And so the adjustments war ramps up a notch.
There are two main groups that use essentially the same NASA and NOAA satellites to estimate global temperatures. In the last year, they’ve both made adjustments, one down, and one up, getting further apart in their estimates. In ClimateWorld this is a big deal. Believers are excited that now a satellite set agrees a bit better with the maligned “hot” surface thermometers. But UAH still agrees more with millions of weather balloons. The debate continues. Here’s my short synopsis of the Roy Spencer (and John Christy) from the “Comments on the new RSS lower tropospheric temperature set.” (If something is wrong here, blame me).
The Bottom Line:
1. Both data-sets show far less warming than what climate models estimate. UAH shows +0.12 C/decade, the new RSS trend is up to +0.17 C/decade. But climate models estimate +0.27 C/decade in the lower troposphere.
2. The headline suggesting that the RSS revisions found “140% faster warming since 1998” is the usual hype. The warming trend was tiny to start with. The headlines didn’t tell us that RSS is now warming a few hundreds of a degree per decade faster, because “who cares”?
Five reasons UAH is different to RSS
- UAH agrees with millions of calibrated weather balloons released around the world. RSS now agrees more with surface data from equipment placed near airports, concrete, airconditioners and which is itself wildly adjusted.
- In the latest adjustments UAH uses empirical comparisons from satellites that aren’t affected by diurnal drift to estimate the errors of those that are. RSS starts with model estimates instead.
- Two particular satellites disagree with each other (NOAA-14 and 15). The UAH team remove the one they think is incorrect. RSS keeps both inconsistent measurements.
- Diurnal drift probably created artificial warming in the RSS set prior to 2002, but created artificial cooling after that. The new version of RSS keeps the warming error before 2002, but fixes the error after then. The upshot is a warmer overall trend.
- UAH uses a more advanced method with three channels. RSS is still using the original method Roy Spencer and JohnChristy developed with only one channel (which is viewed from three angles).
The Future — more good data will be adjusted to match bad data
In January Roy Spencer predicted that RSS would be revised upwards, that he and John Christy would not be asked to review the paper (despite them being the longest running experts in this area), it would sail through peer review quickly, and would have multiple authors. Roy was right on almost all of that. h/t to Tony Heller at RealClimateScience.
Roy now predicts that the radiosondes will be adjusted to “agree” with the RSS version. This pattern of good data series being adjusted to agree with bad ones is a continuation of what happened to surface thermometers, where the worst sites are not removed from the series, but used to adjust the better sites.
All these points have finer details, which I’ll try to summarize below, but Roy Spencer’s blog is the place to read it all.
Diurnal Drift
Some satellites have no propulsion unit to keep them strictly in their orbits. And so they slide — gradually measuring the same bits of Earth at different times of day. Obviously, that needs a correction (or better yet, since life on Earth depends on climate change maybe we should use some wind farm money to build more of the better type of satellite?)
Because climate models are known to not represent the diurnal cycle to the accuracy needed for satellite adjustments, we decided long ago to measure the drift empirically, by comparing drifting satellites with concurrently operating non-drifting (or nearly non-drifting) satellites. Our Version 6 paper discusses the details.
RSS instead decided to use climate model estimates of the diurnal cycle, and in RSS Version 4 are now making empirical corrections to those model-based diurnal cycles. (Generally speaking, we think it is useful for different groups to use different methods.)
There is lots more at Roy Spencers…
In matters of the politics of power, who votes is not so important as who counts the votes. The same is true of the politics measurement. Who makes the measurement is not so important as who reports them.
As always, truth is the first casualty in the battle to achieve and maintain political power. Science is only a thin screen intended to hide the real workings behind the scene.
293
A facade of Climate Science protected by a figleaf ‘peer review’ & illusion of 97% consensus.
334
I’m beginning to believe that is true of all power plays across the world at all levels; from local club presidents to the EU/UN.
82
The great thing about “mawdels” is you can keep dissing them to justify keeping adjusting them in line with whatever floats your boat, as
Andrew Dessler Clearly demonstrates.
135
Your link, has Dessler but also Mann and Santer, (yikes!)
telling us not to trust the satellite data.While Spencer
has spoken of drift issues affecting satellite measurement,
Mann/ Santer have been less than open in showing their own
processes re land temperature measurements.
263
That was the hit piece done about 18 months ago on the Satellite Data which was clearly bothering the Alarmeratti & so needing some serious attention. Has Carl Mears been working flat out ever since for a plausible adjustment to bring that embarrassing Satellite data in line?
153
Hit piece is a good description Eddie.
Mann at his best,(worst.)
32
beththeserf,
Anyone knows that tree ring measurements from petrified trees are far more accurate than balloon and satellite measurements!!
61
Yes toorightmate, everybody knows
that’s how it goes.
An ode to climatology revisited.
We’re clever specializers
In the art of tree-ring-ology,
We’re very highly specialized
In modelling futurology,
We’re really rather good at,
Yes, we’re good at hind-castology
And upside down-Tiljander,
Such a tricky methodology.
Now you skeptics think
Our measurements
Perverse and upside-downery,
But we’re very, very good at,
Yes, we’re very, very good at,
Oh we’re really very good at,
Getting money from the guvuhmint.
91
“Mann/ Santer have been less than open in showing their own
processes re land temperature measurements.”
Neither of them take temperature measurements, and both of them publish their research same as any other scientist.
Why on earth do you need to make up lies about them like this?
32
Many people have speculated what caused the pause, the real reason of course is they ran out of excuses to adjust the data.
Recently we have seen some novel approaches to this dilemma firstly we had the Rejection of ARGO for ship intake temps, then we had the BOM adjusting the raw data before it was adjusted and now we have RSS after 20 odd years suddenly recognising orbital decay.
If these people worked at a bank they would get 20 years, instead they get accolades. I do not believe we can stop them, our only hope lies with mother nature and her grand solar minimum. Only then will this madness end as no one will accept their hottest year evah claims when they a standing knee deep in perma frost
404
Totally agree, nothing short of a Gleissberg Minimum will bring them to their senses, but in the meantime we should ignore satellite data and concentrate only on balloons.
132
Thank goodness for Drs Spencer & Christy and their data product UAH. Without them here would be no improved satellite data to contrast with RSS. Furthermore, They pioneered in obtaining temperature from satellite data.
And, thanks Jo for this article, it is good to have this information for future reference/use.
112
JoNova.
Well at least you are not denying the global warming – both the UAH and RSS datasets show evidence for global warming.
And you have gotten over your “adjustment” phobia, the UAH dataset has been adjusted over time, sometimes by a lot. Much acceptance of adjustments then.
You will have to explain why you feel Dr Spencer and Dr Christy are more trustworthy than other climate scientists.
It’s not surprising Dr Spencer “predicted” the upwards revision. UAH and RSS pretty much work with the same satellite data and troposphere climate model. He was probably also aware of the RSS changes well in advance as they have been worked on for some time.
849
Harry the subtropical ridge has intensified and according to BoM its already too late to save our grandchildren from hell on earth, which is a comforting thought.
164
el gordo.
What a weird subject change. Any actual comments about my post?
515
We are splitting hairs over temperature data, while the biggest global warming signal in the world is staring us in the face.
62
Twotter,
Weather balloons….
154
The radiosondes show global warming as well, good point.
316
Consistent with natural variation – good point!
93
WHich forcing would it be that cold be causing the current upward temperature variation? Insolation? Something else…?
614
Could it be any of the forcings responsible for historic warming periods,or a combination of them?
50
Gosh, maybe somebody should look into it?
Do we know of any forcings that have applied in the past and which apply today?
513
‘Do we know of any forcings that have applied in the past and which apply today?’
–
And the relative intensities too, my word!
40
Wow Craig T has done enough thread bombing today that groups in the Middle East are certain to be interested in his talents.
What amazes me most is that people still feed trolls.
40
Nope.
63
That’s actually quite funny, James, considering…the published radiosonde data shows warming….
510
Natural variation is not man-made global warming.
So, Craig, just show me the man-made bits…
92
Sure.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/climate-forcing/Radiative_Forcing_Components_IPCC_AR4.png/image_large
As you can see, there are man-made forcings of the warming as well as the cooling variety. As well as some non-man-made forcings.
Consider them as vectors.
As with vectors, add them all up to get the net forcing.
Compare the size of each vector to figure out the extent of each of the forcings’ contribution to the net effect.
You’d be disappointed if a Year8 student didn’t get it within about 60 seconds.
414
Um no, the forcings / feedbacks have a time dimension, and are non linear and variant ( the same forcing doesn’t always have the same effect due to for example hysteresis) you can’t add them at all!
92
Mm yum, word salad.
411
Hmm, alright, you don’t “do” mathematics then! Sorry climate science requires that you can handle some high school math including whether the functions are stationary and independent and synchronised without hysteresis…. if you are not prepared to do the math them I don’t see why anyone should bother with you!
112
Ooo, nice pretty picture, with colours, and lines, and everything.
I have a computer package that can do that too. Really neat fun to play with.
But the thing that it lacks is any way to explain the real science, and the causal relationships behind the numbers that are behind the pretty colours and lines.
Epic fail Craig. You are all spin and no facts.
And, before you complain, that is not an argument against the man, just an assessment of evidence to date.
62
James said he didn’t know what the man-made bits were. Now he knows.
Bobl doesn’t like to consider these forcings as vectors because they are “non linear and variant” (whatever that means) and yet in the text of the report that accompanies that graphic – not to mention in all the published research into forcings – the term “net forcing” is used.
“Net forcing” means that all the forcings have been added up. Just like vectors.
The interdependence and variability is Bobl’s red herring which I doubt very much anybody else is going to be confused about: the IPCC graphic makes no claim that these are universal, constant forcings, and the text that accompanies it specifically anchors it in time.
411
Rereke – the fact you need radiative forcing explained to you – yet again – implies no failing on *my* part.
You could always research this stuff *before* posting here, and blaming others for your lack of knowledge is laughable.
If you want to understand radiative forcing, you could try:
http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-radforce-0309
Although there are many, many other places where you could correct this glaring lacuna in your knowledge.
412
Other than the nice labels, there is nothing that identifies any of those materials as “man made.” And, astonishingly CO2 has a greater effect than the sun apparently. The amount natural CO2 in the mix would have to be identified as a “natural” CO2, and then contrasted with the anthropogenic. The same goes for methane, nitrogen and ozone. As graphs go, that link is pretty bad and mostly handwaving.
72
Craig,
Yep, now show me the bit of the CO2 forcing that is man-made. I calculate that it is about .01x.03 of the .04 CO2 red bit on your chart.
BTW your chart makes .04% look awfully big – did you do that on purpose to scare people or to impress the girls?
93
Craig, learn some basic math.
To add vectors the values (vectors) they have to be independent of each other (not a function of each other) – which is not the case, invariant IE the same forcing gives the same result, for example if you reduce the forcing on a hot thing or increase the forcing on a cold thing they must reach the same temperature (Which is also not the case), be time invariant, the forcings (feedbacks) must have the same behaviour over time (which they don’t, ocean evaporative feedback takes days and months while surface emission feedback takes seconds), and they must be linear, a unit rise in forcing gives a proportional rise in temperature (which is also not true) a unit rise in forcing gives a rise in temperature related to the cube root of the forcing. Not to mention temperatures over 33 degrees causing cloud formation over water, a saturation effect that is far from linear.
Fact is that a scalar model (which is what the climate models are) cannot predict the behaviour of a system that has hysteresis (behavioural variance), non linearities, or has feedbacks that differ in delay (timing). The Climate feedback equation is drawn (inappropriately) from Electrical Engineering and therefore any EE that thinks about this knows it’s wrong because the failure to observe these rules mean that even amplifiers that have negative feedback can oscillate. Ones that have positive feedback like you claim for the climate are certain to oscillate, and the climate isn’t oscillating
You can’t see this because your understanding of science and maths is too primitive. Learn the mathematics then you can talk, meanwhile your talk is so much unscientific drivel.
20
Harry,
As always, the critical issue with any adjustment is that it must have a basis in science. As our understanding of the science improves, adjustments can be made. At every change, and UAH is now up to version 6.0, the rationale for changes is published, allowing both peer review prior to publication, and public debate following publication. That way, the scientific basis for historical changes can always be reviewed in light of improved understanding.
