In the topsy turvy world of modern science, big-government has strangled science to the point where bright outsiders know more than the fully trained “experts”.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the P.M’s business advisory council, daringly wrote in The Australian:
“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”
In Senate estimates, a Greens spokesperson asked Dr Rob Vertessy, Director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on his view of this. “That is incorrect,” he said, showing how little he knows about climate models, where everyone (even the IPCC) is trying to figure out excuses for their failures. Some even invent time-travelling climate models that can finally “predict” today’s climate correctly a decade after it happened.
If Maurice Newman was wrong, he was far too generous to the climate modelers. Instead of a 95% failure rate, it’s well up over 98%. Hans von Storch et al published a paper nearly two years ago comparing models and observations of a 15 year long pause. Statistically von Storch could find no justification for people saying the models matched the observations — there was a less than 2% chance of that. Last year Ross McKitrick estimated the pause was really 19 years long, so the odds are now less than 0.5%. Newman was being kind, suggesting that 5% of models might be called “right”.
Some will try to weasel out of it, saying the pause isn’t a pause because the missing heat went into the oceans. Aside from the fact that we can’t possibly measure the ocean heat accurately enough to know, there is the problem that the models are supposed to model the ocean too. They are called “global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models”. Those models predicted the heat would be in the atmosphere, not the ocean, and it isn’t. Does that kind of failure matter? Only if you live on land.
The models not only fail on global decadal scales, but on regional, local, short term, [1] [2], polar[3], and upper tropospheric scales[4] [5] too. They fail on humidity[6], rainfall[7], drought [8] and they fail on clouds [9]. The hot spot is missing, the major feedbacks are not amplifying the effect of CO2 as assumed.
The IPCC’s favourite models were 100% wrong in 1990. The IPCC prediction in 1990, the oldest prediction they cannot weasel out of, was a best estimate of 0.3°C per decade with a range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C. Even with the most generous overestimate of current trends, the temperature trend has fallen below their lowest estimate, at the same time as CO2 emissions were higher than expected. Prof Matthew England, and the ABC still owe Nick Minchin an apology. Rob Vertessy owes one to Maurice Newman as well now.
Dr Rob Vertessy‘s expertise is in “fluvial geomorphology and physical hydrology“. Water catchment. That doesn’t mean he can’t understand climate models, just that he needs to start reading as widely on the climate as investment bankers do.
The warmists just love a good model,
Not those on the catwalk who waddle,
But the ones that forecast,
That the warming would last,
Being wrong,were 99% twaddle.
— Ruairi
REFERENCES
Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? Academia
McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050. [link] to full manuscript. [Judith Curry’s discussion].
[1^] Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
[2^] Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.(2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]
[3^] Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M. (2014), Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.233
[4^] Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]
[5^] Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]
[6^] Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]
[7^] Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
[8^] Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437
What I found astonishing in the video was that Vertessy rejected Newman’s statements but offered nothing to support his rejection or explain why.
Simply saying “I reject that” in a normal world would result in questions as to what and why.
Instead we witnessed dumb acceptance.
Staggering incompetence.
724
John, I agree, but it is possible Vertessy said more. I searched for a transcript and found none. Perhaps he elaborated and the SMH reporter didn’t think it was worth repeating. If that’s the case, it tells us something about SMH reporting (though we knew that already).
If the Greens spokesperson was happy to accept a simple “I reject that” line, that also tells us how hard she was hunting for answers.
The conversation had a long piece but which essentially boiled down to saying “the missing heat is in the oceans” and the pause didn’t happen. Denial…
703
Hi Jo, I see the SMH is at it again today this time latching onto a story that Germany’s renewable energy prices had fallen to “below zero”?
Now I am neither a scientist nor an economist but that is impossible. So I did some quick research and found that Germany provides a fixed subsidy of the renewable price based upon the volume of renewable electricity produced. So of course if production keeps rising it will reach a threshold where the retail price of renewable electricity could actually fall below zero.
But what Peter Hartcher also neglects to mention is that the renewable energy subsidy is set by a tariff that transfers the renewable cost of production to consumers of fossil fuel energy – like coal, oil or natural gas. So what happens when – if as designed – the production of fossil fuel energy in Germany falls so far that it can no longer subsidize the renewable price? That can’t be economically healthy.
Now the Germans claim that the true costs of fossil fuels are higher due to the impacts on environment, the climate or human health – and this is the basis for setting of the feed in tariff – what a crock!
There is so much misinformation on renewable energy in the MSM it drives me crazy. But of course this will get lapped up by the SMH’s generally left leaning readership.
Peter Hartcher’s article is open to comments.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/green-power-success-stories-take-the-wind-out-of-tony-abbott-20150525-gh9bd6.html
352
Whoever would want to login to the Sydney Morning Herald?
281
I’m with you Will.
81
Faux Facts Media
41
So an early commenter on that article challenged people to go off the grid and use only renewables, Sharon replied that she already comfortably was with a $7000 solar system and a $10,000 a Tesla energy wall.
Is this possible?
40
Yes, it is possible if one tells the full story.
1/ you need a solar hot water system, with gas heater backup or go without hot water when the solar hot water runs out
2/ you cook with gas or have a wood or oil fired range as in country England (watch “Escape to the country”)
3/ In cold areas particularly in winter you use a gas, oil or wood heater
4/ You have no air conditioner (even in the short summers in Germany air conditioning for cooling is rarely required)
5/ You have no freezer and do not use frozen food
6/ you have a petrol or diesel generator backup or you live feral and at times such as prolonged rainy days you go without electricity using candles and torches for light at night.
191
Also, as you have no exterior lighting, you will need a good sense of direction if you venture out in the evening, so you can find your way back to the cave.
111
Good point but our eager Green never moves out from the lights of the city.
I used to walk to the schoolbus in the Arctic night, at new Moon and at a cloudy morning. It was pitch dark. I could not do it with my old eyes any more.
30
Perhaps you can work out where she lives?
http://euanmearns.com/a-potential-solution-to-the-problem-of-storing-solar-energy-dont-store-it/#more-8635
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-battery-storage-does-a-solar-pv-system-need/
20
Let’s see if they post my simple reply:
I am no Tony from Oz, but the glaring bias in the Hartcher article simply cannot stand unchallenged. It is pathetic in the extreme. It fails in basic logic.
372
Crap – typo … there should be their… head full of steam I guess. Should have sent that steam power to the grid for a subsidised feed-in rate…
[Fixed it for you.] AZ
110
Also to my utter amazement the ABC fact (lol) checking unit got it largely right on this one.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/how-does-the-renewable-energy-target-affect-your-power-bill/5253136
Key points: The renewable energy target
•The Renewable Energy Target aims for 20 per cent of power to be drawn from renewables – like wind and solar – by 2020.
•The cost of investment in renewable energy is much higher than investment in traditional energy sources like coal and gas.
•It is estimated that the cost of the RET to consumers makes up between 1 and 5 per cent of power bills.
•The RET can lower wholesale electricity prices, because creating renewable energy once the infrastructure is in place is relatively cheap.
•That benefit does not necessarily extend to the consumer
Id say more accurately, there is not a snowballs chance in hell the benefit will extend to the consumer.
181
It is still wrong AFAIK. The renewables need to be backed up by traditional generation capacity for when the renewables aren’t providing energy (most of the time). One cannot honestly consider the renewables in isolation and claim they are cheaper. That is economically dishonest. Just more pro-renewables claptrap.
210
Plus I should add that if the renewable generators are providing power at the wrong time, as they often are, we have to ramp down otherwise efficient fossil fuel generators to compensate. One cannot ignore such opportunity costs and claim to be reporting facts. Again this is gross ABC dishonesty.
150
If you took out the tiny contribution of renewables like wind and solar your thinking would then necessarily apportion the gas fired peaking costs and other schemes such as pumped storage towards the ‘true’ coal fired costs as the coal is largely unable to meet the demand fluctuations and serves only a relatively ‘smooth’ load profile. We don’t really have a choice of whether we use the peaking suppliers or not. The way we use electricity and our limited range of tariffs have all been shaped over the many years to facilitate the nature of coal fired supply. A modern ‘free market’ is less likely to be so sympathetic towards the old coal fired generators and their limitations and is more likely to be more opportunistic about pricing. A modern supply will have many more tariff options and there is likely a sufficient market for intermittent supplies if they were retailed on their own tariffs rather than getting a guaranteed market or price. Or maybe even bought or owned by the traditional gas fired peaking suppliers. I think the old coal needs to get modern and stay competitive. The uptake of cheap air conditioning in many homes has arguably a much greater affect on load variations and headaches for the coal stations than do the tiny amount of wind or solar power. In those cases the solar is competing with gas for the peaking business. In a free market it would make more sense that any generation company did not put all their investment in one technology so that they could provide a reliable product independent of load profile. Even with the status quo it would seem logical for the gas fired peaking stations to own some solar or wind if the costs avoided made good business sense, rather than competing with them. As a business owning different forms of power generation you don’t have the imperative to make each power source equally profitable and cross subsidies are the norm – you can’t do that in a Gov owned market without upsetting the punters.
11
The difference Joe is that gas power is available on demand and when desired. So no, you are wrong.
There is base load (i.e. the minimum required all day every day), best serviced by coal and nuclear. Then there is peaking load, best services by hydro and gas, which can be ramped up on demand. Renewables such as wind and sun only work whenever the renewable source is available. If that happens to be at a minimum load time then you have to ramp down an efficient coal or nuclear generator to allow the renewable to run. This was explained quite clearely by Tony a few threads back.
The talk of shaping demand is rubbish. Industrial demand is 24/7. You don’t switch aluminium smelters off because households are firing up air conditioners, or office blocks are switching on during the working day. The way we generate power is based on the load cycle, not vice versa.
Storage is virtually non-existant. Should a cheap form of mass storage become available, then things will change dramatically. But the physics is up against you on this one. Lots of pie-in-the-sky batteries have been touted over the years, but none have ever made it to market to disrupt the system. I remember the excitement about ultra-capacitors a few years back. There are TED talks about cheap batteries (MIT project I think), and so on. Will be great if someone does crack this, but regardless, fossil fuel generation will still be cheaper than renewables. Hopefully some day that will change, today is not that day.
40
My comment was rejected at the SMH. Curious to know what part of their posting guidelines I transgressed. I am guessing none. Speaking the truth is verboten, it seems.
220
You broke the ‘guidelines’ because you had
-Length
-Attitude
-Ridiculed a journalist
It is really sad when you write well and real dense and use your time, and then the above three are used to excuse a not-publish decision.
10
Hi Bulldust, pity your comment was spot on. My guess is the SMH moderators didn’t like the word “ridiculous”. Unfortunately like peer reviewed climate science papers a different standard can be applied depending whether your comment conforms to Fairfax’s Green Left group think.
But the people we really need to take aim at are ones like economist Ross Garnaut – quoted as an authority by Hartcher. Garnaut is always trying to say Australia is being left behind. But as an economist he never tries to articulate how subsidising an industry makes it more efficient.
