nothing to do with the changing climate according to the IPCC. If you choose to believe such things then go ahead.
I have no interest in debating someone who does not posses the skills required to debate me at the level that is needed.
11
Please point to the peer reviewed science that proves this as a “FACT”
Irrelevent to the science. Once we all accept the science then we can start focussing on solutions. To decide that AGW is not real because you don’t like current solutions is faulty logic and shows that you are not making decisions based on science but on ideological grounds.
Not at all, I have read in many areas of the IPCC documents how they accept the input of the sun. They take it into account in many ways. Fact is, as I have pointed out above, that the sun is not the cause of recent warming, as in most cases its influence is cooling. Also GCR’s have been investigated and ruled out, in fact recent measurements show a divergence from GCR and temperature, indicating that again anthropogenic forcing is overwhelming natural factors. Your own untrustworthy anti agw reveiwer broke his word and undertakings to reveal that they had investigated it, missing the point that it had been proved to be not the cause, in his rush to be a hero. The IPCC draws in peer reviewed science right across the globe and the research considered covers virtually everything. To think that you have a secret that mainstream science is missing just shows how out of touch with reality anti agw thinking is.
Continually insulting me is irrelevant to the science.
01
You really are thick Michael…. the “fact” is, as Crackar24 pointed out:
the fact that the scientists are saying it…. duh!
20
Thankyou BS i could not stomach the thought of having to explain it to such an unintelligent fool like Michael.
10
ED. you’ve used the word “wacky” twice in this weak attack on ideas I have expressed in this and other posts. I note that the word “wacky” is also readily used by those wishing to ostracise and humiliate climate sceptics.
I laugh at your request for “real substantial evidence”. It is a fair assumption that an individual who has already dismissed an idea as “wacky” will not be swayed by any evidence to the contrary real, substantial or otherwise.
What exactly makes YouTube videos “wacky”. YouTube is simply the most readily accessible means of conveying information in moving image and audio.
I think Jo Nova has some YouTube videos too. Are her ideas “wacky” too?
I often think that high profile climate sceptics avoid expressing views that may be considered “conspiratorial” as they think this will undermine the credibility of their own message.
Well, unfortunately for us “climate change” is merely one in a whole host of lies And deceptions that have been foisted on us by the globalists in thier mission for control of the world.
You can focus on just one or you can take a more wholistic approach.
Best Regards
Sonny
40
I think your overuse of the word wacky made Myrrh appear. Rupert Sheldrake is right!
00
Jo – It would have happened a long time ago if it was not for you, generic, AGWs – who refuse to countenance that the “science” basics they have been indoctrinated by through the education system, which is the basis of the AGW Greenhouse Effect claims, are fictions.
Carbon dioxide cannot do what they say it does, because they have substituted ideal gas for it and for nitrogen and oxygen.
So your world has empty space around it kept in by an invisible unknown to real science container to stop these ideal gas pretenders zooming off to the ends of universe at great speeds under their own molecular momentum.. And I doubt you have any idea what I’m talking about.
You have not noticed that their is no Water Cycle in the AGW Greenhouse Effect, you have not noticed that there is no rain in your Carbon Cycle.
You have not noticed these and more because you choose not to notice, you do not want your science credibility brought into question..
..or you do not want to admit you have been conned by a very clever science fraud.
Whatever the reason, you dare pontificate on “the one-sided media coverage”, but do not give space to the debunking of the basics physics, neither you here nor the other AGW blogs want to deal with it. And when it gets too clear that this is all built on fake fisics, the bans come in, the excuses for putting people into moderation, the censorship which you and WUWT and others deplore in CAGW fora, you practice yourselves.
Sorry to say so, but you are hypocrites here.
And you do not want to admit you have made a mistake.
If you want to continue maintaining credibility for your moral stand, then open a post showing exactly how carbon dioxide can raise temperatures, show it by its properties and processes.
You can’t, because all the claims for carbon dioxide are faked fisics.
It is a very clever faked fisics.. But you’ll never get to appreciate the cleverness because you do not know the real physics which has been tampered with..
00
Myhrr, Yes I singlehandedly have kept alarmism going. Yup. Sure.
We’ve had five posts and 3000 comments on the greenhouse effect. See So what is the Second Darn Law? and others. Done to death. There is no violation of the second law. Energy flows from a hot sun to a warm planet to a cooler atmosphere to bone cold space. Tick Tick Tick. CO2 slows that.
You write with a fake name and fake email and yet I still publish 183 of your comments, and you think I’m censoring you?