That does not apply to the three primary global data sets. Anthony Watts began this debate when he reviewed the quality of ground temperature raw data sets, and the sometimes laughable siting issues of these weather stations in the US. This raw data has been subsequently adjusted, as for example, our own BoM’s ACORN data set, without any public explanation of the scientific rationale for the change. The adjustments can be identified, because the new and raw data are available, but as Ken at Kenskingdom has found, the quality of the new data set is actually much worse than the raw data.
There is no scientific explanation possible for step-wise adjustments of 0.5 or 1.0 degree in historical data. The only purpose it serves is to induce cooling of historical data, to create a human-influenced warming trend over the last century.
Then we have the marvellous global temperature averages, built on three supposedly independent models, but each reliant on global surface data sets. The now infamous Karl 2015 paper that published the adjustment to GISS, cannot be repeated. Not only did Tom Karl breach his own organisation’s publication data quality rules, he failed to publish any data to support the basis of his changes, NOAA has since lost the source code, so it cannot be verified or validated, and then their computer broke, and they cannot recover any of their work. It hardly sounds like the behaviour of highly professional scientists in a publicly funded government run scientific organisation.
And as Tony Heller consistently points out, it is always important to check how these models deal with assumptions, particularly in-filling parts of the world where no raw data exists. Tony has made a name exposing the amount of warming that can be generated without any recourse to science. Just computer code, the analysis of which is his professional area of expertise.
And let’s not forget why all this adjustment has been happening. The consistent intent has been to align surface temperature data sets with climate models. The fact that all data sets are still well short of the heating expected by climate models is a clear indication that the adjusters have run out of “tricks”. And to date, no one has attempted to fix the numerous problems known to exist in these models, as David Evans pointed out on this site years ago. For those of us who understand the science, there is nothing more absurd than the graph Tony Heller keeps publishing that shows the temperature adjustments correlate almost linearly with CO2 increases. Which is of course, one way humans can create climate change.
It’s just not science.
596
Good points, all Pauly.
The other thing that isn’t acknowledged, is that we are not really concerned with discrete temperature measurements per se, but rather the variation in temperature over time.
“Adjusting” historic data, and altering the mechanisms of measurement, all serve to confuse the issue of what is really happening with atmospheric temperature, if anything.
It is all smoke, and mirrors, and dodgy statistics.
326
I’ll add to that,
1. When and how matter, if warming is in the dead of winter or morning minimums then warming is good for us.
If warming is predominately polar and causes polar bears are have to migrate 100 m north or over oceans where no-one lives then I really couldn’t give a rats.
2. The global temp is an average of just 2 points a day of a dirty roughly sinusoidal wave there is no evidence that min+Max/2 represents that wave shape properly. What happens at other points of the day is important especially cloud cover over oceans.
3. The only possibility of negative outcome is maximal warming in diurnal MAXIMUMS over subtropical inland areas in summer which for all intents and purposes isn’t happening. Even the models show more warming in minimums in winter where warming is good ( less frost, longer growing seasons )
164
Rereke Whakaaro.
“Adjusting” historic data, and altering the mechanisms of measurement, all serve to confuse the issue of what is really happening with atmospheric temperature, if anything.”
Why point is when the UAH adjust their datasets, it is OK. But when any other research group does it, it is not OK.
It’s all academic anyway – the UAH dataset shows global warming. I am just happy we have all now accept Global Warming as a fact and can move on.
418
Twotter,
All the data shows is natural variation.
134
How does it do that? Can you describe the attribution?
59
Wow, how about you show the bits you say are man-made.
93
Sure, we here in the Western world developed this thing called “science” Science is pretty cool, especially compared with what we had before we had science.
Here is the science on forcings, with implied attributions.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/climate-forcing/Radiative_Forcing_Components_IPCC_AR4.png/image_large
You’d be disappointed if a Year8 student didn’t get it within about 60 seconds.
413
That’s called the null hypothesis Craig, it’s not up to us to prove its natural, it’s up to you to prove its not! By default, it’s natural. The null hypothesis.
132
We’ve proven it’s not.
Prove we’re wrong.
413
You have proven nothing, because you can’t prove cause and effect. You show it’s warming, but you can’t prove WHY, the null hypothesis is “Natural” so it’s up to you too prove its not… you can’t, no study has ever proven that – it’s a guess
132
In response to your comment at 4.3.1.2.2
Thank you for your admission, in answer to James Bradly, that the “man-made” bits of global warming are caused by Science. It would seem that the cure is worse than the affliction.
And while I have, what passes for your attention, demanding that people prove a negative, as you do in 4.3.1.2.4, is a logical fallacy.
82
Oh, so you guys don’t actually know what attribution is.
Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
There is no negative to be proven – the research on attribution is in, and it shows that anything up to 125% of current warming is man-made.
If you want to claim this isn’t true, it will be up to you to prove it by identifying the errors and presenting an alternative assessment of the climate signals.
I won’t be holding my breath on the off chance that people who don’t understand what “null hypothesis” and “proving a negative” mean somehow stumble on some stunning scientific insight that has been missed by actual smart people with PhDs and long careers of conducting research and publishing it.
412
Bull $hit…
122
The attribution you speak of is a guess based on test tube behaviours applied to the world. The problem is that the world is NOT A TEST TUBE, when you change one thing (say CO2) a plethora of other things change to balance out the change in CO2. For example change CO2 and plants photosynthesise more, because photosynthesis uses photons, more photosynthesis causes more photons to be used which of course causes surface cooling. Which effect “Wins”, the test tube effect, or the real world effect that isn’t in the test tube.
So the so-called scientists guess at the attribution based on correlation, but correlation doesn’t indicate cause and effect, there is no certainty that a particular correlation indicates that cause and effect relationship, that is does is a guess, mere speculation. Indeed ice cores show that warming causes more CO2 rather than CO2 causes warming.
So your attribution means nothing, they are just educated guesses. There are many other more likely educated guesses around but they are all just guesses.
31
You are being obtuse. Open and transparent adjustments that take bad data and adjust it using good data is fine. Closed and opaque adjustments that take good data and adjust it using bad data is not fine.
Is that clear enough for you?
Now we can argue about what data is good or bad, but your adjustment straw man is childish.
93
Pauly said:
Then you’ll enjoy some Real Science , The paper this article reports on, if true, invalidates the models thoroughly. We know from their inability to predict with any accuracy over the last 27 years, that they are invalid anyway, but this rather interesting alternative to the IPCC’s modification of Arrhenius’ hypothesis does an excellent job.
114
Thank you Sophocles.
However, I am not aware of any global circulation model that has successfully completed verification and validation testing. This has been an ongoing issue that climate scientists regularly ignore. So the paper that your article discusses cannot make these models any more invalid.
I am also entirely unaware of any other science that would accept the IPCC’s methodology – knowing that none of the models are valid, let’s take 101 of them, back cast them for “tuning” purposes, run them once, extrapolating for 100 years, aggregate all those entirely different parameters and average the results, and call that evidence.
My experience is a little less prosaic. The world of international aviation relies on accurate forecasts. These are developed by models. They differ from climate models in that they take thousands of actual measurements – temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, captured by surface stations, radiosondes and aircraft in flight – as updated inputs. The forecasts are produced for seven days, but because of the chaotic nature of weather, are updated every six hours. There are 5000 commercial aircraft in the sky at any one time, and not a single pilot amongst them would rely on an out of date forecast.
I’m still waiting to find anyone who makes commercial use of GCM predictions.
112
Pauly.
“As always, the critical issue with any adjustment is that it must have a basis in science.”
You talk a lot. I think you are trying to say the UAH are allowed to do adjustments (many of them in fact), but other research groups are not – strange. And this appears to be based on your own personal beliefs!
Next…
420
Natural variation…
94
No, you can adjust in a way that is scientific, butnot just because you want to. Are you being deliberately stupid or do you really not understand?
74
Spencer’s beliefs are a matter of public record:
“I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution”
613
So?
61
I don’t know. Some people seem to find Spencer’s self-confessed beliefs a mite challenging.
610
‘Some people seem to find Spencer’s self-confessed beliefs a mite challenging’
–
And John Cook’s beliefs too!
74
A faith and education are not mutually exclusive. In fact Issac Newton did more work in the christian theological space than with science, but is better known for his maths work, possibly because people are less comfortable with discussion such a thing in a foolish post modern world….
[And this is a science blog, not religious. So it’s time to let the religious arguments go. Thanks] AZ
11
So what? Knowledge is a matter of method not strength of conviction.
That someone believes something and says so is relevant for that person alone and says NOTHING about the validity of the belief. Mere belief is NOT knowledge no matter how strong the feeling of conviction nor how numerous the believers.
I have long been convinced that there is no creator, no act of will by said creator that caused the creation, and that the theory of evolution is a scientifically valid high level theory about the development of life on earth. There is much to learn about the fine molecular and atomic level details but the general pattern is well known and fully substantiated in the scientific record.
I rely on my own mind and its competence to use the correct method to acquire knowledge. The opinions of others matter only when I deal with them. Even then, my understanding of their opinions are at best an aid in understanding the person and how to communicate with him.
For me it is the method and its correct use that counts. Belief, faith, and feelings of conviction are irrelevant to the matter of actually knowing something.
80
For Additional Information:
Dr. John Christy, (256) 961-7763
john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu
Dr. Roy Spencer, (256) 961-7960
roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu
Global Temperature Report: June 2017
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per
decade
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/june/GTR_june2017.pdf
00
The usual theory of evolution is not enough explanation for the strong genetic changes. Periodically it had to be “revolution” rather than “evolution”.
30
Which is why I have been revolting for years.
31
A witty rejoinder, Rereke. But if you receive a ‘green thumb’ for it, blame Harry Twinotter.
32
I dunno, Rereke. Most who know me tell me I revolting ALL of the time.
20
“…the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis…”
Spencer is talking about science here. And this is the guy you trust with your UAH….
I wonder what Ren imagines is a “strong genetic change”….is it a real thing?
69
10
” Are you being deliberately stupid or do you really not understand?”
Tsk tsk, more attempted insults.
06
er…except Watts declined to publish his research after discovering that it disproved what he’d been saying for years about there being a warming bias.
Oops.
69
Interesting Craig.
If it wasn’t peer reviewed and published, how can you make the claim –
‘… that it disproved what he’d been saying for years about there being a warming bias.’
61
That’s why he didn’t publish it.
He didn’t not publish it because it proved him right, did he?
59
You mean you didn’t derive your claim from the ;
‘peer reviewed literature’? That’s so unlike you Craig!
🙂
61
It’s called metadata. The conclusions you draw when somebody hides their data.
510
And what mechanism did you employ to eliminate the possibility of your own bias?
52
I readily admit my assumptions are twofold:
Watts would publish his results if
a) his research was sound
And
b) they supported his supposition.
Now, I have no doubts whatsoever as to the soundness of research conducted by a unemployed weather girl and based on crowd-sourced photos of weather stations so the obvious conclusion is that all this incredibly sound research resulted in something that challenged the researcher’s predetermined conclusions. Hence no published results.
Let’s just call it common sense on my part.
212
‘Let’s just call it common sense on my part.’
–
or
–
No need for peer reviewed publication if your claims suit your assumptions (and/or vice versa).
41
Craig,
I’m not sure why you attempt to cast doubts that are so easy to refute. Anthony Watts paper was published. A copy is easy to find:
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf
60
That report revealed no evidence supporting Watts’ assertion that station siting affected the temperature record. On the contrary, this is what the thing he published in 2011 said:
“… the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best-sited stations was less than 0.01°C/decade.”
And yet he still carries on about biases in the temperature record. What is he holding back?
510
Do you think it best to adjust specifically designed ARGO bouy temperature data to match ship engine intake temperature data too?
92
Morning Harry,
Since when did we deny that temperature changes, including warming and cooling, triggered by a range of extrinsic phenomena, over significant time-scales?
Do please try to keep up …
275
Harry: you clearly do not understand the difference between adjustment and calibration. Even the simple mercury thermometer does not actually measure temperature, it measures the temperature coefficient of expansion of mercury. It needs to be calibrated to read temperature. This of course is a rather simple process but was still improved upon as science advance from primitive to modern mercury thermometers. This was also the case with electronic thermometers, where stabilisation of circuitry was improved and more stable thermo-couples were developed. This process of improved calibration and circuit stabilisation is not adjustment. Inthe same way the development of satellite microwave sounding technology has been a process. These developments are calibration not temperature adjustments as you suggest, any more thasn improving the calibration of a mecury thermometer is temperature adjustment.