40
What most of the dummies don’t realise is a little thing called profit is at play. Its a legal requirement for Australian listed companies (of which most energy generators are) to provide a profit to their share holders.
I would estimate that at least 1/3 of Australia’s windfarms have now paid for themselves. However do you think for one second that the lower production cost of that power is being passed on to consumers in any way? It is utterly irrelevant to consumers what percentage of power in the grid on any given day is renewables. Their bill is 100% unaffected. Any affectation there is for consumers is in greater charges not lesser, for the sheeple who tick the “please charge me more for green power” box. Which I’m sure gets a good laugh every time they see one in the accounting department.
The price of power has gone up in basic lockstep to the percentage of renewables in the market. It cant really go any other way and it will never change because the energy producers are simply not stupid enough to pass on the savings, assuming there are any and assuming their shareholders agree to it.
Renewables are a giant con job. Nothing more.
251
I only see cases (Germany, UK, US) where renewables always significantly raise the cost of electricity to the consumers. You see, renewables cannot put power on the grid without fossil fuels or nuclear power to produce a clean and stable power for transmission over all the grid. Solar and wind produced electricity is highly variable (i.e. dirty power) and must be smoothed out by fossil or nuclear power.
So, one unit of cost to build a renewable power source results a comparable cost fossil fuel or nuclear power cost.
90
Leonard, how right you are. The world’s green flagship has gone down with the loss of all hands.
In a stunning admission, the German Government recently announced that its transition to Renewable Energy was, “On the Verge of Failure.”
http://srsroccoreport.com/germany-death-of-renewable-energy-bring-on-the-dirty-coal-monsters/germany-death-of-renewable-energy-bring-on-the-dirty-coal-monsters/
Why do world leaders still stridently press on with this agenda? The mind boggles at the logic – and the motives.
30
When it comes to the left everything is about the system not facts or reality so whatever is part of the system must be right and anyone/thing that contradicts that is an enemy,it does not matter what truths are put in front of them they will deny it this is the world we are living in now.
Every day now we see elements of the left snapping and snarling over trivial matters.
If the left see some Christians doing charitable works they will decry them for it but if someone from the left says that they are going to do something nice even though they don’t do it the left will fawn over them.
Now let’s get down to the WEATHER not the climate but weather,it appears that carbon dioxide impacts or causes the weather,but the first thing a Warmy will say that it is climate that they are talking about and not the weather,and that my friends is why you will never change a Warmy.
In the end all we can do is live with it,if they prevail we will still have to live with it,whatever that outcome will be,because sadly the Warmies are anti-human beings and that doesn’t bode well for the future,once the haters get in charge then anything goes.
90
It is of course correct that the prices of output from Germany’s renewables fall below zero – it happens quite frequently, as shown by the data assembled by the Fraunhofer Institute here:
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/data-nivc-/electricity-spot-prices-and-production-data-in-germany-2014.pdf
This is not good news, because it results from power surges (usually from solar supplies, though sometimes from wind) that Germany has to dump on neighbouring nations, which in turn disrupts their power grids. The surges can threaten cascading grid trips and blackout (fuse blows at grid scale) if not carefully managed – and they also play havoc with other forms of generation, which have to slacken off generation as best they can, and yet be ready to take up the load once the renewables surge is over. The consequence is that coal fired stations operate very inefficiently, yet are essential to keeping the gird in balance – and Germany’s CO2 emissions have been rising as higher levels of renewables increase the average inefficiency of coal, and require more coal generation to be running in back-up mode.
20
John he (Vertessy) is on the side of the debate that does not require justification of statements. The little clique feeding each other Dorothy Dixers in the so called enquiry, are left/green intellectuals, so their statements are deemed to be correct until proven otherwise. Then when they are proven otherwise, its only by racists, deniers and corporate criminals, which doesn’t count. So basically all people like Vertussy need to do is wave their hand Jedi fashion and say “these arnt the facts your looking for” and its is apparently supposed to end the debate.
I guess we didn’t get the memo.
221
So, does that mean he’s the person to blame after the BOM’s lousy advice led us to believe flood mitigation dams should be kept at 95+% because droughts were the new normal?
251
Newman’s statement falls into the category of “Unrealistic expectation”.
No model will EVER be 100% correct. No climate scientist expects it to be so.
By expecting models to be 100% correct, Newman can then tell everyone they are all wrong.
Like der!
344
Good try Tim. No banana. Maurice pointed out that 95% of the models are in error. But he was not saying they were scoring 95/100, he was saying they are wrong.
You are tossing in a strawman.
403
Good try Jo. I never implied he said “they were scoring 95/100”.
226
If you make a prediction with 95% confidence intervals and reality (real observations) falls outside those intervals, the liklihood is that your model is wrong. With any statistical exercise you can never rule something completely in or out, but you can associate a probability of the result not occuring by chance. You can’t prove anything absolutely with statistics, let alone models based upon heavily massaged statistics. See William Briggs on that issue – how smoothing of data causes excessive confidence in models. Here’s one example of his posts:
http://wmbriggs.com/post/195/
141
Maurice did not do this. He claims 95% are wrong.
btw: 95% confidence is just a common guide, not a black and white, right and wrong figure.
23
I hate to be a contrarian but when I studied statistics and probability 95% was considered the minimum confidence needed to show even a weak link between suspected cause and effect. You can obviously choose any number you want but your statistical expertise becomes questionable to anyone who knows his way around the math and the reality behind 95%.
The U.S. EPA tried to make their data on second hand smoke work out to show a correlation with diseases caused by active smoking at 95% and couldn’t do it. So they simply lowered the well established standard and used 90%, getting them accused of statistical malpractice to this day.
Standards are set for a good reason. Following them gives your work credibility. And that 95% figure is the result of experience that says 95% is as low as you should go and claim any correlation. Statistical math has been around for a long time and its standards are still as valid today as when the EPA tried to get away with 90%. And no amount of arguing can convince anyone who knows what’s going on that a lower confidence means anything.
I’m one of those you can’t convince. Either a standard means something or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then why bother? And if it does then you should follow it.
20
For reference, the correlation between active smoking and the diseases it causes is much greater than 95%.
Look it up for yourself.
10
Timboss,
How much in error would it have to be before you question their validity? Or doesn’t that trivial detail matter? Are you so wedded to the hypothesis that there is NO result or observation that could possibly persuade you otherwise?
The problem is, in a nutshell, that every pro- CAGW alarmist I have ever conversed with doesn’t seem at all phased when facts deviate from their beliefs, or when others suffer the consequences of their actions.
So, the fact that renewable energy is not really even remotely “renewable” in any definition of the word doesn’t dissuade them,
Or, the fact that renewable energy does not really even remotely provide 24/7 base-load power doesn’t dissuade them,
Or, the fact that renewable energy does not really even remotely mitigate any CO2 anyway but instead switches it from primary generation to secondary backup generation and construction doesn’t dissuade them,
Or, that the absence of any statistically significant warming for 19 years when catastrophic warming (if CO2 continued to rise unabated) was predicted doesn’t dissuade them,
Or, that the absence of any observed water vapour enhancement in the atmosphere, nor any tropospheric hotspot which are crucial to the hypothesis being sustained doesn’t dissuade them,
Or, that a significant number of people across the Western world being driven into energy poverty needlessly, while in the developing world many are consigned to perpetual poverty and privations due to among other things rising staple food prices as a result of our actions in addressing a non-existent problem doesn’t dissuade them,
Then, it becomes apparent that people such as yourself and your fellow travellers seem to be only interested in political point scoring for some perceived ideological agenda, yet remain oblivious to or even wantonly disregard the negative consequences of that agenda because they remain too arrogant and disconnected to take a diligent stance that considers all of the negative consequences of any actions they proposed, or to take any responsibility for them as they inevitably and invariably arise.
282
Timboss that would make a model that was 100% wrong is really 100% correct.
61
I agree, Dr Rob Vertessy was correct in saying Maurice Newman’s comment was incorrect.
00
He “rejects [our] reality and substitutes [his] own”. (Apologies to Adam Savage.)
00
Reason, reality, logic and the ethical standard required by them have left the halls of government supported science. We are left with nothing more than:
1. The truth of a theory depends upon who and how many believe in it.
2. Evidence is what the inner circle says it is
3. Since the theory is true, the evidence must be made match the theory.
4. Only those who are approved members of the inner circle can be permitted to have an opinion about the theory.
5. Holding opinions diverging from those of the inner circle is grounds for excommunication and exile.
6. Presenting evidence contrary to the theory is sufficient grounds for excommunication and exile with extreme prejudice.
7. The only thing outsiders can be permitted to do is unquestioningly accept the theory and pay whatever the inner circle deems necessary for whatever purpose held by the inner circle.
Compared to this, going to hell is preferable.
491
and when eventually theory is proven wrong, there were still right because there were wrong in the right way.
390
According to the post modern way of knowing, if a statement is true, it cannot be about reality. Then, if a statement is about reality, it cannot be known to be true. This is known to be true by the inner circle by a process called “somehow”. Hence, a theory can neither be proven wrong or right. It is simply asserted by the inner circle to be the currently acceptable theory. See the works of Kant for a more detailed explanation.
Given their way of knowing, it is clearly not clear how they can even know that they have asserted the theory let alone its contents. Logically, their many concatenated words devolve to nothing but “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (A line from William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, from Act 5, Scene 5). This is why they hold to proof by the process of “somehow”. “Somehow” translates to “For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t understand, no explanation is possible”. Thereby somehow becomes a sufficient and complete explanation.
220
I do just laugh and laugh at that particular part of the mindset.
They have got the torturing of figures down pat so they can be forced to admit to anything.
So even if they say a 95% certainty, if the 5% materialises…..they can still argue that they were ‘not wrong’.
The funny part is when they get upset and sooky when real people who work out in the real weather/climate/environment point out that their behaviour is not adding any value to their real businesses…like ag or mining or building or transport or logistics etc etc.
They want to be loved and respected and seen as useful.
They quite clearly don’t understand that in my world (agriculture) they would have to be let go if they were ‘not wrong’ that often.
We simply couldn’t afford to keep paying someone or some company to be ‘not wrong’ as often as BoM is.
Oh wait!!!
We are all paying them to do that!
They have been gifted a monopoly over the climate/weather !!
I know they call themselves an ‘independent authority’ but in reality that means that they can set their own rules, write their own contracts and mark their own homework.
I shouldn’t be laughing really….but it is so completely ridiculous and ironic that I would have to cry if I couldn’t see how funny it is.
290
Theory and predictions and the length of the prediction are directly related to the length of time the person still has viable employment in his or her field of research. It is also linked to the length of time that government funding will last and when new funding can be sort. I’m 97% sure of this. Cheers
240
The CAGW anti science madness continues.
I was thinking about “the pause” and whether it’s the best description.