Physics is spelt “Physics.”
10
I have not seen anyone else making the arguments I make.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect does not have physics, it has fictions pretending to be physics.
COD – physics n. Science dealing with properties and interactions of matter and energy.
How do you have that in the comic cartoon of AGW’s Greenhouse Effect?
You have no longwave infrared from the Sun and in real physics longwave infrared is the electromagnetic wavelength of Heat, that is why it is called thermal infrared. Near infrared is not hot. What you have in your fake fisics world is shortwave, Light, from the Sun heating your imaginary Earth.
Visible light from the Sun cannot heat matter, its energy interacts with matter on the much smaller electronic transition level, impacting or not on electrons, not on the bigger molecular vibrational level which is what it takes to heat matter, internal kinetic energy which is heat. We cannot feel visible light from the Sun, we cannot feel it as heat because it is not hot. I cannot heat us up, it cannot raise the temperature of our skin and neither can it raise our internal temperature.
This AGW claim in itself is so absurd to real physics that it is a joke, but it gets worse, you, generic AGW/CAGWs have given two reasons why there is no longwave infrared from the Sun which is aka radiant heat energy in real world thermodynamics:
You say that there is an “invisible” and unknown to traditional physics, “barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing longwave infrared from entering”, which I have been told is the CAGW version (I think it is the original), or, the AGW version which is even more absurd if that were possible. Which says, that the Sun gives off insignificant amounts of longwave infrared so insignificant of insignificant reaches us.
As this longwave infrared is the actual wavelength of radiant heat in the real world, and because visible light (nor the near infrared or uv included in the “shortwave in”) is not a thermal energy so does not heat molecules of matter, what you are both saying, is that in your world there is no direct heat from the Sun.
This second version, the AGW, is more interesting than the silly “invisible barrier”, it is calculated by some odd planckian mumbo jumbo on the thin 300 mile atmosphere around the Sun of visible light – and by it you have established that the Sun is 6000°C.
And you don’t see anything amiss with that.
p.s. wordpress ‘stole’ my email on wordpress blogs, so it is as it was previously.. But I can’t see any reason for private email correspondence in this.
01
Myrrh
1. If you want people to discuss science don’t write triumphant, self-glorifying waste-of-time phrases. If you tell us how stupid we all are at the start, most readers yawn and move on to read someone less patronising. Skip the insults, they only make the insulter look stupid.
2. Got any evidence: “We cannot feel visible light from the Sun, we cannot feel it as heat because it is not hot.”
3. “You say”… Who says? Be specific and quote.
4. If you used your real name, you’d be politer and more careful.
5. Fake email? So, all the times I’ve emailed you back your snipped comments, it’s been a waste of my time, and you may have lost your words. I have sent emails discussing your comments, but learnt not to bother trying to help you.
You are ‘this close’ to losing the right to post.
We are bored of being insulted by someone who doesn’t write logical arguments with evidence.
If you can’t convince the audience, don’t blame the audience. Explain it better.
10
Oh, it has now appeared and also a reply from you. So you did see it.
I am not saying any of you are stupid, I would not be arguing with you about this.. I am saying your physics is stupid. How you came to be using it is simple, it was introduced into the general education system. So no, I do not think you are stupid, but through the education system have been systematically brainwashed by a deliberate dumbing down of the science, a fabianesque tactic, as the IPCC was set up to manufacture “consensus” science.
[SNIP – too boring for me to read more. (But you get published faster if I snip eh?) I asked you to improve your comments and stop insulting us. I’ll post you back your words if you give me a real email. Cowards hide behind fake ones. You are now even closer to being put into permanent spam. Don’t waste a sentence. – Jo]
00
So what happened to my reply, Jo? So when I give the detail my posts disappear? Shall I try posting it again? Did you see the post? Will you see this post? If you you didn’t then who is censoring me? But while I’m here..
[Snip. I’m too bored to read this, if you write long insulting evidence-free comments, expect them to take long boring periods to get published (or not). If you want a copy of the snip, I’ll email it but you’ll have to give me your real email won’t you?. – Jo]
00
[…] Man-made global warming has to this day not been scientifically proven, notwithstanding what the mass media take as a given, and what proselytizers and profiteers like Al Gore and David Suzuki and many others of their ilk want you to believe. […]
00
[…] proselytizers and profiteers like Al Gore and David Suzuki and many others of their ilk want you to believe. ‘Climate change’ is not a genuine problem to be solved, but a handy excuse – with a […]
00