I’m not sure that you will understand this, as your grasp on science does appear limited as is evidenced by the fact that this needs to be explained to you.
265
TedM.
“I’m not sure that you will understand this, as your grasp on science does appear limited as is evidenced by the fact that this needs to be explained to you.”
Yeah good one, an insult. Yawn.
315
Sadly when you ignore the points being made, jeep in presenting assertions as arguments and use strawmen to “prove” you are right, there’s little point in attempting actual debate.
Warming doesn’t prove cause for example.
74
Funny how all these shonky adjustments have managed to convince the Arctic ice to melt away, isn’t it….?
613
And cause the Antarctic ice to increase. By the way have you looked at Greenland ice lately Craig.
84
The latest published research shows that Antartica’s mass increase was a long-term trend.
It also shows that trend is being overtaken by a recent warming (and ice loss) trend.
You *are* keeping up to date with the *science*, Ted?
611
You obviously don’t have the latest research Craig
72
Prove it.
32
I’m sure nobody is surprised that these inmates require spoon feeding.
Here you go boys:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
410
Sorry TedM, my demand for proof was aimed at Craig the Clatterer.
72
Craig said:
It neither shows nor says the mass-gain is `being overtaken by a recent warming trend.‘
The article linked says:
and:
Conflating East and West Antarctica the way you did into one zone is naughty. Careless and wrong.
That ice loss is only occurring in West Antarctica which is highly volcanic. The loss is caused by sub-ice cap volcanic heating, not from any climatic temperature trend either atmospheric nor oceanic as you carelessly tried to imply. Light up a volcano under the ice and guess what? Ice melts.
You got that one wrong Craig. Consider this a smack on your knuckles with your spoon.
Go stand in the corner. I’ll leave you to find the volcanic information as your punishment.
100
Craig,
Tim wrote “Warming doesn’t prove cause for example.” You were unresponsive to the question of causation.
Such unresponsiveness a reasonable indication you have run out of meaningful things to say.
61
You said it Craig. So what’s the mechanism?
And here I thought the Arctic Ice melts when it is convinced to do so by the Gulf Stream current, which is rather warm water.
But now you’re claiming it’s all because of shonky adjustments. Yes, that is funny.
50
No Harry a fact…..smile.
43
HTO – “Well at least you are not denying the global warming – both the UAH and RSS datasets show evidence for global warming.”
–
At least you’re not denying the existence of Climate Variation. (Are you?)
135
Climate varies in response to forcings.
Which forcing is varying our climate today?
69
Good question Craig. You’ve obviously been musing at the paleo record.
61
Well, is a recent upsurge in vulcanism?
A recent increase in insolation?
Or is it some other forcing…?
69
‘Or is it some other forcing…?’
–
Then, or now?
30
“Which forcing is varying our climate today?” should generally be interpreted as meaning “now” and not “then”, provided you correctly assume I wasn’t quoting Polybius.
59
Point taken, Craig.
However, the point that I make in asking ‘then, or now?’,is to highlight the need to compare ‘then to now’. We need to know the forcings then (during an historical period of warming) and the forcings now, to meaningfully assess whether they are similar or different; whether two ostensibly similar warming periods are in fact comparable based on their relative forcings .
50
“Climate varies in response to forcings.
Which forcing is varying our climate today?”
Solar energy!!!!!!!!!!!
50
Really? So solar activity is…..trending in which direction over the last decade or two…?
I assume you knew the answer to this before posting your assertion, and will be able to reference primary sources in support of it?
69
I would definitely vote for Solar forcing.
40
Actually, it doesn’t there is only three significant energy sources (forcings) the sun, the moon and the earth, the other planets and galactic space have minor effects. The rest is just caused by chaos, that energy sloshing from point to point, the emergence of clouds, turbulence, non linear feedback, hysteresis and other water effects, like freezing, and evaporation. All these effects modulate solar and gravity energy effects they are modelled in computers as forcing but they are not forcing, they are effects ( feedback )
The models are an abstraction
70
There is only one significant forcing. The Sun.
Turn off the sun, and that’s it. The climate will totally collapse. So does all life on the planet.
The surface temperature of the planet will drop far below that which would sustain life, very quickly. It would remain somewhere above absolute zero through the gravitational compression of the atmosphere for a very short while, until the gases in the atmosphere liquify and settle to the surface.
While the Sun still warms us, remember that it is a variable star.
30
Atmospheric pressure.
31
Craig writes “Climate varies in response to forcings”. There are three problems with that statement.
First is the misleading definition of forcing in climate alarmism. The idea is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is EQUIVALENT to a change in energy received from the sun. Unfortunately the equivalence is usually lost in conversation.
This leads to the second problem which is the implicit assumption that only things in the atmosphere can meaningfully affect the “forcing”. Changes to land use such as building of cities and laying of bitumen are discarded without reason.
Third, there is the assumption that all feedbacks are positive. This makes anybody who lives in the tropics wonder what alarmists think causes clouds to form in the wet season.
In short Craig, your statement is at best hopelessly inadequate.
81
We never did deny global warming. What we do deny is your cause for alarm.
And I go further to declare the cause for alarm a political and financial scam.
194
No one denies global warming. Or cooling.
Oh, wait, you deny any cooling.
94
What cooling?
John McLean’s “coldest year since 1965”, which never happened?
Or David Evans’ “Force X” which was supposed to deliver record cooling round about now?
Surely noting the fact that those predictions have entirely failed to materialise is simply “observation”, not “denial”?
710
“Or David Evans’ “Force X” which was supposed to deliver record cooling round about now?”
“round about now”. Distorting the facts Craig. To begin from around 2020 if I recall correctly.
42
I do seem to recall the goalposts being moved on this prediction before, so apologies if they’ve wandered off to 2020 while I wasn’t watching.
610
“I … recall the goalposts being moved on this prediction before …”
Prediction are not a contract Craig. It belittles you to pretend that they are, and only so you can to make a childishly petty point, in passing.
82
Hmm…turns out you didn’t “recall correctly”. Here is how it was reported right here in 2014:
“The delay is most likely 11 years, though definitely between 10 and 20 years.
2004 + 11 = 2015.
Eleven years after 2004 is 2015, suggesting the cooling will start in 2015. ”
2015 was, of course, the hottest year on record.
610
“Eleven years after 2004 is 2015, suggesting the cooling will start in 2015. ”
2015 was, of course, the hottest year on record.”
Read what you have written, think really hard – you can screw your eyes up if it helps – then give yourself a slap 🙂
91
Ah- foreshadowing. I love foreshadowing.
I know we are in for another 10 years of “no warming since 2016”
You just never get sick of that shtick, eh?
312
I wasn’t “foreshadowing” anything, simply pointing out that your post looks like the work of someone who is hard of thinking.
101
Picking the latest El Nino peak and spending the following decade declaring “No warming since…” is ludicrous.
The ENSO variation is easily removed from the trend anyway.
There is
a/ No rational reason to be expecting any cooling in the absence of having identified any relevant forcing. (“Force X” came from a model, not an observation).
b/ No sign of any cooling.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2017/mar/enso-bars.198001.201703.png
410
Hmm, the Solar sunspot cycle has a periodicity of approximately eleven years.
The interesting thing about it, is that the solar activity ramps up slowly, and then stops quite abruptly.
Given that the sun is the energy driver for everything, I am surprised that a)the models don’t allow for it; and b) that you would be dumb enough to assume that it would be exactly eleven years, as implied by your statement: “2015 was, of course, the hottest year on record”.
The question I pose you, Craig, is: “Does increased sunspot activity decrease or increase temperatures on Earth, or does it have no effect whatsoever?”
91
OK, I’m going to have to red-card you for this one, Rereke:
“…the models don’t allow for it…”
That is an utterly false assertion.
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-representation-solar-variability-climate.html
Lift your game.
410
You can keep your red card Comrade, I won’t be needing it. But that was a nice attempt at avoidance, all the same.
Had you been keeping up, you might have realized that I was being satirical, when I said that I was surprised.
Especially so, since you seem to assume that that the solar cycle has a periodicity of exactly eleven years: “2004 + 11 = 2015”; is correct arithmetically, but is not necessarily true physically. It is a matter of cause and effect. Now let’s see if you can figure that one out.
82
I didn’t ‘foreshadow’ anything and I didn’t ‘pick’ anything Craig. I simply pointed out that your post seems to indicate that you confuse easily.
91
To become confused, you need to have at least two ideas in your mind at the same time. I fear you overrate Craig’s abilities.
72
Craig, have you ever heard of ice ages?
Have you noticed that even the manufactured single figure global temperature charts for the last 100 years do not monotonically increase?
Oh dear. People do say such dumb things when they don’t think first.
41
The correlation between the arrival of twinotter and the discussion of RSS is at the 97% confidence level.
I wonder how much money “they” pour into the attempts to dismiss one J Nova?
135
One wonders if HTO’s angle is commercial, professional, political or ideological …. Or any combination of these.
95
The answer is: YES but I think you left one out bullocky: he may also be tithing.
The only angle Harry isn’t onto is the right angle.
104
‘..,he may also be tithing.’
–
His irritability could be due to ‘teething’! 🙂
43
Crakar24.
Can you sign my up – who do I send my PayPal account number to? Or do they pay in BitCoin?
I currently debunk JoNova’s childish posts for free when I am bored. But if someone want to pay me, I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
313
HTO: ‘I currently debunk JoNova’s childish posts …’
–
Ah yes, self review; so much more transparent than ‘anonymous peer review’!
53
You get paid per de bunking currently your account balance is zero.
63
Harry, when I was kid, there was a home for imbeciles up the road. It was in Lane Cove.
It was pretty high security (doing their best to keep the priests out, I guess).
Their canteen was on the first floor.
Me and the kid next door used to sneak out of home after dinner and stand outside their canteen windows. We’d attract their attention and then mime ourselves throwing stuff. They’d quickly get the idea and start throwing food at us, and then at each other. Pretty soon there would be a riot.
Not much has changed, just don’t have to leave the house anymore.
613
A quaint anecdote Craig. It appears to have been a defining experience for you.
92
He escaped.
62
The possibility of ‘day leave’ should not be discounted!
🙂
52
Prove it 🙂
20
Craig
That is the biggest load of FAKE news ever
Lane Cove? There was only one Loony Bin there!
Do you remember the name or what it was?
Didn’t think so!
43
Looking at a map, I suspect it was in fact in Greenwich, and, relying on the memory of an 11-year old me, it could have been on Morven Gardens.
Hilariously, Google maps labels it now as being “Waterbrook Greenwich Lifestyle resort”.
Changing it to 3D, I see those are brand new buildings.
610
So it was all a FAKE rant?
You just making it up now Craig!
Night!
72
Slight warming has occurred since 1850 consistent with TSI. In addition it is likely the increase in CO2 is natural. Alarmism is rubbish and has cost $trillions, all wasted, with further waste in renewables the so-called solution to the non-problem.
134
cohenite.
Climate change denier talking point. Yo are not even attempting to have a discussion.
417
Here’s a discussion the temperatures differences are all within Natural Variation…
144
James,
No further discussion/comment on natural variation is allowed.
Natural variation is a thing of the past.It no longer exists!!!
The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.
93
my bad…
34
‘Climate change denier talking point’.
–
Alarmist autocue response; discussion aborted.
64
I made several points:
1 Warming since 1850 is consistent with TSI
2 CO2 increase may be natural
3 Alarmism and renewables have cost trillions
I can’t be plainer then that. Pick one and discuss.
134
1 It is a *correlation* and it ends in 1987. It is an uncontroversial fact that the forcing provided by CO2 is now an order of magnitude higher than the forcing provided by natural variations in TSI, at this stage of our planet’s sidereal cycle.
2 CO2 increase is easily understood by anybody who looks at the earth’s carbon budget to be the result of C released through the use of fossil fuels. If in doubt, isotopic analysis is a clincher.
3 Real economists have published dozens of formal studies that show that mitigating climaet change is a good long term investment. What have you got? Foot stomping on blogs as usual?
What is truly shocking, Cohenite, is that your misbegotten amateur opinions have been corrected numerous times by better-informed and well-qualified people who have gone so far as to point you in the direction of materials that would enable you to form better educated opinions, and yet you persist in repeating the same nonsense you were emitting 15 years ago, showing no signs of having absorbed any additional information that contradicts your beliefs.