I suspect no sceptic will disagree that there has been a mild (sic) warming trend for about two centuries give or take. The warmer 1930s gave way to the cooler 1970s but the trend, albeit small, is still there.
So, planet Earth is coming out of the Little Ice Age which, by definition, means it’s warming a bit. But will it last, this warming?
A few learned bods are even predicting cooling.
So, is it fancifully early to rename the pause “the plateau”?
280
Good point there, looking at evidence that gives far longer trends 18 years is barely recognizable, the reason scientists are even focusing on such a small timeframe is the constant insistence from CAGW proponents that CO2 is driving earths temperature up catastrophically.
18 years does seem like a long time to test an hypothesis but maybe a scientist here could clear this up, what’s the longest test to determine the reaction of energy and a compound?
I’ll go with the old “The only constant in nature is change”.
111
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series Ross R. McKitrick, Open Journal of Statistics, 2014, 4, 527-535 Published Online August 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojs http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2014.47050
The rest as they say is unadulterated politics best characterised by Voltaire when he rhetorically stated:
Ms Christiana Figueres of the UNFCCC is at least being honest when she admits…
342
Thanks Manfred, Figueres’ is more concerned with CASE (Catastrophic, Anthropogenic, Socialist, Economics.) this hypothesis has been tested rigorously through history with the same results every time, sadly. 🙁
80
‘So, is it fancifully early to rename the pause “the plateau”?’
They would prefer to wait another decade before raising the white flag, which is unfortunate because in reality its a gently sloping plateau with an escarpment.
110
Mardler,
Hence the acceleration of climate hysteria:
If it’s a pause then it needs to start warming again shortly because there are only so many manipulations of the data before it looks stupid.
If it’s a plateau then everybody needs to be on board before the world cools so as to claim credit for saving the planet.
170
I think trying to work out away to claim credit for cooling might be the main game at the moment.
The panic is because they’re running out of time.
100
Well Binny, as their start position is ‘klimate khange’ all manner of variations putatively driven by indirect and direct anthropogenic influences may be posited for the decline. In any event, an expanding list of excuses have already been well documented.
But right now at the UN, UNEP and UN IPCC, the inner circle (Lionell@#2) of
racketeersmarketeers are figuring out how to fix the most expensive inconvenience of all time. It will not be a pretty fix. It cannot be. The required ‘adjustments’ are too massive, but someone somewhere will find a way of retrospectively approximating the models with empirical measurement.The next strategy has to be pure deflection, an entirely new PC global fear (non-sectarian, non-partisan, non-religious). They have little choice but to continue their trajectory of raising the necessary funding in their endeavour to orchestrate the bureaucracy required to ‘
saveincarcerate the planet’…..UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED…Klimate skientists will have served their purpose. Their strings will be severed as they are quietly de-funded. However, the brighter and more flexible among them will be re-tasked to the next fear de jour, which I can guarantee will remain quite independent of any form of dependence on modeling.
81
I can fix the models right now, just remove the esrtimated effects of CO2 I guestimate the factor to be about 3 but as I am not a mathemetician (or even closely knowledgeable in that area I cant figure out how to re plot the graphs to take out the CO2 factor, this woudl bring the models close to actual observations, of course the CO2 theory would be gone but hey the models would be closer to reality
10
I can fix the models right now, just remove the esrtimated effects of CO2 I guestimate the factor to be about 3 but as I am not a mathemetician (or even closely knowledgeable in that area) I cant figure out how to re plot the graphs to take out the CO2 factor, this woudl bring the models close to actual observations, of course the CO2 theory would be gone but hey the models would be closer to reality
40
You mean religion, or perhaps to be more precise one religion’s fear/intolerance of another.
00
They haven’t woken up yet that they’re fiddling the wrong data.
They need to stop adjusting and homogenising temp data and start fiddling the CO2 data.
That way they can bring firstly plateau CO2 then bring it down to show the relationship between T and CO2 is as they’ve always said.
But keep it up your sleeve. We don’t want them to know how to fix their problem do we?
62
Oops
Please delete the first “bring” in the third sentence.
00
I prefer “Climate 3 point turn”, where the climate wants to do a wide U-turn, but the driver, unsure of his capabilities, makes some adjustments that temporarily make the climate appear, to those merely glancing at the event at least, to be advancing further but in reality it is heading in the opposite direction.
50
Well heres a ripper for you – in the A.C.T. ( another Left-wing stronghold ) there was a study done by the Uni of NSW to determine if speed cameras reduced death or crashes.
The answer was – No it didnt.
So the ACT govt said they would go out and buy more cameras.
Er….pardon?
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-government-to-increase-speed-camera-numbers-after-critical-report-20150514-gh1e7x.html
“The ACT government will ramp up spending on mobile speed cameras and increase their use, after a report showed they had provided only a limited and short-term reduction in driver speed and serious crashes.
Justice Minister Shane Rattenbury released a review of Canberra’s speed cameras by the University of New South Wales on Thursday, more than a year after the auditor-general found there was no evidence the use of cameras in the ACT reduced speeding.”
You cant make this stuff up…..
The reason I mentin it is that in a Left wing world, common sense appears to be fully subverted to the “cause du jour”…
80
Speed cameras and in fact cameras of all kinds are remarkably effective and justifiable devices of wealth redistribution and of kontrol, or at the very least, the illusion of kontrol, another important consideration to the kollective. The precautionary principle requires the presence of mere speculation, not evidence.
80
They probably make more sense if you are looking at the budget. Along with parking fines they must be nice little earners.
50
Maurice Newman as a source of climate reality is stretching reality to the extreme. Some studies that contradict much of this so-called evidence. Max Plank Institute January 30, 2015:
“Sceptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments: It is true that there has been a warming hiatus and that the surface of the earth has warmed up much less rapidly since the turn of the millennium than all the relevant climate models had predicted. However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the sceptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in the Earth’s climate”.
More in Nature.
Duke University:
Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Shang-Ping Xie. Regions of significant influence on unforced global mean surface air temperature variability in climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2015
“This doesn’t mean greenhouse gases aren’t causing Earth’s atmosphere to warm up in the long run,” Brown emphasized. “It just means the road to a warmer world may be bumpier and less predictable, with more decade-to-decade temperature wiggles than expected. If you’re worried about climate change in 2100, don’t over-interpret short-term trends. Don’t assume that the reduced rate of global warming over the last 10 years foreshadows what the climate will be like in 50 or 100 years.”
University of Miami:
“rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere – a key amplifier of global warming – will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.
“The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere,” said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study. PNAS Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming
Even Hans Van Storch has some interesting viewpoints in Der Speigal in 2013:
SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?
Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect….
SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn’t actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.
Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans’ influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments….
SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?
Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more — and by the end of this century, mind you. That’s what my instinct tells me, since I don’t know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
So while you may argue for Maurice it is entirely apparent that this is just another PRATT.
331
Thank you, good quotes. So over 95% of models underestimated natural variability. 95% of models underestimated the heat being shifted to the oceans (or being ejected to space). The modelers still don’t have any single climate model that has predicted the climate on a decadal scale and got the parameters right about water vapor feedback, and precipitation and clouds.
In other words, you agree Maurice Newman has a better understanding of climate model success than Rob Vertessy.
364
Talk about null contributions, just another load of deceitful and disingenuous ranting unsupported by any scientific evidence as usual.
228
And all the references I cited don’t really exist.
Thank you Silly. Keep ’em coming.
193
Folk,
Please note: sillyfilly has open slather on this blog site. The same applies to the Bolt, Smith, Blair and Pickering sites.
The opposite applies with Fairfax and ABC blog sites. The vast majority of comments critical of their philosophies are not published. I an one of a gang of seven people who have put this to the test.
181
sillyfilly,
ABC weather reported on the evening of Saturday 23/15/2015:
Another chilly morning tomorrow with heavy frost for the ACT and Goulburn regions (they were right at -3c) and that is because this high pressure system (pointing to a graphic representation of arrows circling ant-clockwise and moving inland) is causing clear skies (not clear of CO2) as the lack of cloud cover lets the heat escape (graphic representation of red arrows moving from the ground into space).
121
Perhaps they want to see clean air – in the same way that Ms Lambie (Senator, no less) wants to see transparency.
I would really love to see what is inside a vacuum.
40
SF: perhaps you could explain (factually without reference to fiction) why, according to CAGW theory that in late May there is snow on the ground in southern Canada? (a rare phenomenon), why Vancouver Island is still experiencing early spring conditions (normally what we would have in February not May), why the arctic ice pak (permanent -multi year- sea ice) is growing in thickness and surface area (volume), why polar bear populations are higher than ever recorded before – including in Inuit oral histories, why the northern hemisphere growing season has shrunk in duration………..
Sane and reasonable people would love to read something factual that explains all this according to your CAGW hypothesis/religion.
11
“Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.”
Particularly for the modellers.
But what this statement does Fly is just condemn your stoic certainty. Im surprised you posted it to be honest, but Im sure Jo and Maurice appreciate the support.
50
SF: You are wasting your time here in this confirmation bias sheltered workshop, try the newspapers
—
Good on you Frank, when all you have is insults and bluster, you need all the friends you can get. I’m sure SF appreciates your “me too”. – Jo
11
sillyfilly,
The actual, measured global temperature data for the last ten years by two satellite products:
RSS and UAH satellite Global Temperature Record For 2004 to 2014.
The RSS slightly down, UAH slightly up. Now look at the Y-axis on the left. When the accuracy of the graph is 0.1, i.e. one tenth of a degree Celsius, the margin of error is 0.05. So the actual data says that there has been no warming at all. Zero waming.
Or you could just average the two data sets. Still zero warming.
Duke paper is 100% wrong. It claims a slower warming where no warming has actually taken place.
But that isn’t even the worst of the misleading language constantly being thrust upn the unsuspecting general public in these so called ‘scientific’ papers.
No skeptic has ever claimed that the short term temperature trend foreshadows what the climate will be like ‘in 50 or 100 years’. This claim is also false. What we are saying is that because of the fact that for the last 18 years there has been no rise in global temperatures at all, the claim that CO2 rise will cause temperatures to rise is false.
Thirdly. The Duke paper talks about ‘the last ten years’ when in fact the complete halt to the rise in global temperatures has been observed for 18 years. By understating this fact, the Duke paper yet again misleads the unsuspecting general public.
When a published paper misrepresents the facts in three different ways in just this one sentence, why are you surprised that skeptics stand up and point it out.
Science is all about accuracy. This obviously escapes the authors of the paper in question.
Abe
00
One of the things I find intriguing about the discussions on climate models is that all they show is that the temperature goes up. It says nothing about causal relationships with CO2 and the direction of temperature. You might as well be plotting the temperature against weekly crowds at the AFL. There is this assumption even if the models overstate the problem that there is this link. Even WUTT believes that there is a link between man made CO2 and temperature. I don’t think skeptics should even concede this as a relationship. The reality is that whichever side of the argument you come from no one knows the answer. But one thing I do know is that even if we did know there would be little we could do about it and if we did do something about it that the probability of negative unintended consequences of doing something would be quite high. No one can predict the future .
220
‘I don’t think skeptics should even concede this as a relationship.’
Totally agree, wishy washy skeptics need to wise up to the perilous situation which confronts us.
160
I have often wondered why the ‘climate’ gets reported like it is competing in a sporting event and ‘breaking records’ or like it’s in a ‘top 10 hits’ music program.
120
Before one heads off on carbon abatement there has to be a valid mathematical relationship between the variables. There is none, that is a 10% rise in CO2 will produce a 0.5 degree rise in temperature, or whatever, with a high level of probability. The CO2 hypothesis is confounded by many factors, some known such as photosynthesis and others unknown with the result there is no correlation to base anything on.
As to the 95% confidence of being wrong, or right, the lowest acceptable statistical level is the 5% level and for something important a 1% level is much better; either a 1 in 20, or 1 in 100, chances of being wrong. With the models it appears that there is a less than a 1 in 20 chance of being right. Doesn’t really make much sense scientifically, but politics is something else.
80
Simply watch this video from 5:00 to 10:00 to see how insane the notion that we are capable of affecting the climate really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ0R1MCkSOU
If there is a relationship between our emissions and climate function, its a gross exaggeration to say that relationship is even unclear let alone understood, its closer to say the relationship is, based on the current evidence, non existent.
31
Zig there is only one way temperatures can go in the models because the models are designed only to simulate that relationship. They are the ultimate self fulfilling prophecy. They start from the assumption the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is a given and work from there.
11
An assumed causal relationship between co2 and temp is put forward because it is the only issue that is useful to furthering their agenda.
Another assumption is that increased co2 level is a negative thing.
10
Allow me to add, that the science has been so poorly communicated to the public that many assume that temp is a function of co2 level, that is directly proportional and linear.
10
The models are wrong because they incorporate the radiation only theory of climate change whereas conduction and convection are also involved as a negative feedback mechanism. The phase changes of water work with conduction and convection to make the negative system response more efficient than it would be without water vapour.
The models assume that surface temperature must rise if GHGs increase but it doesn’t.
The models assume that the Earth’s surface at a temperature of 288K radiates at 288K buit it simply does not. It radiates at 255K because the other 33K is diverted to near surface collisional activity which exerts a constant upward pressure gradient force in order to hold the mass of the atmosphere off the surface against the downward gravitational force. See ‘hydrostatic balance’.
GHGs can only try to interfere with the outward flow of 255k but they obviously fail because 255K gets out to space regardless. Changes in the speed of the convective cycle negate the GHG attempt to block outgoing radiation.
The truth is that the mass of an atmosphere causes a decline in emission of photons with depth and / or density and Earth’s surface temperature then has to rise by 33K so that 255K can escape to space.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate slope tracks the rate at which photon emission from the surface declines according to the mass of the atmosphere above it.
The climate models would be more accurate if the element of assumed human caused warming from more CO2 were removed.
That element was only inserted in the first place because climate science did not know what was causing the small amount of warming observed during the closing years of the 20th century.
It was a fundamental error and must be reversed.
255
I am inclined to think that the politics defined ‘the problem’ and provided ‘the solution’, which was and remains the single biggest grasp for unfettered global economic and political power we have ever witnessed by eco-wielding ideologues.
160
Well said Stephen. The models are wrong because they are infantile in their simplicity and we don’t know as much about the climate as we like to think we do. Case in point: There was a recent study of mesopleagic fish (published in Nature) estimating that the total stock of fish in the ocean is probably around 10,000 million tons and possibly as high as 30,000 million tons. It was previously thought to be only around 2,000 million tons. That’s a lot more fish than we first thought, and one hell of a more potent biological pump.
By the way Stephen, have you calculated the temperature of Earth and Venus with the Ideal Gaw Law using atmospheric mass, molecular weight and density? Remarkably, you get the exact temperature of the planet.
61
And pressure, of course.
50
Yes, it has been known for decades that temperatures within the atmospheres of Earth and Venus are very similar at the same pressures regardless of atmospheric composition.
Harry Dale Huffman has been pointing that out for a while now though he does then go off on a bit of a tangent that I can’t agree with.
42
excellent
Can I have more ? – links ?
00
J Cuttance
A more detailed version is in hand. I have been communicating with Jo and David in the hope of getting it published here shortly.
I have also prepared diagrams showing how the lapse rate slope is differently affected for a GHG free atmosphere, a non condensing GHG atmosphere and a condensing GHG atmosphere.
Integrating that with the concept of hydrostatic balance and the effects of convection in converting energy to and fro between kinetic and potential energy pretty much ties up the whole issue using basic meteorological principles that have been forgotten or never learned by the current generation.
42
“In the topsy turvy world of modern science, big-government has strangled science to the point where bright outsiders know more than the fully trained “experts”.
~ ~ ~
Amateur predicted ‘inland tsunami’ (thechronicle)
ON January 10, amateur weather buff Neil Pennell did what trained meteorologists did not — predict the devastating and tragic flood event which tore though Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley claiming 23 lives.
“I think that the BOM’s failure to identify the severe flash flood at Helidon initially stemmed from the fact they had not identified the initial danger signs on the radar but more due to a lack of insight into the nature of the catchment where the rain was falling.
“However, the fact that someone with my limited formal meteorology/hydrology experience could be made to sound like Nostradamus while the Bureau of Meteorology remained silent about the impending danger in the Lockyer Valley does need to be thoroughly investigated.”
Warwick Hughes identifies another BoM failure in 2008:
Brisbane-Toowoomba floods 18-20 Nov 08 highlight failure of 28 Oct BoM rain Outlook
122
Target practice: Atmospheric Scientist John Christy exposes inaccuracy of climate models (youtube)
Speaking before Congress, Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy illustrates the gross inaccuracy of the 102 climate model simulations relied upon by the United Nation’s in the latest IPCC AR5 climate change report.
Professor Christy describes his chart: ‘That is the trend in the atmospheric temperature that has happened since 1979.
That’s the target that you want to hit with your climate model.
So, it’s like we give someone 102 bullets to shoot at that target… Not a single one of these climate model projections was able to hit the target. That is the basis though on which the policy is being made, is on those climate models, not on the evidence before us.’
US House Committee on Natural Resources, May 13, 2015
(Via greeniewatch)
170
That is a great video. Would take some balls to present a slide like that to a Congressional hearing. It has such clarity and makes the point so succinctly.
60
Mentioned earlier on this blog:
Dr Christopher Essex’s Six Impossible Things video on the inherent problems with climate modelling is instructive, even if you don’t understand second order partial differential equations. It’s an hour of video; but time flies when you’re having fun and taking notes.
Not only are the relevant equations of motion unsolved (and unknown), finite representation (i.e. implementing on a digital computer) is fraught with problems of resolution which lead to the output being dominated by unintentional, digital artifacts that do not correspond to any of the intended equations; nor the real world.
To put it simply: Climate Models are fundamentally flawed.
51
I should point out the distinction that physical climate models are ultimately futile. i.e. the models that try to encompass all the physical processes as a simulation.
There were/are climate models in that’ve been a little better than just a guess; by combining (statistical) observations and pattern matching (aka “wiggle matching”) with plausibly-related observable and more predictable physical behaviour. It’s the same process that was used in science and technology before many became so arrogant as to think that they could understand the universe through “simple” physical models.
20
http://www.bom.gov.au/foi/
But be careful to cast it in a way that narrows it down to the information backing “the statement is incorrect”, and in particular the specific point of the proportion of climate models being in error.
50
Is it Rob Vertessy as in the title, or Rob Vertussy ( three times in the text).
40
Peter, a very good point on the spelling. I have corrected all mentions of it including in comments. Thanks. Vertessy is correct. – Jo
51
Earlier this year the ignorant swine at the Guardian, Fairfax, ABC and SBS went after Maurice Newman because he dared to tell the truth. Failure of the models means we must contemplate the prospect of global cooling.
‘The Abbott government’s chief business adviser, Maurice Newman, has warned that Australia is ill prepared for global cooling owing to widespread “warming propaganda” in his latest critique of mainstream climate science.
‘Newman, who chairs the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council, said there is evidence that the world is set for a period of cooling, rather than warming, leading to significant geopolitical problems because of a lack of preparedness.’
Oliver Milman / Guardian
——
I have said it before, Maurice Newman is one of Australia’s leading intellectuals. His courage and conviction in the face of withering abuse will be noted by historians.
251
The warmists just love a good model,
Not those on the catwalk who waddle,
But the ones that forecast,
That the warming would last,
Being wrong,were 99% twaddle.
301
Laughing pretty hard. That’s a good one!
30
Love it!
99% Twaddle.
20
The most recent IPCC report, AR5, is quite equivocal about incidence and frequency of future droughts.
A warmer world puts more water vapor into the atmosphere, increasingly precipitation.
Regional climate changes are beyond the state of the art to predict reliably using today’s models.
From AR5’s Working Group I, Chapter 11 — “Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability“:
Because the variability of the atmospheric moisture storage is negligible, global mean increases in evaporation are required to balance increases in precipitation in response to anthropogenic forcing (Meehl et al., 2007a; Trenberth et al., 2007; Bates et al., 2008; Lu and M. Cai, 2009).
The global atmospheric water content is constrained by the Clausius–Clapeyron equation to increase at around 7% K–1; however, both the global precipitation and evaporation in global warming simulations increase at 1 to 3% K–1 (Lambert and Webb, 2008; Lu and M.Cai, 2009).
… although several studies project drought increases in the near term future (Sheffield and Wood, 2008; Dai, 2011), the assement is debated in the literature based on discrepancies in the recent past and due to natural variability (Seneviratne et al., 2012; Sheffield et al., 2012).
Via comments @fabiusmaximus: The Texas drought ends; climate alarmists wrong again!
60
The models are not 95% wrong, 98% wrong or 99% wrong. They are just wrong. Roy Spencer’s graph is based on the correlation between the climate models and the temperature data since the late 1970s, whether it be UAH satellite data or the surface temperature data sets, such as HADCRUT4. This correlation assumes that the warming that started in 1976 was somehow unique. It was not. There was a similar warming from around 1906-10 to 1940-44. Even on the Gistemp data, the later warming was only 21%-37% larger than the earlier period. It takes some pretty convoluted and vague excuses to explain away that data.
But, the magnitude of this earlier warming has been suppressed by misunderstanding the complex data in various ways, which I am currently disentangling. One way that Gistemp suppress this warming is to include proxy data for Antarctica from 1880 to the 1950s. We know it is proxy data, as it was only in the 1950s that temperature data started being collected on the frozen Continent. The data from 1903 to 1950 for 64-90S looks extremely similar to that for Base Orcadas, which lies a few hundred kilometres north of the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, is at 60.8S, and showed massive cooling until 1930. Check the graphs here and please try to rebut my assertion if you believe it to be wrong. Removing the data for 64S-90S would make the recent warming 19%-28% greater than the earlier warming period. There are more fundamental flaws in the analysis that could eliminate the difference entirely.