614
So Craig, you grandmother kicking the bucket because she can’t afford heating in winter or cooling in summer is a “good investment” is it? I’d love to see what you think is a bad investment!
81
Well, electricity costs have doubled and the weather hasn’t improved one iota. I’m just wondering how many wind turbines it takes for the weather to get better than this?
Please be precise in your answer and feel free to consult your sources because I expect these “Real economists” will have this down pat.
100
You can’t blame him for seeming bored Harry.Tedious nonsensical drivel on your part. Prove – or indicate any source that says Anthropegenic CO2 is the cause of warming. Definitive.
51
Oh, lovely, Cohenite puts his DeLorean to good use to drop in from 1987, the last date at which there is any suggestion of correlation between TSI and the current warming trend.
If you stay awhile, Cohenite, you might be able to catch up on your 30 years of missing science.
614
Craig, you’re a serial pest but your entertainment value is moderate. But then alarmism is itself a joke so no surprise that a full on alarmist like yourself should be amusing. Even the IPCC shows TSI correlating with temperature:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm
134
Well, you’ve got an extra 14 years under your belt, only 16 to go.
Notable in what you just referred to is that the correlation ends within that graphic. Can you interpret graphics? or shall we seek out some relevant reference material?
613
Oh good Craig wants to play.
1 isotopes prove nothing. Suess (1955), the Suess Effect, showed way back when that fossil fuel and natural isotopes are essentially indistinguishable. Knorr (2209) shows the AF has not changed and therefore human emissions cannot be responsible for all the CO2 increase. And Harde (2017) finds a human contribution of 15%.
2 Mitigation of CO2 is a bad investment even if alarmism were based on reality. Everyone from Tol, Lomborg, Nordhaus have showed mitigating alarmism costs far more than a business as usual approach, unlike alarmists who do not accept any benefit from increasing warmth especially if it were caused by human CO2. The stupidity of the alarmist mitigation proposals is demonstrated by the IPCC’s proposal to spend 10% of GDP to save 2%.
133
Huh? Suess showed the opposite of what you are vaguely intimating, although your contrast of “fossil fuel and natural isotopes” is an essentially meaningless phrase.
Plants discriminate when fixing carbon. Fossil fuels record the results of that discrimination. The large-scale burning of those fossil fuels affects the atmospheric ratio of C12 to C13, or C14 to C13, which is exactly what Suess demonstrated and was called the “Suess Effect”.
It worries me that bring topsy-turvy non-facts to the table.
Maybe have a look at this graphic, which is a very straightforward illustration of the fact that we know very well how much C humans are adding to the atmosphere, as a genuine scientist like Murry Salby was happy to explain to those too dim to understand it:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/oceanfoodweb.jpg
As you can see, we know humans are adding about 8Gt/year of CO2 to the atmosphere.
We also know the atmospheric content of CO2 is increasing by about 4Gt/year.
So….can you do maths? Logic?
610
Wrong: “Suess (1955) estimated for 1953, based on the carbon-14 “Suess Effect” (dilution of the atmospheric CO2 with CO2 from burning of fossil fuel, void of carbon-14), “that the worldwide contamination of the Earth’s atmosphere with artificial CO2 probably amounts to less than 1 percent”. Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated on the basis of new carbon-14 data that the amount of atmospheric “CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion” would be 1.73% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 7 years, and 1.2% for a CO2 lifetime of 5 years.”
102
Did your DeLorean suffer a glitch and whizz you back to 1955?
You might want to pop back to the present and use current data on the Earth’s CO2 budget. It is now known to a high degree of accuracy what the various carbon fluxes are:
http://www.wrsc.org/sites/default/files/images/2012/ccdiagram.jpg
As you can see, human-emitted CO2 is double the quantity of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2.
Bearing this in mind, consider the question, “where is the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 coming from”?
I think I’ve challenged you before to assimilate the obvious logical conclusion that can be made from this information. Maybe explain why you can’t?
59
So your point is because humans are putting out twice what the annual increase is of CO2 humans must be responsible for all the increase. Even assuming the estimates for human increase are correct and land use change is patently wrong not being a net emitter but a net sink, your point misses what nature is doing in terms of emissions and sinks which are not known. But this point has been addressed at these articles:
AGW and CO2: If Humans are not responsible for the CO2 increase then there can be no AGW.
If the assumption about the equilibrium between natural emissions and CO2 and sinks was correct the increase in atmospheric CO2 would correlate with the ACO2 emissions since, according to the EPA, the increase in the CO2 is entirely due to that extra glass of ACO2 being added to the ‘bath-tub’ or atmosphere. However there is no such correlation; and since we know what the ACO2 emissions are the lack of correlation between ACO2 and the increase in CO2 must mean there is no equilibrium between the natural emissions and sinks.
Simply put it is NOT the amount of human emissions, ACO2, which is important but the amount of human emissions, the airborne fraction, which stays in the atmosphere. The AF is LESS than the increase in CO2 so humans cannot be entirely responsible for the increase in CO2.
112
Cohenite,
Craig, has no idea how much science has been published on this angle,here is a post that talks a lot about with published science papers:
Evidence Review Suggests Humans May Not Be The Primary Drivers Of CO2 Concentration Changes
Excerpt:
For the last 3 years, human CO2 emissions rates have not risen. In fact, according to the IEA, we burned slightly more fossil fuels in 2014 than we did in both 2015 and 2016.
Despite the lack of growth – even slight decline – in human emissions rates during 2014 – 2016, the atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm) concentration grew rapidly – by more than 8 ppm (397 ppm to 405 ppm).
This lack of compatibility between year-to-year human emissions rate changes and year-to-year atmospheric CO2 ppm changes has existed for quite some time. Dr. Jamal Munshi describes it as a “necessary condition” for there to be a close correlation between annual fluctuations in human emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And yet when he statistically analyzed the Mauna Loa record (1959-present) of CO2 concentration changes, he concluded that they did not correlate with the variance in annual anthropogenic emissions.
LINK
=============================================================
There are over a dozen papers listed and posted in some detail in the link,worth a visit.
81
Warmists like Craig and Harry, have no mental ability to figure out why the Logarithmic effect of CO2 warm forcing itself destroys the AGW conjecture,because over 90-95% of possible warm forcing effect to year 2100,was already established around 700 MILLION years ago.
It is obvious when you look at the chart.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
61
Modtrans shows how little warm forcing is left after the first 100 ppm:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png
This was all set in around 700 Million years ago.It has never been below 150 ppm since then.
61
CO2 concentration dropped to c. 180 to 190 ppm about 20KYA just before the start of the Holocene. That was the coldest part of the last glaciation. It’s just over doubled since then, so all the warming available from that doubling (about 1°C or so if we are very generous with the climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling) has been well and truly swamped by the overall warming from the Solar activity.
11
I repeat:
Let’s step back a moment. If we can both see two different data sets arising from the same satellites, there’s ample room for scepticism.
How does that feel . .
42
Which one are you sceptical of?
And why?
68
It appears that Raven is expressing scepticism of both data sets, Craig. Is there one data set that you think is more deserving of Raven’s scepticism more than the other?
40
Well, they are both estimations based on measurements that were never designed to provide temperature data, so there probably isn’t much choosing between them.
They both show significant warming though…
66
‘They both show significant warming though’
–
Significantly less than the GCMs!
41
That sounds reasonable.
Satellites are used to measure sea level too. They aren’t much good at that either from what I can tell. Given they’re calibrated to tide markers that have been around for eons, you’d have to wonder as to their fitness for purpose.
The same goes for land temperature measurements. The data gathered was never intended to be fit to resolve the average temperature of the planet when you consider that up until digital recordings, the accuracy was at best ± 0.5ºC yet there’s plenty of people that’ll use words like “unprecedented” and “hottest year evaaa” but couldn’t tell you the average July temperature for Darwin at the time when Captain Cook sailed past.
I’ve asked that question a few times lately.
You’d be surprised at the ingenious answers I get.
Of course Darwin wasn’t even established for a further 100 years but that doesn’t stop the CO2 hypothesis punters.
What about sea temperatures, then.
Karl et al. 2015 tells us that ARGO buoys aren’t really up to scratch which seems odd considering that’s their primary function. Of course there really aren’t enough of them anyway and they don’t cover much of the oceans.
So, all in all, we really don’t have much data at any acceptable quality to say very much at all.
62
Well, my purpose was to start out from some common ground otherwise we invariably cover the same old turf that’s very fought over till past my bed time. It’s like the bleein’ Somme but without the poppies.
I expect we could agree on that, no?
My take is there’s plenty of interesting questions that are not often addressed.
Consider for the purposes of a hypothetical, that current emissions are 2PPM annually.
1 – If we were to discover that CO2 emissions were rising at 6PPM from natural sources, plus 2PPM from anthropogenic emissions, would you suggest we curb CO2 emissions . . or not?
2 – Similarly, if we were to discover that CO2 emissions were rising at 2PPM but from entirely natural sources and no anthropogenic input, would you suggest we curb CO2 emissions . . or not?
Perhaps I’m not the only one who ponders these things, but essentially I want people to bloody well think.
52
Your hypotheticals are puzzlingly irrelevant.
We know the burning of fossil fuels is adding about 8 Gt CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and we know the atmospheric content of CO2 is increasing by about 4Gt per year. We have no need to hypothesise two mysterious and synchronised mechanisms whereby human-emitted CO2 is vanishing, and natural CO2 is appearing.
Entertaining fantasies about the increase in CO2 having nothing to do with human activity is a completely unproductive activity.
57
How do we know that? Is the atmosphere getting heavier as a result? How is it measured, anyway? Please explain.
And why is CO2 referred to as a greenhouse gas? Oh yes, I remember. It is because it sits at the bottom of, and supports, the primary food chain that allows us all to live. That is why they put it (and water) in greenhouses – it makes carbohydrates.
So how does having an increase in CO2, suddenly become a bad thing? Especially since it underpins the primary food chain?
83
The relevance of the hypotheticals was to test the epistemology. It’s a fundamental underpinning to science.
If you aren’t interested in that and can’t engage with two simple questions, don’t be surprised if no one takes you seriously.
72
I am going to borrow that … It is too good, not to use.
30
Raven.
“Let’s step back a moment. If we can both see two different data sets arising from the same satellites, there’s ample room for scepticism.”
Correct. Dr Carl Meares made that exact point on his blog.
To me the differences imply the satellite microwave radiance data is not well understood. But do not get me wrong, I still think it is valuable. And Dr Spencer and Dr Christy are the sort of climate change dissenters I like, they do not just invoke conspiracy theories (they do from time to time), they do act like scientists and collect data.
16
Harry, the difference between the RSS and UAH adjustments comes down to a very simple matter. The RSS people want to use models to make the adjustments. The UAH people prefer an empirical approach.
You remember the word empirical, don’t you? It’s how science used to be done before consensus took over.
92
Forrest Gardener, satellite dataset and science expert! You should publish your theories.
04
Tell me how that works, Harry.
You’ve got something in your hands that you don’t understand yet you are able to assign it some value.
C’mon now. Think about what you’re saying.
The notion is absurd.
41
Raven.
Prove what you are saying.
04
The model prediction of temperature trends is difficult to pin down, because each new set of predictions uses a later year from which to tune the earlier years. So then if those earlier years are included in the regressions, we get an ever-decreasing trend from CMIP3 to CMIP5. This may be why Roy appeared to remove his mention of the +0.27 K/decade model prediction from his post. I used CMIP5 mean model data from 2000-2014 and get a slope of 0.21 (+-0.01) K/decade (97% Rsq). If this is accurate, it means that the RSS increase from about 0.12 to about 0.18 K/decade is more major than Roy wants to say.
I took a closer look at how RSS v4.0 differs from UAH v6.0. Most of the difference occurs in the Northern Hemisphere. Both datasets find a 38-year trend of precisely 0.0 K/decade in the Antarctic (60S-82.5S for RSS, 60S-90S for UAH). For the Southern Extratropical region (20S-60S) the increase of RSS/UAH is only about 24%. But for the tropics and the Northern Hemisphere, the increase is about 50%. Oddly, the Arctic region shows pretty good agreement with only a 10% increase for the RSS dataset compared to UAH (0.27 vs. 0.24 K/decade).
I’m not sure you can state that UAH v6.0 agrees better than RSS v4.0 with the radiosondes. The Mears & Wentz RSS paper shows that RSS overestimates compared to RAOBCORE 1.5 but UAH 6.0 underestimates by almost exactly the same amount. Maybe other radiosonde estimates agree better with UAH 6.0, but I haven’t looked. Mears and Wentz state that UAH5.6 actually has the best agreement with RAOBCORE 1.5.
Mears and Wentz did a lot of work to support their effort and it won’t be easy to overturn it. It’s unfortunate that this will cause the satellite measures to be discounted more easily because of the great differences between the two interpretations.
74
You’re doing this all wrong, Lance, by overthinking it.
Here’s what you’re meant to be doing:
RSS is wrong! Because UAH!.
RSS says it’s warming, and we proved RSS is wrong, therefore there IS NO WARMING!
Al Gore is fat!
612
Do calm down a bit, Craig. Remember the ‘home for imbeciles up the road’. We don’t want you to end up there!
54
Those are your words entirely Craig. They do you no credit at all.
31
I now see that Mears and Wentz did in fact look at three other radiosonde datasets. It’s amusing that both of the earlier versions of the satellite data (RSS v3.3 and UAH v5.6) agree much better with the four radiosonde values than the later versions do. See Fig. 12.
I am reminded of the terrific controversy over the value of the Hubble constant (determining the speed of expansion of the universe) back when I was studying astrophysics. Two groups fought fiercely over their different estimates (50 vs 100 km/sec/Mpc). Nearly came to blows. Many years later, the estimates have settled down at–guess what–halfway between (about 73 km/s/Mpc).
104
Many years ago I saw a graph depicting how the age of the Universe depended on time. Don’t trust my numbers or dates, I am making them up: From 1960 to 1975 the Universe aged from 4 billion years to 15 billion years.
73
Hummm, I wonder if I can go back and selectively adjust/homogenize my taxes like they do temps?
94
No, you can’t but they do. Haven’t you noticed your government ever adjusting your taxes upward?
50
Funny how global tax “warming” is encouraged by socialists everywhere…..
62
Perhaps off-topic but currently front and centre … world’s biggest battery fixes the denied reality … there …
40
I’m sure I inserted the link in the link popup box … never mind!
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/07/satellite-battle-five-reasons-uah-is-different-better-to-the-rss-global-temperature-estimates/#comment-1924390
30
No, this link …
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/elon-musks-big-battery-brings-reality-crashing-into-a-post-truth-world?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
20
‘Tim Hollo is the executive director of the Green Institute’
** chortle **
90
I wonder about his grasp of logic.
First he claims that an announcement of a big new battery by a desperate Premier is proof that renewables are working when they haven’t even levelled the site for it.
Then he claims that Bernadi installing solar panels proves that he must now believe in Global Warming ©. Well, I installed solar panels 6 years ago when I didn’t believe in Global Warming ©, but wanted the ridiculous feed-in tariff for the financial benefit. And I still don’t believe in Global Warming © nor the Premier who has done his utmost to destroy the electricity system and make installing big batteries necessary.
I note also that he thinks that his position is The Truth. Such blind, unreasoning faith surely belongs to a world before electricity was invented.
120
not only connected to the Green Institute:
Tim Hollo is executive director of the Green Institute. An environmentalist and musician, he is founder of Green Music Australia, served as communications director for Australian Greens Leader Christine Milne, has been a board member of Greenpeace, and has worked for organisations including 350.org, Lock the Gate and Greenpeace…
HOLLO GUARDIAN ARTICLES BELOW INCLUDES:
May 2015: Given our climate politics, who can blame Christine Milne for retiring?
After 25 years of campaigning, Milne’s retirement from parliament is an indictment of how little progress Australia has made on climate change
Nov 2014: The Australia Institute is out to get Christine Milne. That’s a fool’s strategy
Undermining Christine Milne’s leadership for the sake of bad deals with an unpredictable mining billionaire is poor politics that leaves the nation worse off.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/tim-hollo
LinkedIn: Tim Hollo
https://au.linkedin.com/in/tim-hollo-83a5882
50
response to el gordo re Tim Hollo has gone into moderation.
30
Careful Bob! … a stuffup like that could get you excommunicated from the Church of Climantology.
20
Bob
You can join this one if that happens
https://churchofsacredcarbon.wordpress.com/about/
11
When I worked in the UK, that particular newspaper was always referred to as “The Grauniad”, because their proof-reading was so poor.
Nobody ever mentioned the abysmal reporting and lack of any real facts. There didn’t seem much point.
51
Link to “The Graun”.
grauniad.co.uk
10
I followed your link – and it was worse than I feared. They are turning “abysmal reporting” into an art form.
31
Thanks for your summary Jo, it has helped me a lot.
Here’s another O/T comment, this time Josh Frydenberg looks at the SA battery back up for their S&W disaster.
It seems that the new battery will only store about 1% of wind generation. What a super expensive sick joke. Here’s the link and article.
Here he compares energy storage systems. This seems to be an expensive, hopeless system for the SA govt and economy to depend on.
“The lithium ion battery is a lot of sizzle for very little sausage, as it will provide only 129 MWh of storage, compared with 1000 MWh of storage at the potential Cultana pumped hydro project in the Upper Spencer Gulf, and the 350,000 MWh of storage from Snowy Hydro 2.0.
On any one day, wind in South Australia can provide about 13,000 MWh of generation, of which the new battery project can barely store 1 per cent.”
http://www.joshfrydenberg.com.au/guest/opinionDetails.aspx?id=241
“Third, energy storage.
“It was Malcolm Turnbull who put storage on the national agenda through his commitment to Snowy Hydro 2.0 and record investment through ARENA and the CEFC.
However it has been the states, and in particular South Australia, who have not sufficiently prepared for the higher penetration in their own jurisdictions of intermittent sources of power, namely wind and solar.
While we welcome the new battery project announced last week, it needs to be kept in perspective given the scale of the challenge South Australians face. The lithium ion battery is a lot of sizzle for very little sausage, as it will provide only 129 MWh of storage, compared with 1000 MWh of storage at the potential Cultana pumped hydro project in the Upper Spencer Gulf, and the 350,000 MWh of storage from Snowy Hydro 2.0.
On any one day, wind in South Australia can provide about 13,000 MWh of generation, of which the new battery project can barely store 1 per cent.
Finkel is very cognisant of the urgency of the storage issue as it relates to the future stability of the grid. That is why the commonwealth strongly supports his recommendation to require wind and solar generators to provide their own storage at a level set by AEMO and for vulnerable jurisdictions like South Australia to have even higher storage requirements than other states.
Energy policy is a complex matter, not only because of its technical side but also because no single jurisdiction is supreme. The commonwealth and the states have proved they can work together to achieve significant reforms as we have done recently in the area of gas pipelines, but there is more the states can do.
Opening up their gas reserves to development, encouraging competition in generation and preparing the ground early for more energy storage are cases in point. If they were to undertake reforms in each of these areas, Australians would enjoy a more affordable and stable energy system.”
110
We could call it “Weatheralls Mini White Elephant”…..
I still think there is milage in creating a great name for the new battery,…..
Hey, what flavour is the SA battery? Musk…..
Whats the difference between a parliament and the SA battery? None – both are powered by a lot of ( hot ) air….
You could go on…..
60
No it isn’t, Josh.
If left to the market, I’m sure energy would be supplied just fine like it always has.
Actually, why do we even need an”Energy policy” in the first place?
I note we don’t have a potato policy either, but no one complains about the lack of chips at the fisho’s on a Fridat night.
20
Not sure if anyone knows but we are all dead.
We Just Passed Prince Charles’s 96-Month Deadline to Save The World From ‘Ecosystem Collapse’.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/10/we-just-passed-prince-charless-96-month-deadline-to-save-the-world-from-ecosystem-collapse/
Can someone actually tell him he is a f*king d*ckhead. your majesty.
152
Can someone remind Twatter that we are still coming out of a glacial period , after winter comes summer ? No after winter comes globull warming .
133
No, that was 10,000 years ago.
Do try to keep up.
59
CT Perhaps you would like to explain that to the Vikings on Greenland?
30
By definition we are in a “Glacial Epoch” – have been for the past 2.5my (Pleistocene). The current Holocene Interglacial (11.7Ka to present) should be referred to as the Pleistocene – how is the Holocene different to the preceding Interglacials. Anyway I have some very bad news for the “Warmists”. Earth in this past 2.5my has been at its coldest since Gondwanaland started breaking up in the early Jurassic (~180Ma). By 85Ma (Santonian) the last separation commenced, ie the Antarctic Plate separated from the Australian Plate. So what happened after that? Well Antarctica got very cold in the Oligocene as reflected by the 30Ma SL drop (~200m drop) – it was caused by the Antarctic Ice Sheet forming. There was a warmer period during the Early & Middle Miocene but in the Late Miocene more significant SL drops occurred, ie the Antarctic Ice Sheet became more pronounced – this ice sheet persisted until ~ 3Ma. Then another major SL drop. So began the current Pleistocene Ice Epoch – the strongest observed since the Permian (250Ma – 300Ma) – the Antarctic Ice Sheet now comprises~ 80% of land ice on planet Earth and the continent of Antarctica (twice the area of Australia) is located in the south polar position. The other main Ice Sheet, the Greenland Ice Sheet, contain ~20% of earths land ice. When will the Antarctic Ice Sheet break down? Well I have very bad news for the “Warmists ” – not for at least 10my+. You see Antarctica got to what it is now by plate tectonics, ie at a spreading rate of just under 10cm per year (= ~100km/my) with Australia heading north to the tropics and Antarctica heading south to a more polar position. So Earth is stuck in “Ice Epoch” mode for an eternity because Antarctica with ~ 80& of Earths land ice refuses to move more than 100km/my from it’s current “south polar position”. All the CO2 emissions will do nothing to cause any future warming – in fact the next Ice Age cycle is due in the next few 1,000 years. You see temp rise & fall controls CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not the reverse (as clearly evident in the Antarctic Ice Core data). So the “Warmists” have the cart before the horse. The “Theory of AGW” is total and utter crap.
33
Yes, methinks your history lesson will be lost on somebody who confuses a trend that ended 10,000 years ago with a trend that started a couple of centuries ago.
512
Clearly you know little about Earth’s geological history. Please explain what will melt the “Antarctic Ice Sheet” in the near future?
52
Nothing short of a massive meteorite strike or a localised nd especially large supervolcano will melt the Antarctic ice sheet in the near future. Der.
55
‘….a trend that started a couple of centuries ago.’
–
A point sagaciuosly made, Craig. Very good!
20
Hotchpotch , so sealevels were static for 10000 years and only started rising 200 years ago is that what your saying .
50
The “Warmist” trolls are out in force today – its July 11 not Sept 11. They must be worried that Earth has rapidly cooled since the 2015/2016 El Nino event – back to the 20 years of “Global Temp flat-lining” of the past 20 years, that is if you follow the reliable UAH Satellite Global Temp data. These trolls are totally focussed on the past 200 years, ie since the last LIA. I have Haq et al.’s (1987) Global Sea level here in my office – been referring to it regularly for the past 30 years. It clearly shows what a significant impact that Antarctica has made to making Earth the coolest it has been since the Permian Ice Epoch (250-200Ma). The current Holocene Interglacial has been in place since 11.7Ka. SL has risen ~ 130m during this time. The previous Interglacial (~120Ka – 135ka) indicates that the current Interglacial will likely terminate in the next 3,000 yrs – in the meantime Earth SL has the potential to rise to the level of the preceding one, ie rise another 4m – just look at the wave cut platforms along rocky coastlines to see this. In the big picture even another 4m’s of SL rise will still leave planet earth with its lowest global SL since the Permian – the “Warmists” just haven’t done their geological due diligence – they are obsessed with the “Theory of AGW”, a theory soon to be discredited when the LIA takes hold next decade – that is if you believe the astrophysicists (those not part of the “IPCC Orthodoxy” gravy train).
62
Typo- make that Haq et al.’s (1987) Global Sea Level Chart for the past 250 million years. All linked to Vail et al’s (1977) landmark Seismic Stratigraphy masterpiece.
10
Wolverines don’t hunt in packs. Jackals and hyenas do.
20
The UAH current anomaly is +0.45.
The only times in the past 20 years where it has been higher were in 1998, 2010, 2013 and 2016.
So, no, it hasn’t gone “back to the 20 years of “Global Temp flat-lining” of the past 20 years”.