171
Kevin
This “95% wrong” reminds me of a Spike Milligan take on WW2 –
“Germany came second”
90
The Germans have to come second in something even if it isn’t their best sport.Just a joke!
20
….ON SECOND THOUGHTS
20
Or as the German football fans said very loudly when they beat the British’
“We beat you at your national sport”
To which the british football supporters reply was a very loud
“We beat you at your national sport TWICE! ”
50
The average model over the same period as UAH shows a rate of +2.15C/cent. Moreover, for the 30 years from 2006 to 2035, the warming rate is projected at 2.28C. These estimates are in contrast to the 145 years of history in the models, where the trend shows as 0.41C per century.
Clearly, the CMIP5 models are programmed for the future to warm more than 5 times the rate as the past.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/temperatures-according-to-climate-models/
91
To be fair the models are excellent at predicting the past, as Niels Bohr commented: “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future”.
60
strangely, the models can’t even demonstrate accuracy to any degree according to proven observational data.
00
As an avid computer gamer of many years I have seen the evolution of game AI from the very basics to the very best.
Most major game studios like Blizzard and Rockstar have budgets for AI that would be hundreds if not thousands of times the money spent on the dodgy climate models. Despite this they have been unable to reliably make an AI character than can navigate an online world without shooting its counter parts or getting stuck on stationary objects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxbakAamsc
When I see decent AI in computer games that have 1:1000th of the complexity of climate and 1000 times the budget of the modellers. Then I may believe we may be able to selectively replicate certain aspects of climate behaviour, to low degrees of accuracy.
Right now the notion we can create a model for this hyper complex, non linear, often random system is basically a form of stand up comedy that happens to be delivered by people with degrees instead of comedians… although often the difference is hard to spot.
90
Just in case there is any doubt about my numbers.
Blizzard for example has enjoyed a revenue stream of around 1.2 Billion per year(yes Billion) from World of Warcraft alone. Considering their other main titles Diablo is similarly popular and StarCraft may even be bigger than WoW but has no monthly subscription. Blizzard’s budget for AI is basically beyond our ability to comprehend. But their computer AI characters will still get stuck on a wall as regularly as clockwork.
http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/world-of-warcraft-is-now-making-100m-per-month/035096
20
It’s a travesty.
20
Vertussy’s appointment was clearly political and announced by a Labor Senator. His career at the CSIRO was in modelling water catchments, a long way from modelling world climates. He appears to be a leader in the new push which is “Climate Intelligence”, which was responsible for very wrong and inexplicable over classification of two recent Queensland cyclones but a lack of warning about the severity of the recent NSW storms where many homes were destroyed. This error may have cost eight lives. Climate Intelligence appears to equate with Climate Activism, a deliberate move from reporting the facts and getting the weather right to getting involved in politics.
As for this remarkable appearance before the Senate Estimates Committee, You can be sure Ms Waters was really expecting Dr. Vertussy to demolish Newmann’s statements with the voice of authority, copious facts and even ridicule but he said nothing. The real percentage might be 100% and his response could still be that 95% was “incorrect”. It was just denial.
So having the director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology take the fifth on this ridiculously simple question was extraordinary. You would think the BOM is on trial. Perhaps they are.
172
“Vertessy” in some places in the article and “Vertussy” in others???
The simple fact is that the latest IPCC report says – chap 10 IIRC – that 111 of 114 climate model runs predicted greater warming across the period 1998 to 2012 inclusive than the temperature data indicates.
We are also told (chap 9?) that “some models” – no mention of how many – “overestimate” the influence of greenhouse gases (i.e. that they exaggerate the so-called greenhouse effect).
Does Vertessy think he knows better than the IPCC?
Also, the models in question are CIMP5 climate models. The CSIRO/BoM used 40 of the same type of models in its recent wild preedictions about Australia and 39 of those 40 were among the list the IPCC used and found flawed.
80
Jo’s quote;
“In the topsy turvy world of
modernscience, big-government has strangled science to the point where bright outsiders know more than the fully trained “experts”.The story of human advancement since somebody picked up the first sharp edged bit of flint stone to chop up some meat and all the local experts explained to him that you needed a good big heavy yonnie to pulp it up to make it edible, not that stupid bit of light weight flint rock.
Everything changes!
Nothing changes!
60
So true ROM
I said to my partner on the weekend after Richo’s comments.
The thing that worries me most about my own position on AGW is I am a lay person and a pretty uneducated one at that. I flunked high school science and have only really taken an active interest in science since my late 20s (although Im 50 next year so I have read a little).
However I see well educated, extremely experienced people in the MSM making statements that can only be described as so stupid, they completely undermine any sensible person’s confidence in the speakers ability to apply basic reason and common sense to a topic, let alone scientific rigour.
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
“so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “. Tim Flannery
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818
One of these men is a Doctor and the other a Professor. Yet they couldn’t see the utter stupidity of going public with claims that were about as likely to come to pass as being hit by lightening while collecting your lotto winnings.
An entire climate history of regular snow and rain patterns was apparently going to come to an end in our lifetime. No sensible person would publically predict it, no matter how strongly they privately believed it.
So Im completely unsurprised to see a real world citizen like Mr Newman exchanging fantasies with the dreamers of the Greens, The BOM, the CSIRO and the IPCC. Its a clash of worlds where a thinking individual with a grounding in likelihood, balance of probability and cause and effect in life meets cloistered academics who have been spoon fed their existences in a world of fantastic model based realities since they last ran away from a school play ground to avoid being beaten up by the normal kids.
171
.
SO true Safetyguy55
So many articles on Alarmism by the ABC, BOM, CSIRO, NASA, Fairfax & Guardian everyday
The hot spot is in the atmosphere
The Hot Spot is deep in the Pacific Ocean
The Hot Spot is in the Indian Ocean 70% of all heat
The Arctic will be ice free – pick a date
Cyclone Marcia was the biggest ever
Extreme events are getting bigger & bigger
Koalas are dying from Climate Change (they culled 700 in Victoria?)
Vineyards will have to move South to avoid the heat?
NZ will have a mild winter (Coldest, Record Early SNOW in 30 years)
Antarctic Melting (Scientist nutjob gets stuck in ICE in SUMMER)
These never ending reports from the above MSM are only working against them!
Average people are sick & tired of hearing the BULL constantly
And Never do the correct any of the blatant lies told earlier
PEOPLE – HAVE SWITCHED OFF
NOW we just laugh at the science of CLIMATE CHANGE
WIND MILLS
GEOTHERMAL
SOLAR
WAVE ENERGY
etc
All of the above are the laughing stock, and people are realizing that the cost of electricity is a direct result of these types of useless power generation
Talk Nuclear NOW – but NO – all the ALARMISTS call it DANGEROUS & bad for the environment?
Let’s put millions of 1,000 tonne concrete pads everywhere with bird killers?
And the best one for last
SHADE CLOTH to protect the Great Barrier Reef
Almost the same laugh as Tim Flannery
“The rains that fall won’t be enough to fill our rivers & dams!
81
Taking up on Flannery’s
It’s good to note that his fellow travellers are still making the same claims.
“Texas Hot And Dry For The Rest Of The Century”
Four years ago, Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M said Texas would be hot and dry for the rest of the century
At the same time, Joe Romm announced the start of the southwest permanent drought, now they claim the flooding rains are fossil fuel powered. https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_170-may-23-23-55.jpg
The depressing thing is that in both countries people died in circumstances that mankind supposedly had eliminated by their selfish use of evil fossil fuels.
31
“… just that he needs to start reading as widely on the climate as investment bankers do.”
My well being and peace of mind is dependent on the wise actions of investment pros. I’d rather have my backyard picnic rained on because of a failing meteorologist than have my retirement take a dive because of unaware investment bankers.
Some have called economics the dismal science. It is actually neither. The phrase does fit well to climate science. I suggest a campaign for that change.
60
A very perceptive comment John. Everything about the way CAGW protagonists communicate on the issue is dismal.
20
this is the entirety of an AAP piece, carried in News Ltd’s Northern Territory News, MSN.com, and UK Daily Mail (DM states: Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article)!
25 May: Herald-Sun: AAP: Weather bureau denies political pressure
THE Bureau of Meteorology has denied it is under political pressure from the federal government to play down the impact of climate change.
DIRECTOR of Meteorology Rob Vertessy says there’s no “strategic attempt” to diminish the bureau’s work on climate change.There had been a restructure within the bureau but although climate divisions had been renamed, there had been “no material change at all” in the ***architecture of climate change within the bureau, Dr Vertessy told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra on Monday.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/weather-bureau-denies-political-pressure/story-fni0xqi4-1227368071016
60
an equally odd AAP piece in News Ltd’s Courier-Mail!
25 May: Courier Mail: AAP: BoM rejects Abbott adviser climate claims
THE Bureau of Meteorology has rejected several “incorrect” claims about climate change by Tony Abbott’s chief business adviser.
MAURICE Newman, chairman of the prime minister’s business advisory council, wrote an opinion piece earlier this month claiming the UN was using global warming as a tool to create an “authoritarian world” with concentrated political authority.
Asked to assess assertions within the piece at a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra on Monday, the bureau’s Director of Meteorology Rob Vertessy rejected some of the claims while labelling others as “incorrect” or “old red herrings”.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/bom-rejects-abbott-adviser-climate-claims/story-fnihsfrf-1227368808587
a cross-section of Fairfax’s readership!
Facebook: The Age: Bureau of Meteorology rejects Maurice Newman’s climage claims
COMMENTS include:
I suppose he still believes the Earth is flat …
Silly old man…
Views befitting the age of the combover…
Go away you old twit!…
Ah, the old NWO. You know times are dire when a government appoints a conspiracy theorist to an advisory position…
I’m looking at Newman’s glorious comb-over. Global warming may not be a fraud, but his hairline certainly is…
I’d like to hear the BOM’s business advice. I’ll bet they’ve got some very sensible ideas…
The bureau just summed up the LNP government, incorrect, irrelevant and old red herrings…
Just another Abbott stooge who he picked because his stupidity matched his…
https://www.facebook.com/theageAustralia/posts/10153215567856422
50
That’s it then.Change the hairstyle.
20
On 07 May, the Scripps Institute released the latest update of the monthly atmospheric CO2 concentration recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, with the value of 403.43 ppm for the month of April 2015. This comes one week after the University of Alabama, Huntsville, release of their latest satellite measured atmospheric temperature data listing. Combining the two sets of data gave a correlation coefficient of 0.69 between the average lower tropospheric temperature over the Tropics(Land) zone for each 13 month period relative to the annual increase in CO2 over that period. The statistical probability of the correlation being zero was too small to calculate.
This confirms results obtained earlier with older data listings :-
Alert, N. Canada, ground station, correlation coefficient 0.16 , with probability of zero correlation of 1%,
Barrow, Alaska, ground station, 0.54 , with probability of zero correlation of 0.2%,
Izańz (Tenerife), 0.54, with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Cape Kumukahi, 0.67, with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Guam, 0.46, with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
NOAA/ESRA Pacific Ocean (00N), 0.62, with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Ascension Island, 0.54, with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Cape Grim, 0.64, with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Macquarie Island, 0.73, with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
South Pole, 0.22, with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero.
Clearly the temperature level drives the rate of change in CO2 concentration possibly due to increased biological activity as the temperature rises. The polar regions exhibit the least correlation as could be expected as they have the lowest temperatures and hence the least biological activity. It is important to realise that the reverse causation is illogical. It would mean that a given rate of increase of CO2 concentration would determine the atmospheric temperature level regardless of the base for the CO2 increase. For example, if a rate of 2 ppm per annum was assigned to a temperature of, say, 20 deg C, this temperature would apply regardless of whether or not the CO2 change was from zero to 2 ppm in one year, 873 ppm to 875 ppm of CO2 in a given year or any other base level.
This explains why CO2 concentration lags temperature on a geological time scale as has been reported repeatedly in the scientific literature. The rate of increase in CO2 does not fall to zero until the temperature reaches a critical low point, that is, the CO2 concentration continues to rise while the temperature is falling but at an ever-decreasing rate.
It also explains why the CO2 concentration has been continually increasing for the past 58 years of recording at the Mauna Loa Observatory but the rate of increase in CO2 concentration has now reached a plateau. In the first 5 years of recording at Mauna Loa, the CO2 concentration was rising at a rate of 0.7 ppm per annum. This rate has continually increased to reach a plateau of almost 2.1 ppm per annum for the most recent 15 years. The IPCC now have to explain coincident plateaus in each of two variables, namely temperature and rate of increase in CO2 concentration which is completely contrary to their global warming thesis.
This insight tells us the reason why climate model simulations do not produce results that are of any use in reality – they are formulated on false premises. Perhaps Maurice Newman and Dr Vertussy will read this??
To conclude, the natural rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age has possibly caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration through greater biological activity since then, regardless of mankind. It is important to stress that this conclusion has been reached by the mathematical synthesis of actual real-world data and not from any estimates, conjectures, theory or computer modeling. It reflects what has actually happened in the world while climate scientists have been imagining other things.
Our Government has been wasting its time and taxpayers’ money trying to negotiate Renewable Energy Targets when no such target is justified.
82
In Dr Vertussy’s defence, if he had even hinted that there was even a skerrick of substance to Mr Newman’s assertions he would be out of a job quicker than Bjorn Lomberg after the BOM Einzatsgruppenfurhers and FIFO flash mobs had got stuck in to him and the BOM heirarchy. He would be Judas without Christ’s forgiveness.
And can you imagine the expression on Senator H-Y’s face? Shock, horror, indigation then pure hatred as if the Queen of Hearts herself were screaming ‘Orf with his Head!, Orf with his Head!’
80
11 May: Financial Post Canada: Ross McKitrick: The con in consensus: Climate change consensus among the misinformed is not worth much
Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists; many misunderstand core issues…
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/climate-change-consensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much
Cook’s response!
25 May: Financial Post Canada: John Cook: Manufacturing doubt about climate consensus
This consilience of evidence has resulted in overwhelming agreement among experts — 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. But where does the 97 per cent figure come from?…
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/manufacturing-climate-consensus-doubts
40
McKitrick responds to Cook:
25 May: Financial Post Canada: Ross McKitrick: Claim that 97% of scientists support climate alarm cannot be supported
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/claim-that-97-of-scientists-support-climate-alarm-cannot-be-supported
40
Thanks Pat.
But we can out do all of them. Here we get 100% of (published) letters to the SMH supporting CAGW.
Do I really need the “sarc”?
Cheers,
Dave B
20
As Dwight Eisenhower, a great President and slightly better golfer (handicap as low as 14 vs 17) then the current disaster as a President, Obama, once prophetically said:
60
Eisenhowers Farewell speech [ extract ]
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
90
From Nick Carter’s Lucky Culture blog.
Lenin, April 1917
60
How funny. Our ABC presents a 2-part series on people falsely predicting catastrophes (with help from Andrew Bolt’s blog).
ABC: Professor Tetlock, based at the University of Pennsylvania, famously did a 20-year study of political predictions involving more than 280 experts, and found that on balance their rate of accuracy was little better than chance. According to Tetlock, there are real limits on how predictable the future can be. That in turn, he says, makes people more susceptible to futuristic snake oil salesmen — those who peddle a vision of the future based largely on pre-determined views, ideological underpinnings and sheer bombast.
New York-based researcher Duncan Watts also points an accusative finger at hubris: “I think that we can all think of examples of where overconfidence in some sort of particular theory of the world has led governments and others into catastrophically bad decisions.”
A series like that (from our Non-biased ABC) must surely discuss global warming alarmism, right??
Remember how we were warned the future of humanity was “in the balance”; on the edge??
And that the planet’s very existence of continued life was at a “tipping point”??
And humans could even be reduced to just a “few breeding pairs of people … in the Arctic because that’s the only place where the climate will be compatible with life” by the end of the century??
But, no. Our “progressive” ABC thinks false predictions can only occur regards the Y2K bug and the recent UK elections. 😀
81
Science (well soft science) has an explanation.
http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/f/dissonance.htm
“Cognitive dissonance can occur in many areas of life, but it is particularly evident in situations where an individual’s behaviour conflicts with beliefs that are integral to his or her self-identity. For example, consider a situation in which a man who places a value on being environmentally responsible just purchased a new car that he later discovers does not get great gas mileage.”
20
The ABC and SBS must be sold. Let those people who want to watch or listen pay for them. Stop the $1.3Bn a year to fund a political machine of the Green party.
Now you have to consider whether the BOM should be privatised. Weather is a big business and can be very profitable. Everyone wants to know the weather and you do not have to do anything in a world of automatic recording. The planet makes the news and you get paid for it. Sweet. A licence to print mmoney.
Could we trust a commercial BOM? We used to trust the Government BOM and the government ABC. Now they are union run closed shops with closed minds and Climate Activism as a mainstay. Keep it public service? I reject that. Retired headmasters are doing a better job of analysis than our salaried professionals.
Sell the BOM.
101
I agree in principle, but its a hard sell politically. The government will avoid such thoughts in the run up to the next election, for obvious reasons.
Your idea has merit, but it will have to wait until we dilute the ABC newsroom.
50
Quite agree. Especially Union shops like the Electricity companies. It does not harm Government votes as they vote Labor/Green regardless. The actual Union membership outside the public service and the ex-public service (Electricity, Railways, Australia post,Telstra,..) is only 12%.
What is important in the context of alleged Climate Change/AGW is that most people do not want to simply pay much more for everything, especially energy and council rates. We do not want Climate Change deparments and people flying off to Paris at our expense. We are paying far too much just to get the weather report for $300million and the average reader can do a better job of predicting the weather, once you have the charts.
However it is important to say these things. The BOM used to be a great place like the ABC and the Age. It has been taken over by political activists who have lost sight of their primary responsible role which justified their secure public service jobs. The sense of entitlement without responsibility is rampant.
21
The BoM was okay until married to the Klimatariat, which produced the corrupt practice of adjustments. The government should divorce them, but I won’t be holding my breath.
31
Agreed. We have the same problem in Canada with our own sacred cow, the CBC. Blatantly partisan and Liberal (left) yet NOTHING can be done to rein them in. With an election coming in October, we are all subjected to their nonsense constantly.
00
Joe Bastardi pulls up Obama on his and his government’s AGW “beliefs” by pointing out that drought and wet periods in North America are not caused by CO2, but by Ocean circulation.
50
read it all & weep…truly incredible how MSM just laps it up:
25 May: Tampa Tribune: Keith Morelli: Experts tie hurricane changes to climate change
Climate change may be triggering an evolution in hurricanes, with some researchers predicting the violent storms could move farther north, out of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, where they have threatened coastlines for centuries.
Hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean begins Monday, and forecasters are predicting a relatively quiet season. They say three hurricanes are expected over the next six months, and only one will turn into a major hurricane.
Florida hasn’t been hit by a hurricane in a decade, and researchers are increasingly pointing to climate change as a potential factor.
There is a consensus among atmospheric researchers studying the connection between global warming and hurricanes that centuries- old patterns may be shifting, said Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“There are a few things we agree on,” he said, “and a few things we don’t know much about.”…
http://tbo.com/weather/experts-tie-hurricane-changes-to-climate-change-20150525/
30
How to explain the lull in hurricanes? Change the script and move the goal posts, nobody will notice.
60
50
26 May: Business Spectator: Matthew Wright: 3 reasons Grattan got it wrong on solar
Wrong 1: The net cost of support for solar was nearly $10billion…if we completely ignore the primary purpose of the support programs…
It’s therefore strange that Tony Wood and others such as Bjorn Lomborg, whom Wood effectively parrots, fail to see the benefit from programs and incentives to encourage deployment…etc
Wrong 2: The poor have suffered from solar’s rise.
Wood’s paper repeatedly suggests that the solar subsidies have come at the expense of the poor, playing on people’s concerns about fairness. Yet in reality the cost is likely to have come at the expense of the shareholders in large electricity generators such as China Light and Power, GDF Suez, Mitsui and AGL. The other group bearing the brunt of the cost is likely to be the wealthy living in inner urban suburbs who don’t install solar systems and tend not to shop around amongst power retailers….(HUH)
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/5/26/policy-politics/3-reasons-grattan-got-it-wrong-solar
guess there’s no need for this program then!
22 May: San Francisco Chronicle: David R. Baker: Low-income homeowners get free solar panels thanks to cap & trade
A new California program, however, aims to make solar power available to lower-income families — using money from the state’s fight against global warming.
Run by Oakland nonprofit Grid Alternatives, the effort will install home solar arrays in disadvantaged neighborhoods, using $14.7 million raised through California’s cap-and-trade system for reining in greenhouse gas emissions. That system forces factories, power plants, oil refineries and other large businesses to buy credits for every ton of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases they pump into the atmosphere…
“It helps me and my family a great deal to have low-cost energy, because these energy prices are really expensive,” said London, 46, whose solar array was installed this week. “And I wanted to do my part. It’s clean, green energy.”…
(Kiante) London had wanted a solar array for years, but couldn’t afford it on his income as a merchant seaman — roughly $70,000 per year. Even leasing programs offered by such companies as SolarCity and Sunrun were too expensive, he said. The new program, in contrast, paid the entire up-front cost of his array…
The arrays will save most homeowners $400 to $1,000 per year on electricity, depending on where they live…
“These investments will bring energy savings, they’ll bring quality jobs, and they’ll also bring environmental benefits where they’re needed the most,” said state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, who wrote the 2012 law.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Low-income-homeowners-get-free-solar-panels-6281762.php
of course, this program is not quite what it seems to be, tho it’s already adding to everyone’s costs by forcing industry to buy “carbon” credits.
to be continued.