“Flatlining” would mean it had gone back to the average for the the period. It is 200% higher than this average.
And this is using *only* UAH.
Maybe try getting “absorbing facts” and “forming opinions” in the proper sequence in future?
58
Poor 1998. Once the alarmist poster child. Now adjusted into a mere speed bump.
Craig, you seem to have some insight into these things. Three questions for you:
1. What was the 1998 temperature in 1998;
2. What is it now; and
3. What will it be in twenty years time?
73
UAH says it was a positive anomaly of 0.75 degree.
If you’ve found a mistake, point it out and you’ll be famous.
I’m willing to bet all you have is hot air though.
21
Interesting stuff, King Geo . . thanks.
Keeping in mind the ~200m drop in sea level together with the others you mention, “sea level rise” is maybe inappropriate terminology.
Perhaps we should be thinking more in terms of sea level recovery.
30
Hold it right there…
“to estimate global temperatures.”
I’ve spent years land surveying and “estimate” is a vulgar word in the business. Did’t cut it then and certainly not now. If closure of a traverse confucted of a boundary closed with an error of 1 foot in 5000 or more, it is deemed a compass survey. Sure it can be adjusted but facts on the ground say it still has an error.
Same should apply to climate measurements.
123
Sorry about the mispellings. Old age and peering through theodolites for so many years has taken its toll.
60
John,
Did you do a time and motion study on Michael Mann – by using a theodolite and a calendar?
12
O/T
Al Gore is in Australia to promote his latest science fiction movie and presumably promote battery power.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/10/al-gore-praises-sas-battery-power-push-urges-australia-embrace-renewables
64
Has the Gore Effect kicked in yet?
11
Deplorable American here.
(I hate the word Yank ’cause I’m from the South, which makes me extra deplorable)
Question …
So Karl adjusted SST to align observations to models.
Now Mears has adjusted models to align to observations.
Do I have this wrong?
And WhatTheF?
60
Smells rancid don’t it?
“Oh that smell!
Can’t ya smell that smell?
The smell that is around (us)….
61
My takeaway from all this is that the very same people who dismiss the hundredths of degree variations in the satellite data as rendering the satellite data useless are the same people who defend tenth (and even whole degree) alterations (homogenisations) to the surface temperature as completely necessary and valid.
In reality, both surface and satellite temperature sets have their place, and measure different things in different places via different methods and are not directly comparable with each other. Also both have their limitations. Surface thermometers measure actual temperature, BUT in different media (over land and in sea water) AND in a very irregular (changing technology and poorly quality controlled process) and spatially varying density of sensors, while the satellite does inferential calculation from microwaves far removed from the actual subject of the measurement, BUT in a very regular, repeatable and spatially consistent manner.
The differences between the two different sets of calculations from the same satellite are very very small.
141
And when terrestrial temperature measurements, (with all the in-filling, approximations, homogenization, etc., etc.) match the satellites exactly, then you’ll know neither can be trusted.
45
tom0mason
You do not appear to trust anything, then.
57
Peter.
I gave you a tick up for this one as you do appear to understand the satellites. But if you look back thru some of the UAH datasets, some of the adjustments are quite large, larger than many of the adjustments to the surface data. Personally I have no issue with the UAH adjustments as they are just estimates of temperature.
It’s always difficult of course because the satellites do not have temperature “raw” data because the MSUs on the satellites do not actually measure temperature, and were never designed to measure temperature. To convert the microwave brilliance measurement to an estimated temperature they have to wash the data thru all sorts of mathematical algorithms and models.
“My takeaway from all this is that the very same people who dismiss the hundredths of degree variations in the satellite data as rendering the satellite data useless are the same people who defend tenth (and even whole degree) alterations (homogenisations) to the surface temperature as completely necessary and valid.”
That is a disengenuous comment, unless you are confusing temperature measurements with temperature averages.
410
Twotter,
And yet medicine has been measuring human temperatures for 300 years with mechanical, digital, electronic, infra red equipment in all sorts of environments and the same normal human temperature range is continually recorded without adjustment or homogenisation.
Back to you Twot…
143
Jimmy,
So all you have is childish insults? As President Trump likes to say “sad…”.
15
No, I was alluding somewhat snidely to two articles written by the same person. The first was defending the homogenisation of the surface records, and the second was criticising the adjustments made to the satellites. Unfortunately the view is not uncommon.
Personally I prefer to look at the surface record as somewhat of a hotchpotch of different quality sensors in different places read by different people at different times and reading different things (i.e MANY differences) and see that a calculation of any kind of meaningfully accurate ‘global average’ is basically a fools errand. The satellite record on the other hand is not reading actual temperature, but it is a known quality instrument read by known individuals in a much more controlled manner, and it is actually global in scope, though not without its own set of issues.
Therefore it makes perfect sense (in my mind) to see them as different things, of different quality, and to use them both as different tools rather than assume it has to be one or the other.
93
Peter
I assumed that was your point, however just to make sure I interposed the comment “And when terrestrial temperature measurements, (with all the in-filling, approximations, homogenization, etc., etc.) match the satellites exactly, then you’ll know neither can be trusted.”
to drive the point home, and ensure the intellectually disadvantage (Hairy duo from weasel family Mustelidae) here got the message.
43
“but it is a known quality instrument read by known individuals in a much more controlled manner”
No, it isn’t.
16
Ah, so Harry is a fan of pantomime. You’ve gone up a notch in my estimation Harry.
No he hasn’t. Yes he has.
42
Harry twinotter twotter is what we in OZ call them, the scientists of the 19th century did some huge surveys all around the world. They cam to the conclusion that the average world temperature was 14.7C @1013 Millibars. That became the standard for aircraft to calculate the power output of the engines and how much runway was needed for a certain takeoff weight. Is the same standard still used or because of so called global warming have we had to reduce our takeoff weights with a new standard? I am of the opinion that the 19th century scientists were on the button and not much has changed and you are chasing a chimmera, a delusion no more provable than phlogiston.
21
Delingpole is onto it.
All data sets are pushed down in the first half of the 20th century and pushed up in the second half, doubling the effect. Obviously random.
There is fake news, fake science and now fake data too. You will not hear any of this from their publicly funded and politically correct ABC/SBS/BOM/CSIRO and Universities. 350 full time CSIRO scientists in Australia looking for Global Warming and its cousin Climate Change said nothing. Ultimately they work for the Minister. Their job is to support his politics, which are socialist.
As Turnbull now says, Menzies was never a conservative.
123
Which means you can include fake history too.
100
Plus Malcolm publicly supports Napoleon.
I doubt many Englishmen would agree with him but Malcolm’s mother’s uncle was the leader of the British Labor part in the 1930s and dead against rearmament. George Lansbury (Angela’s father) met with and praised Adolph in 1937 as a humble Christian man with no ambitions on the rest of Europe. Two years before the invasion of Poland. It looks like Australia is surrendering to French socialism 200 years late and German socialism 70 years later. In Malcolm’s opinion, we should not have fought for British values let alone Australian.
This will destroy the Australian Liberal party from within, but isn’t that the idea? More Chinese Windmills and solar panels and Lithium batteries and the end of Menzies dream of industrialization. We can all serve coffees, which is why Physics is now only 6% of Victoria’a VCE, not 25%. We will import our engineers (currently 56% overseas born), scientists and business people. Turnbull’s Liberals have said so. Even when he loses, he will have won, destroying the enemy from within.
141
Macron as Bonaparte, or as Jupiter…
The thing that will save us from the globalists is their own childishness.
61
I am amazed when people are wary of “fake news” (usually good advice), but then accept what James Delingpole says!
411
Well touche – you accept what Al Gore says.
113
Are you?
Trust but verify… Yer philosopher king hath his agenda.
Plato, UN, EU, we will tell you (serfs) what ter think and
what yer need ter know.
Oh Socrates!
61
Here’s some sound thinking from our mate, Socrates.
Hypothetical Conversation – Socrates meets Mr Smith, a strong believer in Climate Change
41
Triviality doesn’t get any deeper than this. (Or should I say shallower?)
Warming or cooling…that’s all the temp can do. Some warming is usually better for more of the globe, even with regard to rainfall. The nasty periods of our geological epoch have been cooling blips. Hate them Bond Events.
So if it’s warming a bit since the LIA just be glad your favourite is ahead in a painfully slow two-horse race. And remember we’ve just got lucky for a few millennia in this Late Quat Ice Age. This too shall pass, unfortunately.
112
David Maddison posted SBS/AAP piece on Gore, which includes:
Gore: “And if you look at what China’s doing and what India’s doing they are turning away from coal.
“They’ve shut hundreds of coal burning generating plants, they are closing a lot of their coal mines because they see that not only is renewable electricity cheaper but it creates more jobs.”…
Gas exports, not renewables, to blame for high power bills, says Al Gore
In-Depth-The Australian-10 hours ago
Al Gore slams Trump’s G20 climate response
Sky News Australia-4 hours ago
‘We have to work around President Trump,’ says Al Gore
The Sydney Morning Herald-16 hours ago
Al Gore urges Aust to embrace renewables
Riverine Herald-17 hours ago
10 Jul: ABC 7.30 Report: Donald Trump ‘isolated’ on climate change: Al Gore says rest of moving on without US President
By Callum Denness
“The economic realities have changed. The price of electricity from solar and wind and now the price declines in battery storage and the efficiency improvements of all kinds, these are economic realities that are really kicking in in a powerful way.
“We’re going to win this. The remaining question though is whether we will win it in time.
“The Great Barrier Reef is in risk, sea level rises with storm surges are already affecting houses in parts of Sydney.
“The droughts that come with increasing regularity in many parts of the world are causing great damage.”…
While Australian politicians have argued coal must remain part of the energy mix — to ensure low prices and because it plays a central role in developing countries like India — Mr Gore said it was on the way out.
“The future of coal does not look bright, in spite of what the advocates would want, because of the new market realities,” he said…
“Solar and wind and batteries are the future and we see it all over the world.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-10/donald-trump-isolated-on-climate-change-says-al-gore/8693806
6 Jul: IllawarraMercury: Greg Ellis: Al Gore to address iAccelerate, Wollongong
Environmentalist Al Gore is addressing Wollongong in early August for the iAccelerate IMPACT Conference and Bootcamp.
The former US Vice-President will discuss his journey from politician to social change-maker with iAccelerate chief executive Omar Khalifa. They are sitting down to pre-record the discussion in Melbourne beforehand. It will be called A Conversation with Al Gore.
The conference will talk about how citizen action and social change are providing opportunities to address issues too great for government or business to tackle alone…
There is a gala dinner on the first night of the event called “Dinner with a Conscience”. It will focus on food sustainability and the menu is being made up of local food cooked by local chefs…
The conference runs from ***August 8 to 11 at the new iAccelerate Centre at the University of Wollongong Innovation Campus.
To book tickets, click here.
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4775006/former-us-vice-president-al-gore-to-address-wollongong/
***IS HE HERE TIL AT LEAST AUGUST 11?
yesterday, SBS showed multiple episodes of the flop, “Years of Living Dangerously” for the umpteenth time.
when Marc Morano is here for “Climate Hustle”, can we expect a fawning MSM to cover his doco?
61
If Al is here until Aug 11, then he is well placed to attend one or more screenings of Climate Hustle to set us all right about Climageddon.
I have my ticket ready for the Sydney screening next Tuesday, and expect Al to front up, in the interests of unbiased comment, of course.
62
ABC: Jay “spend a billion to change the” Illweather in defence of his latest spenyup claims it will be a tourist attraction. When he talks like this you know he is desperate to sell the idea as the worlds largest battery not an improvement to our grid
Additionally in the last 5 seconds of the report they said we will spend 100 mil on diesel generation, first and probably last time we hear it mentioned, this rot is terminal.
81
One problem for Big Battery Jay. If all the teeming hordes turn up at once to view this marvel, will they not exhaust the capacity of the battery’s many megawatts and run the SA electricity supply dry?
10
Page 2 of the South Athens advertiser finally comes clean on the 100 million diesel generator debacle. They spell it out quite clearly, the CO2 fixated amongst us can’t defend this rubbish anymore.
30
ignore the misleading summary. ABC omits mention of CAGW, which is the main theme of the program.
it’s straight-out PR in favour of globalisation and CAGW and, of course, anti-Trump at every turn.