30
AGL and Origin have come out publically against the RET in several forums over the past few years.
Small wonder as this report by of all groups “Get Up” shows, they may be expanding their rhetoric on renewables in public but they are expanding their generation from conventional sources faster in private. Of course they would, its called business!
3MB PDF
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.getup.org.au%2FDirtyThree&ei=TzdkVZfFNoul8QWojYLwAg&usg=AFQjCNGJXJ5HgHzU5PAUNnpxxaQuVR61iw&sig2=KS3DBGEH-Xskc59aJ-zTNg
That report will be music to Tony from Oz’s ears, its basically a full colour glossy explanation of how completely the green energy agenda has failed in Australia.
Good on Get Up for producing it, love their work lol.
30
what’s not said about Grid Alternatives:
“Once the solar system is installed, the homeowner pays GRID Alternatives two cents for every kilowatt-hour that the solar panels produce” – (SolarEnergy.net).
Yingli (China) provides “a combination of donated modules and modules purchased from Yingli at fair market value” to Grid Alternatives -(Yingli solar website)
Grid Alternatives: Who We Are: In 2008, GRID Alternatives was selected by the California Public Utilities Commission to serve as the statewide program manager for its $162 million Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) incentive program, the country’s first dedicated solar rebate for low-income families.
White House goes big on solar! Grid Alternatives is present for the announcement. LOL.
9 May: GreenTechMedia: Eric Wesoff: White House Finally Goes Solar; Obama Preaches Efficiency and Jobs at Wal-Mart
It’s official: There is a 6.3-kilowatt American-made solar system on the White House roof.
Obama announced commitments from hundreds of public and private companies and organizations including Home Depot, Ikea, Yahoo, Google, Lennar Homes and Goldman Sachs to push solar energy and energy efficiency. The commitments amount to 850 megawatts of solar power, according to a press release…
***“We’re thrilled to see the president taking so much leadership around solar deployment,” said Erica Mackie, CEO and co-founder of GRID Alternatives, who participated in today’s presidential announcement in Mountain View. “We will continue to work with the administration to ensure that our most economically vulnerable and underserved communities are included in our nation’s transition to clean energy.”…
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/White-House-Finally-Goes-Solar-Obama-Preaches-Efficiency-and-Jobs-at-Wal-M
btw PV Magazine reported in February:
“Google has today shattered its previous renewable energy investment record by announcing it has poured $300 million into SolarCity’s $750 million fund for residential solar PV projects.
The announcement dwarfs Google’s $280 million investment in SolarCity in 2011.”
SolarCity’s leasing arrangements are more expensive than Grid Alternatives.
30
I, umm, wonder how many of you are interested in this: (my bolding)
I actually went looking for information on this, and hey I want one of those systems.
They calculated the total power generated on a clear and sunny long Summer’s day ….. and then multiplied that by 365 to give them a total yearly generation. (Talk about fuzzy maths eh!)
This 6.3KW system on the roof of The White House will deliver its power (45KWH per day if you don’t mind, according to their own calculation) at a Capacity Factor of, and wait for it ….. a tick over 30%, which is far and away the single most incredible Solar PV system ever manufactured.
Then, chasing down the White House Power yearly power consumption, I found that to come in at 860,000KWH. (around the same as for 120 average homes)
So, using their own data, this means that this absolutely wonderful rooftop panel system delivers 1.9% of the White House power consumption.
Now, if the Maths was actually done correctly, and the true figures were worked out, this system would deliver 0.8% of the White House power consumption.
Oh, I’m so impressed.
Tony.
100
As we have discussed Tony. I have spreadsheets on our home solar performance and the best it has ever done is 50% of our consumption for a handful of days in mid summer, the rest of the time it produces about 15-30% of its capacity on average. We are a family of 2 (and cat) we average 40kwh per day usage and draw at a rate of about 2kwh at any given time.
So if anyone thinks things like the Tesla Batteries are the answer, again some basic math is required.
1. You will need solar generation in excess of your usage in order to charge your shiny batteries. For most people this will be a BIG system.
2. You will be producing during the day and charging your batteries only from the excess of your usage. Assuming there is any.
3. If your not producing more than you use, you will be charging your batteries from the mains at peak rates (HAHAHAHAHAH, gotta love that)
4. At night you will discharge your expensive peak rate power into a time period you don’t use when mains rates are cheap (insert second laughing fit here)
So you will need to spend about 20K ish on panels for a family of 4. Then around 30-50k on batteries to get enough storage and delivery capacity for that level of use. So that’s 50k (minimum) to go “off the grid” which you wont be anyway. A family of 4 would use around $1000 – $1200 per Qtr on average, so its around 8-10 years of power bills to set up. By which time your installation will be obsolete 5 times over.
Its truly a lifestyle choice for inner city lefties with a guilt complex over being human and nothing more.
40
When David Viner, senior scientist at the Climate Research Unit in 2010 said “Snow falls are a thing of the past” the meaning was plain.
For Vertessy to suggest he simply meant that cold weather was a thing of the past across the planet is insulting. Of course it will still snow on Everest.
As for the old red herring of the jet stream to explain everything, it was used in the 1970s, to support global cooling.
The real question is why is Vertessy so much on the side of Global Warming? With 1749 employees and a budget of $300Million at a cost of $171,000 per person, we deserve better than I am not familiar and I reject and defending the IPCC. If Maurice Newmann can be on top of the topic, why not the man paid to be on top it?
Then you get activism from the BOM employees who want a pay rise, not having had one since June 2013. It must be tough.
24 April 2015 “Public servants at the Bureau of Meteorology are planning to bring MPs and Senators down to earth by denying weather forecasts to Canberra Airport at times when the politicians are descending on the national capital.”
Sell the BOM.
81
Don’t forget that the new Lloyd study of ice cores over the last 8,000 years showed a standard deviation of temp every 100 years of about 1C. The IPCC states that the temp has risen by 0.85c since 1900 ( 115 years) so we are already behind the standard rise or fall over most of the Holocene. Note the last sentence states the the major portion of temp increase over the last 100 years was NATURAL VARIABILITY. BTW this bloke is a former IPCC lead author as well. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the last 100 years of climate or temp at all.
Here is the study. http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
And here is the abstract or summary————
Abstract
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
61
After watching Larissa Waters interview of the B.O.M.’s Rob Vertessy one can only say that his comments/replies to her questions were ‘piss weak’.
SDrry about the language.A first year science student could have done better.
It must have been an embarrassment (for the greens) to watch the head of Australia’s top scientific body waving his arms about as he tried to explain the effects of the Jet Stream in the Northern hemisphere “which wanders around a hell of a lot more latitudinally than it used to”.
And this is global wearming?! Is that his best explanation?!
He then continues to wave his hands about(as though this will strengthen his arguments)saying that this is all part of the global climate system.
It seems to me that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Totally unconvincing waffle – just smoke and mirrors stuff!
Geoff Williams
Sydney
60
After watching Larissa Waters interview of the B.O.M.’s Rob Vertessy one can only say that his comments/replies to her questions were ‘piss weak’.
Sorry about the language.A first year science student could have done better.
It must have been an embarrassment (for the greens) to watch the head of Australia’s top scientific body waving his arms about as he tried to explain the effects of the Jet Stream in the Northern hemisphere “which wanders around a hell of a lot more latitudinally than it used to”.
And this is global wearming?! Is that his best explanation?!
He then continues to wave his hands about(as though this will strengthen his arguments)saying that this is all part of the global climate system.
It seems to me that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Totally unconvincing waffle – just smoke and mirrors stuff!
Geoff Williams
Sydney
70
The biggest storm on earth, just across the gap.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11454421
20
Yet more evidence of “global warming”!!
30
This can’t be correct. The Queensland Premier, Amnesia Palacechick has told everyone that Brisbane had the worst storm evvaaaahhhhh only 4 weeks ago.
71
It can safely be regarded as a global cooling signal.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Natural-cycles-and-HADCRUT4.jpg
20
One for TonyfromOz – I was in Kamppi, Helsinki the other day and there was a big outdoor display for “renewable” energy.
The wind farm proponents claimed that in Finland wind power efficiency was “over 25%”, supposedly rebutting my claim that it was less than. They did not however give a number.
I do not believe it.
50
don’t let facts get in the way:
25 May: Swissinfo: John Heilprin: Climate, extreme weather top concerns at global weather congress
Weather experts from around the world began convening in Geneva on Monday for a congress where Swiss Interior Minister Alain Berset emphasized the need to reduce .e impact of natural disasters and climate change.
Organizers of the congress, held by the World Meteorological Organization once every four years, say it will focus on how to strengthen weather and climate services to meet the needs of a growing global population and to cope with climate variability and change, extreme weather and related shocks on all socio-economic sectors…
***“As the global thermostat continues to rise, meteorological services are more essential than ever,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. He urged attendees to prepare compelling videos about the dangers of an overheated planet ahead of the Paris conference “so that all understand the stakes involved.”
Michel Jarraud, the WMO’s secretary-general, says the congress that runs through June 12 must build greater international cooperation and investment in weather and climate observations and services. They are essential, he says to boosting resilience to weather and climate, promoting sustainable development and helping humanity cope with the changing climate…
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/weather-report_climate–extreme-weather-top-concerns-at-global-weather-congress/41450128
26 May: GMA: AFP: UN chief seeks ‘global action’ on climate change this year
“This year governments will make major decisions on sustainable development and climate change. 2015 must be a time for global action,” he (Ban Ki-Moon) added…
WMO head Michel Jarraud said the congress must buttress cooperation and investment in weather and climate observations and services.
“So far in 2015, as in preceding years, weather-related disasters have destroyed or disrupted millions of lives and livelihoods,” Jarraud said.
“The great majority of natural disasters are related to weather, climate and water,” he said.
“WMO already has an important role to play and this will become increasingly important in the future,” said Jarraud, who is stepping down next year after three terms, and whose successor will be chosen at this congress.
“We have more than a responsibility. We have a ***moral duty to take action to limit climate change. If we don’t do it, we will be judged by our children and our grandchildren.”…
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/493042/scitech/science/un-chief-seeks-global-action-on-climate-change-this-year
10
The Germans once knew engineering, too right
Then they decided that models had insight
Now when the wind does not blow
The power does not flow
And the carbon still increases each night.
80
Nice try! But it’s not quite iambic pentameter!
20
Well damn
Iamb
Iamb
Im samb
Iamb
Sorry, I had to look it up.
I was more thinking of
but, as you can see, I’m struggling just to be mildly entertaining while being relevant.
60
Ignore him. You don’t even have to rhyme these days to be a poet (wouldn’t ya know it).
30
Take note folks! Thats what too much truck driving and Callair driving does to some people!
20
Where’s my towel?
40
Vertessy Makes Stuff Up
“The theory of global warming does not hold that there will be no cold weather anywhere,” Dr Vertessy said.
“And in fact there’s evidence to suggest that global warming will actually intensify the onset of some cold weather.”
Canberra Times
70
don’t throw up:
26 May: Guardian: AAP: Kevin Rudd: US, China and India key to tackling climate change
In an op-ed piece for the New York Times, the former Australian prime minister lays out approach required to ensure success at Paris summit
“First, the United States and China must rapidly increase collaboration on climate change both within and beyond the framework of the Paris conference,” Rudd said.
This should include tougher environmental and energy regulation, a price on pollution and greater investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and technological innovation.
India also had a key role, he said, as it would pass China’s population in the next decade and Delhi already had air pollution levels comparable to Beijing.
Rudd said coal was likely to remain the major fuel for energy generation in China and India through to mid-century.
“Investment must continue to focus on clean-coal technologies and shale-gas conversion.”…
Copenhagen had been a failure despite the best efforts of leaders, he said.
The Paris conference was “the next opportunity for leaders of the world’s biggest economies to show real leadership in the slow-motion drama that is anthropogenic climate change”.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/26/kevin-rudd-us-china-and-india-key-to-tackling-climate-change
definitely campaigning to be the next head of the UN:
25 May: NYT: Kevin Rudd: Paris Can’t Be Another Copenhagen
The United States and China, the world’s biggest polluters, began tackling climate change together when they announced an agreement last November to curb carbon emissions. The United States promised to double the speed at which it will reduce carbon emissions, aiming for a 26-to-28 percent reduction by 2025 from 2005 levels, while China pledged to peak emissions by around 2030.
Meanwhile, India and China issued a joint statement on climate change earlier this month that included a pledge to submit plans on their own carbon targets before the Paris conference…
Five years ago, such joint announcements by the United States, China and India were seen as inconceivable. Now climate science makes them unavoidable.
The mathematical reality is that these three countries — the United States, China and India — together with the European Union, will in large part shape the future of the planet…
But China and India fear that radical action on greenhouse gas emissions will significantly reduce economic growth in a time when poverty reduction remains a national priority. We in the West cannot simply wave this problem away as if it is not our concern as well…
India will be one of the states hardest hit by climate change, with increased coastal flooding and melting Himalayan glaciers…
(Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia, is president of the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/opinion/kevin-rudd-paris-cant-be-another-copenhagen.html?_r=0
50
26 May: LiveMint: Utpal Bhaskar: Japan ready to finance India’s coal-fuelled projects
With India’s electricity demand to double to 2 trillion units, coal-powered generation to remain the mainstay
At a time when multilateral funders such as the World Bank have stopped supporting coal-fuelled power projects, Japanese lending institutions and banks are willing to help India’s quest for providing power to people still living without electricity.
Of India’s installed power generation capacity of 267,637 MW, 61.73%, or 165,235.88 MW, is fuelled by coal.
With the country’s demand for electricity expected to double to 2 trillion units in the next five years, coal-powered generation will remain the mainstay in its energy mix.
Experts say by not lending to coal-fired projects, funders are keeping the poor away from a cheap source of electricity…
Power, coal and renewable energy minister Piyush Goyal said on 15 May that he has held meetings with Japanese institutions and they are keen to finance the coal-based thermal power plants.State-owned NTPC Ltd, has received 25.8 billion yen in loans from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)…
In response to a query about institutions, such as the World Bank, not financing coal-fuelled projects, Goyal said: “Whatever is required is available. I have so far not found any stress. Even if one or two bodies are not willing to finance, there are others who are very keen to finance. The Japanese, for instance, are very keen to finance coal power. Money is not a problem in our country. There is enough and more available for coal industry.”…
While a JBIC spokesperson declined to comment, Shinya Ejima, chief representative, JICA India office, said his institution may finance such projects if they use clean coal technologies.
India is planning to set up a bulk of its capacity on supercritical and advanced ultra-supercritical equipment, which are more efficient…
Anil Razdan, a former power secretary, said: “The multilateral institutions should give loans for coal-fuelled projects as long as they use clean coal technologies. By not doing so, they are keeping the poor away from cheaper source of electricity. In a situation where expansion of hydro and nuclear power is not happening for various reasons, coal-based power is possibly the only alternative, given the high price volatility and availability issues for gas-fuelled projects.”
India’s per capita power consumption, about 940 kilowatt-hour (kWh), is among the lowest in the world…
As part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s plan of achieving energy security, 1.5 billion tonnes (bt) of coal is expected to be mined in the country by 2020.
India’s power sector is the biggest consumer of coal, absorbing 78% of local production.
http://www.livemint.com/Industry/rICaaV1xd6IDhIHYbBJ9cJ/Japan-ready-to-finance-Indias-coalfuelled-projects.html
meanwhile, ABC is (once again) pushing not-for-profit social business, Pollinate Energy, which has sold 7,000 lights at $30 each, so that poor Indians can charge their mobile phones!
26 May: ABC Foreign Correspondent: Let There Be Light
India’s economy is hurtling along even faster than China’s, yet a third of its population – about 400 million people – still live without electricity.
So, in the absence of power, every night in the sprawling shanty-towns of India’s cities, the air fills with the dense smoke of kerosene used for lighting and cooking.
For the slum-dwellers, the smoke is a killer – equivalent to consuming up to two packs of cigarettes a day.
But now a small group of Australians have ventured into the slums to offer what they say is a safe and simple solution – portable solar-powered lights…
“We basically decided that if we wanted to solve this huge problem it had to be a business solution. You just can’t give away 400 million lights.” KAT KIMMORLEY, Pollinate Energy Co-founder
The lights sold by Australia’s Pollinate Energy don’t come cheap by Indian standards. But they’re proving popular…
26 May: ABC: Australian solar company Pollinate Energy brings light to slums of India
The lights cost about $30 each — a lot of money for people who earn a few dollars a day. The company allows customers to pay in instalments…
The lights are popular — the company has sold more than 7,000…And that is partly because they double as a phone charger.
“We discovered that the customers would pay double what they would pay for a solar light for a solar-powered phone charger,” Ms Kimmorley said…
Facebook: Pollinate Energy
comment:
Tremendous result last night at The Funding Network Australia’s event in Sydney, with $27,600 pledged in support of our work in #Kolkata!…
comment: In a week when activists are trying to #raisetheheat on CommBank’s funding one of the world’s biggest carbon bombs in QLD, I’m sure the irony of the CommBank promotion is not lost on you.
https://www.facebook.com/PollinateEnergy
Pollinate Energy’s website has About page for Supporting Businesses and Organisation. Thomson Reuters is a Pro Bono Supporter. this little group gets masses of MSM coverage, has already won 2 UN Awards and is a finalist for 2 Australian Social Enterprise Awards in Melbourne on 3rd June.
this week they raised funds at a Commonwealth Bank Funding Network event, while CAGW anti-coal fanatics protested at the Bank!
20
I’ve been given a bit of grief for not understanding the law of large numbers. Philip Sheehan has posted here and on Andrew Bolt’s blog, ad nauseum, the reasons for estimating the uncertainty in temperature trends 2-3 larger than you would normally so that the pause is a myth. Ironically, (for I doubt that he noticed) its a better argument for why there is no significant trend in the heat content of the oceans even if there are a million data points.
40
26 May: Straits Times: David Fogarty: Asean’s quest for power: At what price? Region’s choice of fossil or renewable energy will affect climate-change fight
To most of its South-east Asian neighbours, Singapore’s electricity grid is the stuff of dreams. Reliable power to every home and abundant supply to industries that keep the economy growing and provide plenty of jobs. Blackouts on any scale are almost unheard of.
Not so in many other parts of the region. One in five of Southeast Asia’s 600 million people does not have access to electricity. Chronic power shortages and blackouts blight some of the region’s most populous nations, stifling economic growth…
South-east Asia needs power, and lots of it, very quickly. But in the rush to build new power stations, it faces a stark choice, one that the United Nations, green groups and energy analysts say risks long-term consequences for the region and the planet …
But the UN and others say a huge roll-out of coal power could lock in decades of rising carbon dioxide pollution – CO2 is the main greenhouse gas blamed for climate change – while huge hydro dams, such as those planned for the Mekong river basin, disrupt farming and fishing and risk wiping out many species…
“Over the next two decades, 65 per cent of the (global) growth in energy consumption is going to come from South-east Asia,” Ms Christiana Figueres, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, told The Straits Times in a recent interview.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) says power generation is set to nearly triple in South-east Asia between 2011 and 2035, with fossil fuels providing most of the energy. It says if current energy policies remain, the region’s carbon emissions will double to 2.3 billion tonnes, making it among the world’s top greenhouse-gas emitters.
What the region decides on energy policy now will set the tone for the global fight against climate change, Ms Figueres said…
Ms Athena Ballesteros, Director, Finance Centre, of the Washington-based World Resources Institute, told The Straits Times that investments in coal-fired power stations do not make sense when you add up the long-term environmental and health costs…
That means energy investments to feed megacities need careful planning. But that can be a tough message for a leader like Indonesian President Joko Widodo, who faces an urgent mission to, literally, deliver power to the people. Mr Joko has announced a 35,000MW power plant programme – more than half of which will be coal fired – by 2019…
He said only 16 per cent of Indonesians had secure access to electricity…
Coal remains king for power generation and, based on current plans, it will account for almost 60 per cent of the increase in the region’s power supply to 2040, Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Chief Economist and Director of Global Energy Economics, told The Straits Times in an e-mail interview…
“Local communities don’t want to have the same fate as people already affected by coal power plants,” said Mr Arif Fiyanto, Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner in Jakarta. “President Jokowi should lead an energy revolution in Indonesia,” he said…
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/more-asia-stories/story/aseans-quest-power-what-price-20150526
plenty of lecturing between the excerpts above.
20
Why cant these 3rd world despotisms realise we have already eaten all the cake. There IS NO CAKE!!
Jeeebus how may times do they have to be told.
60
Tonight the local weather presenter made the announcement from NASA that the first four months of the year were the hottest four months “EVAH”. I can’t find confirmation at WUWT at this stage so I am not sure if this guy is correct.
30
Lawrie, the Global Satellite lower tropospheric temperature from UAH shows that the hottest four months since recording began in December 1978 was 2.53 deg C for Jan to April, 1998, due to the prominent El Nino at that time. For comparison, the four month to April 2015 was 0.62 deg C, the minimum was -1.62deg C to October 1985 and the average temperature over four months has been 0.023 deg C.
I suspect that climate commentators and scientists no longer know how to look up actual data from the real world.
01
Explanation – note that these are relative values taken by summing over each four month period.
00
Everyone should take note that the Left have been salivating over the prospect of an El Nino this summer. If we get a dry and therefore hotter summer expect the leftist media and captured government agencies such as the BOM and CSIRO to go in hard with the scare tactics.
20