ABC’s Barclay says Australia got rich off coal, Anote Tong says therefore it should not be a big thing to drop one or two percent of our GDP in the fight against CAGW (THAT’S APART FROM HANDING OVER OUR SHARE OF $100 BILLION/YEAR, PRESUMABLY)
switching to low-carbon economy is the future, not in smelly smoke stacks of coal-fired power stations, says someone in response;
Grenfell Tower fire – why regulation matters so much (no mention of CO2 emissions regulations that might have played a part in the wide use of cladding, including highly-flammable cladding).
we’re so informed these days because media informs the public about the details of free trade agreements like TPP! (yet only example given is WikiLeaks release of info).
Anote Tong says Pope delivered a miracle by coming out for Paris agreement. Obama & China’s President together a great signal. no mention it is NON-BINDING, because of US/Obama. Tong says Trump withdrawing a good thing, because EU and China have come together.
Barclay wrongly, & repeatedly, calls Paris a “TREATY”. someone says Paris may still survive because commentators say Trump is only short-term; at some point, someone says recent elections show SOCIALISM is back on the table (SAID AS IF THIS IS A POSITIVE THING); lots of love for the Nanny State.
AUDIO: 10 Jul: ABC Big Ideas: Paul Barclay: Regulating for the public good
The West is beset by political turbulence. In the UK, US, Europe and Australia, citizens are voicing their discontent. They feel vulnerable and left out. Their jobs, sense of security, and their futures – they feel – are under threat…
Are we seeing a backlash against years of globalisation, free trade, and deregulation? A panel of experts at the ANU examine the scope for enhanced regulation in the public good.
Recorded on 21 June 2017 at the ANU.
Guests
Professor Peter Drahos – ANU, Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), College of Asia and the Pacific.
Professor Sharon Friel – ANU, Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), College of Asia and the Pacific.
Professor Valerie Braithwaite – ANU, Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), College of Asia and the Pacific.
Anote Tong – former President of Kiribati; Ambassador for the Global Challenges Foundation
Allan Asher – former Deputy Chairperson of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; Chair, Foundation for Effective Markets and Governance.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/regulating-for-the-public-good/8668444
ANU: School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet)
Regulating for the Public Good:
The show airs 10 July at 8pm on ABC Radio National.
This event celebrated the launch of RegNet’s new book Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications. The book, edited by Prof Peter Drahos, is a collection of deep and broad reflections on all things regulation and governance. Authored by RegNet academics past and present, Regulatory Theory establishes the foundations and applications of the RegNet approach to studying regulation and governance, based on principles of social justice, environmental sustainability and human wellbeing.
Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications is available for free download or purchase here.
An interactive tool to help you explore the book by particular themes is available here.
http://regnet.anu.edu.au/news-events/news/6841/regulating-public-good
31
I understand that Sharon Friel mentioned above is the same person advocating that ‘The Lancet’ a medical publication should be in the climate business and big ‘nanny state’ for the general benefits to health it confers.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2961753-0/abstract
10
Crikey, we have a “School of Regulation and Global Governance” ??
That should take the pressure off politicians and voters.
There’s no point getting too many people involved with that sort of thing . . .
20
Global governance = global govt = the infamous and odious UN
10
rhetorical question: why wouldn’t theirABC and BBC like the Nanny State?
Amanda proves, once again, u can say anything u like to promote CAGW on BBC. lengthy piece of propaganda:
10 Jul: BBC: Amanda Ruggeri: How climate change will transform business and the work force
Because it is difficult to know exactly how dramatic the effects of climate change will be, it is hard to know just how much it will affect various industries. But some of the changes already are being seen. Climate-related disasters like droughts and hurricanes, for example, are hitting pocketbooks and insurance premiums – even for people living on the other side of the world…
PHOTO CAPTION (ON SOLAR ROOF): Climate change is forcing us to pivot to renewable energies like solar, which fuels job demand in those sectors.
If it seems odd that companies seem to be talking the kind of talk heard more at NGOs, it shouldn’t. For one, it appeals to consumers…
“The change in discussions in corporate boardrooms, and companies in general, on climate has been pretty profound,” says (author of the book The Big Pivot: Radically Practical Strategies for a Hotter, Scarcer, and More Open World, Andrew) Winston. “There isn’t a large company in the world that isn’t talking about sustainability or climate. It’s just not possible to operate your business without talking about this.”
Those factors may help explain why executives of companies from Goldman Sachs to Facebook expressed anger at President Trump’s announcement to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement…
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170705-how-climate-change-could-transform-the-work-force
About (the writer): Amanda Ruggeri
I am a journalist, travel writer, and photographer. The launch editor of BBC Britain, which publishes stories, slideshows and videos on Britain’s travel, culture, technology and more, I also write for publications including Powder, the New York Times, Guardian, Globe and Mail, National Geographic Traveler, Fodor’s, and Outside…
A graduate of Yale (B.A., history) and Cambridge (M.Phil, international relations), I previously worked as a political reporter in Washington, D.C. for U.S. News & World Report magazine, where I wrote about Obama’s first term…
If you’re planning an Italy trip, I also offer one-on-one travel consultations.
https://www.amandaruggeri.com/about
11
If the
guesserr, hypothesis of AGW holds true and CO2 ‘traps’ heat how long does it perform this remarkable illusion?Consider how long an El Niño warms the planet, how long did CO2 ‘trap’ that heat? If it all dissipated how and where?
42
what a reasonable man Mann is!
10 Jul: Philadelphia Inquirer: Rob Tornoe: Penn State climatologist criticizes terrifying NY Mag climate change story that went viral
Famine. Economic Collapse. A sun that cooks us. A New York Magazine story (LINK) about the problems climate change could wreak on humanity is certainly designed to make an impact.
“It is, I promise, worse than you think,” staff writer David Wallace-Wells promises in the first sentence of his 7,000-word piece, which quickly went viral after it was published late Sunday night. “If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today.”
The doomsday story certainly made an impact. According to CrowdTangle, a platform that tracks social media traffic, the story has been shared on Facebook over 132,000 times, reaching the timelines of over 50 million people and the homepage of Reddit.
One climatologist, however, is throwing cold water on Wallace-Well’s alarming scorched-Earth tale.
Michael Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University and director of the school’s Earth System Science Center, called out the “doomist framing” of the piece (LINK) in a lengthy Facebook post, noting that there is a danger in overstating the dangers of climate change…
Before you think it, Mann is no climate change denier…
Mann also has problems with a specific line in Wallace-Well’s piece that claimed “satellite data showing the globe warming, since 1998, more than twice as fast as scientists had thought.”
“That’s just not true,” Mann wrote. “The study in question simply showed that one particular satellite temperature dataset that had tended to show ‘less’ warming than the other datasets, has now been brought in line with the other temperature data after some problems with that dataset were dealt with.”
Mann said the accounting for the new corrected data, the warming of the planet is progressing fairly close to what climate scientists predicted, which he notes “is bad enough.”…ETC
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/environment/climate-change-doomsday-ny-mag-michael-mann-20170710.html
32
I’ll wager that Mann’s rebuttal didn’t reach the Homepage of anything like one percent of 53 million though !
30
O/Topic but the good ole SMHuffPo is running a rant against climate change sceptics by perennial socialist Peter FitzSimons:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-and-cory-bernardi-are-irrelevant-the-renewables-revolution-is-here-20170709-gx7vgp
Imagine my surprise when both (and soon all three) of my comments were moderated by the SMHuffPo staff. They don’t even make the vague attempt at debate/discussion anymore. The “independent, always” SMHuffPo is a full on propaganda tabloid now. Silly me, I usually think it can’t get worse, but inevitably it does. To think that they can’t understand why their revenues are in a death spiral.
71
O/T H/T Chinese meteorological Association confirms hiatus.
https://www.thegwpf.com/china-recognises-the-warming-hiatus/
61
Low pressure over both poles suggesting a decrease in water vapor in the troposphere after the El Nino of 2016.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.aao.cdas.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.ao.cdas.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2017.png
00
The climate doomsday cult was just too wide open unless the temperature gaps were closed .(ADJUSTED )
Ta-da the appropriate adjustments made now the final stages of the earth has a fever industry can reboot ..
Just like CO2 follows temperature global warming follows money . No money … no warming .
73
Prof Weiss’s graph at 17:09 shows that the hiding the decline will soon not work. All that homogenization and adjustment and the one good fit for the last 2500 years predicts the pause will soon end and we will head down a very steep slope. About -1C in 25 years and continuing. Even five years from now, 2022, the drop will have been -0.2C.
What will be interesting is how the anti CO2 lobby will spin this into vilification of CO2. Already there has been talk that carbon ‘pollution’ from China is cooling the world. Now the people who have been sending all their CO2 to China, doubled, will have pangs of guilt as they beg a communist country to respect democracy, rein in North Korea and stop making so much stuff like windmills and solar panels. China will gladly stop. If they are paid compensation for doing nothing, the EU solution to everything. Then we will pay a carbon tax to NOT build windmills. Great.
72
Another Adapt 2030 video with Jo Nova featuring prominently :-))
21
Surely with the money they are paying you a simple red thumb would be considered insufficient!
21
“Harry Twinotter”..is virtue signalling…how amusing…and sad..
Harry computer was built using fossil fuel.
His power is produced by fossil fuel so that he can crank out his..stuff.
He would own/use cars powered by fossil fuels.
His house would be powered by fossil fuels.
He would not be adverse to using planes..powered by..
And he could have chosen to pay extra for “green energy” since he does none of the above..but chose not to.
You don`t really care Harry..
The disease of the left..say one thing..which sounds cool..do the reverse.
In the old days..the left was against government and open to free speech…now days..they march lockstep with them..anything outside a consensus view is attacked..and forget free speech.
Its great when they come out of the shadows like this in here..
Thanks Harry.we appreciate it when kids come past here…
too easy..as usual..
43
Why argue the science when there is overwhelming evidence the climate alarmism is not about science?
Consider the morphing of the words used to describe climate alarm over the many decades past: Global Winter, Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption,…. The universal cure of these alarms is to stop the use of any form of energy sufficient to maintain the industrial revolution and the continuation of modern technological civilization. Clearly there is a total disconnect between what is actually the case and the so called cure.
52
just heard another misinformed segment on 2GB/4BC about Volvo going all electric or hybrid. why don’t media study the fine detail? read all:
8 Jul: National Reiew: Henry Payne: The Auto Industry Under Assault
France, Volvo, and Trump’s timely withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords
The move may be intended to place Volvo at the forefront of the electric-vehicle revolution — but in fact it shows how deeply government global-warming diktats threaten the future of global automakers…
Volvo’s announcement was met with universal praise from left-wing U.S. media; it was also universally mis-reported. “Volvo Vaults to Volts, Planning to Pull Plug on Gasoline Engines” Bloomberg’s headline blared. “Volvo going electric, phasing out gas and diesel engines,” read the Seattle Times’. “Volvo Moves to Phase Out Conventional Engines,” declared the New York Times…
Not quite. In truth Volvo’s decision will help perpetuate the internal combustion engine, which still makes up the overwhelming majority of vehicle sales. While the automaker will add a plugin-hybrid option to every model line and build five all-electric cars beginning in 2019, its core, best-selling gas- and diesel-engine variants will simply add a small, 48-volt battery to compliment existing twelve-volt batteries…
Where traditional twelve-volt batteries turn on a car’s lights and infotainment systems, the 48-volt unit will help power the influx of electric features — steering racks, brake pumps, etc. — into modern cars, while increasing fuel economy by 10–20 percent in order to satisfy looming Chinese and European CO2 mandates. (Europe will force automakers to reduce the CO2 emissions of their vehicles to 95 grams per kilometer by 2021.) In short, contrary to news reports that Volvo is ending gas engines, the company is merely making such engines compliant with the coming rules.
“Sensationalist headlines today suggest Volvo is going 100 percent electric and ending gasoline and diesel engines,” wrote auto-industry analyst Anton Wahlman. “The Volvo announcement was not (about) going to 100 percent EVs. It wasn’t even about setting an end-date for gasoline or diesel cars. It was about making 48 volt systems standard in all cars.”
Volvo’s compliance strategy is understandable, because few customers are buying electrified vehicles. In France, just 1.1 percent of new cars sold are fully electric. In the U.S., despite over 50 new battery-powered vehicles introduced since 2009, fully electric models have just a 2.4 percent share of the automotive market…READ ALL
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449322/france-volvo-paris-climate-accords-electric-vehicles-hurt-automakers-bottom-lines
20
Missed the quotation marks .
10
the Norwegian electric car story was also misrepresented on the 2GB segment. here’s a bit of a reality check:
15 Jun: Financial Times: Richard Milne: Reality of subsidies drives Norway’s electric car dream
Norwegians are the world’s leading buyers of electric vehicles but politicians are reviewing the incentives
Norway, a country whose wealth is based on fossil fuels, has become the world leader in electric cars. About 35 per cent of new cars are sold with a plug, and the country has a target of zero emissions for all new cars by 2025…
But as electric cars in this country of 5.2m people move from the early adopter phase into the mass market, problems are cropping up for policymakers. One of the most pressing is when — and how — to rein in the extremely generous subsidies that have underpinned the boom, so that electric cars can compete with petrol vehicles on a level playing field. Norway’s Conservative government believes that the falling cost of batteries and rising demand mean the moment could come as soon as 2025, while carmakers such as Germany’s Opel talk about 2030 or later.
“What we have proven in Norway is that if you give enough subsidies and impose enough restrictions on fossil fuel vehicles, people will buy electric,” says Andreas Halse, the environmental spokesman in Oslo for the opposition Labour party.
But he adds: “If we want to continue to be an example for the rest of the world we need to show how this can be commercial. We need to get there because we can’t rely on public finances forever.”
A look at the customers at the Nebbenes roadstop — just north of Oslo’s international airport — shows how true this is. Hans Olav Halvorsen is a government employee who drives the 200km between Oslo and Lillehammer two to three times a week. His Tesla Model S saloon car is not subject to tolls on the motorway, saving him up to NKr810 ($96) every week. Charging at one of the 20 Tesla superchargers — there are eight more for other electric cars — is free.
More importantly, his Tesla attracted neither VAT nor the high purchase taxes of petrol equivalents from the likes of BMW — cutting the price roughly in half. “To be honest, the reason for buying this was a little bit about the environment, but mostly the savings,” he says. “I think most of the owners are thinking about their economy.” According to NEVA, about 72 per cent of buyers are choosing an electric car for economic reasons and just 26 per cent for environmental ones…
Christian Ringnes, a retired doctor, waited until Tesla released its Model X sport utlity vehicle — with its distinctive falcon-wing rear doors — in Norway 12 months ago because he wanted a car that could pull a trailer to his mountain cabin…
***“We waited because we try to manage with one car. Lots of people have an electric car as a second car,” he says…
Norway taxes cars more heavily than most European countries. For instance, a BMW 5-series with a four-litre petrol engine attracts a purchase tax of NKr230,000, bringing its total cost including VAT to about NKr770,000.
The basic versions of Tesla’s Model S and Model X cost about the same but include no purchase tax or 25 per cent VAT. A proposal to raise the road tax for electric cars while cutting it for petrol cars caused a crisis in the minority centre-right government last year.
The government has decided to keep the main tax incentives until at least 2020 but some opposition parties — which are predicted to win parliamentaryelections in September — have struck a different note amid headlines claiming that rich Tesla owners from Oslo and Stavanger have benefited most from the subsidies
…
The second-biggest advantage for the owners is not having to pay for toll roads. The island of Finnoy, near Norway’s oil capital of Stavanger, has the highest concentration of electric cars in the country because of the NKr150 each-way toll charge in the tunnel connecting it to the mainland.
The cost to local governments is large. Mr Halse estimates that Oslo loses about NKr300m to NKr350m a year from electric cars avoiding toll payments. At the same time, about NKr800m from toll booths goes towards paying for public transport each year…
Free charging is also costly — Oslo spends about NKr12m a year on new chargers while the annual operating costs are about NKr4m. Free parking costs another NKr12m.
“It’s a reality check — per trip a lot more is spent on electric cars than on public transport and I don’t think anybody intended that to be the case,” says Mr Halse, who owns a Nissan Leaf.
“In the long run it’s just not feasible,” he adds. “We need to find a way for it to pay for itself, not just for us but because it’s important for the development of electric cars all over the world. You can’t expect Germany, France or Italy to hand out subsidies on this basis.”…
“Yes, we have 110,000 electric vehicles on Norwegian roads but those were the easiest,” says Ms Bu.
“Crossing the gap from early movers to early mass market is hardest. It’s too early to remove the incentives.”…
https://www.ft.com/content/84e54440-3bc4-11e7-821a-6027b8a20f23
20
the facts get fudged to fit thy faith!
10
as for M. Hulot’s G20 stunt:
10 Jul: Newsmax: Bill Wirtz: France’s Petrol Ban Is Same Old Socialist Daydreaming
(Bill Wirtz is a political commentator currently based in France. Originally from Luxembourg, he writes columns about politics in Germany, France, and the U.K., as well as about policy emerging from the European Union. His articles have been published by Newsweek, The American Conservative, the Washington Examiner, and the Mises Institute)
France’s new centrist government (it’s actually good old socialism, but we’ll roll with the mainstream term here) under president Emmanuel Macron, announced its new environmental policy. As the initiator of the Paris Climate Agreement, France wants to show itself ambitious in the fight against global warming. President Trump announced a few weeks ago that the United States was withdrawing from this job-killing accord…
Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot announced on Thursday that Paris seeks to ban all cars which run on fossil fuels by 2040. The country was slightly taken aback, especially since until now, only 1.2 percent of all cars in the country of wine and cheese are electric. Later this year, the government wants to enact the first legislative package to initiate this process.
“This morning,” Nicolas Hulot said in his statement, “a European car manufacturer announced that by the summer of 2019, it will only sell electric cars.”
Once again, raised eyebrows was the legitimate reaction. Hulot was referring to Volvo’s announcement to make all cars hybrid by 2019. There’s no need to be an expert when it comes to cars, even as a minister, but the knowledge that hybrid cars also run on petrol seems fairly universal. Or maybe we should not have been too demanding from the start: Nicolas Hulot is a former TV presenter who ran a wildlife TV channel until recently. Who else should we attribute the managing of a country’s transport and energy policy too, right?…ETC
http://www.newsmax.com/BillWirtz/france-macron-petrol-electric-car/2017/07/10/id/800851/
apparently, French unions were up in arms over Hulot’s announcement, saying it would kill thousands of jobs, but I can’t find an English piece reporting on this. lower-income folk weren’t too happy either:
ABC America: In response to concerns from low-income drivers, he (Hulot) proposed aid for poorer families to buy cleaner cars.
6 Jul: Reuters: France to end sale of diesel and gasoline vehicles by 2040
By Bate Felix and Simon Carraud
(Additional reporting by Jean-Baptiste Vey, Sudip Kar-Gupta, Gilles Guillaume, Benjamin Mallet, Sybille de La Hamaide and Gus Trompiz; Editing by Andrew Callus and Keith Weir)
France AIMS to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040 and become carbon neutral 10 years later, Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot said on Thursday at a presentation of measures to keep up momentum on the Paris climate agreement…
Hulot presented an array of measures under six themes and 23 policy proposals, but most were short of specific details on how exactly the objectives would be achieved.
“One of the ***SYMBOLIC ACTS of the plan is that France, which previously had made the promise to divide its greenhouse gas emissions by four by 2050, has decided to become carbon neutral by 2050 ***following the U.S. decision,” Hulot said.
“The carbon neutral OBJECTIVE will force us to make the necessary investments,” he added.
He said the proposals such as the decision to end the sale of fossil fuel powered vehicles was a TALL ORDER and would constitute something of a ‘revolution’, but solutions were available and French carmakers would be up to the task.
Diesel and gasoline vehicles represented about 95.2 percent of French new car fleets in the first half of year, while electric vehicles hold 1.2 percent of the market. Hybrid cars make up about 3.5 percent.
Hulot cited the example of Geely’s Volvo that plans to go all electric with new models from 2019, and noted ***India was also targeting an all-electric vehicles fleet by 2030.
Hulot said that even if France lagged countries such as Sweden and Costa Rica on this front, it would nevertheless embrace that ***’spirit’ and look to end the sale of diesel and petrol cars by 2040…
“We are left wanting, on how these objectives will be achieved,” Greenpeace campaigner Cyrille Cormier said in a statement.
“The goal to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040 sends out a strong signal, but we would really like to know what are the first steps achieve this, and how to make this ambition something other than a disappointment,” he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-france-idUSKBN19R0VZ
6 Jul: ABC America: France wants to stop sales of gas and diesel cars by 2040
By Angela Charlton and Sylvie Corbet, Associated Press
Some manufacturers and drivers met his proposals with skepticism, but others viewed them as a welcome riposte to U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord…
But even ***IF France eventually bans sales of diesel and petrol vehicles, (the maker of Peugeot and Citroen cars) PSA spokeswoman Laure de Servigny said the company will continue making such cars for foreign markets.
“We are a global player,” she told The Associated Press. “You have to take into account the situation globally.”…
00
Date: 15-September-2016
Reference: Power Hour: Dr. Patrick Frank on the Accuracy of Climate Models – September 08, 2016
Subject: An explanation for the intellectual, psychological, and moral pathologies of Climate Science.
Thesis
The fundamentals for the explanation for the pathologies of Climate Science are to be found in the continuation of the conversation between Aristotle and Plato; the conversation as continued between Saint Thomas Aquinas and Emanuel Kant; and continues today as a conversation between those who hold an objective view of the universe and those who hold a subjective one.
Intellectual
Objective side holds that existence exists, that things are what they are, and what things are can be known by the systematic application of logic to experience and experiment. It is thereby possible for an individual to know, have certainty about what is known, and knowingly to act consistent with the requirements of existence. That something is not known is simply another challenge for the application of logic to experience and experiment. Meaning that it is taken as our individual responsibility for making the contents of our consciousness to be coherent with reality.
Subjective side holds that we cannot know anything but what is going on inside our heads. It is as if we are blind because we can see, deaf because we can here, and there is no real there, there. The best we can do is agree collectively on what we are willing to say that we know. Even then, we cannot know if a thing is really true unless we know everything. There is provided no explanation of how one can know what is collectively known other than “somehow”.
That we cannot know everything, without process, is taken to be a defect in the way the universe was constructed. The conclusion becomes that reality must be what we think it is and that what a thing is, is determined by what we call it. Meaning that it is taken that it is the responsibility of reality to be coherent with the contents of our consciousness. If it isn’t, it is reality’s fault.
The current methodology and argumentation of Climate Science follows the Subjective side of the conversation. Climate scientist’s reliance on Consensus Science, the homogenization of temperature data to make it agree with the various simulations, and the willful misrepresentation of computer simulation output as scientific data strongly supports this statement. That the climate scientists are ignorant of the fundamentals of Dr. Frank’s approach to determining the accuracy of climate models are a simple consequence of the subjective approach taken by the climate scientists. They think they don’t need to know because what they say is supposed to create reality the way they say it is.
Psychological
The psychological pathology that naturally arises from the subjective approach can be called Social Metaphysics. This is a metaphysics in which reality is not knowable by any given person but is known by the next person in the collective. Who in turn, does not know reality but believes the next person in the collective does. So on though the collective until the first person in line is the one who must know but doesn’t. That a summation of zeros will be zero no matter how many zeros is not permitted to enter the collective mind of the collective. Hence, a united front must be obsessively held by each member of the collective that consists of the talking points of the day.
To one who holds the objective view, this is madness on a mass scale. However, there is no point of intellectual contact between the objective individual and this subjective collective. Reason, logic, and fact are irrelevant to the collective. Only the talking points of the day hold any sense of realty for a member of the collective. A member of the collective exists only because he is a member of the collective. To depart from the talking points is to cease to exist.
Moral
Given an individual or group who implements a policy and claims the policy will achieve a specific goal. If that goal is not achieved but the policy is implemented even more so and still fails to achieve that specific goal. Again and again. That individual or group, way down deep where it really counts, wants the actual results no matter how much they differ from their stated goals. At best, they lie to themselves even more than they lie to the victims of the implementation their policies.
71
11 Jul: Bloomberg: Tesla’s Australian Battery Fix Comes at ‘Big Price,’ Analyst Says
Billionaire Elon Musk’s plan to install a giant battery to help fix a power crisis in South Australia will come at a “big price” with installation costing 60 percent more than alternative open cycle gas plants, according to Wood Mackenzie Ltd…
Given current costs “the reality is South Australians are paying a big price to stabilise their energy supply, after a rapid build-up in solar and wind power generation,” Wood Mackenzie analyst Saul Kavonic said in an emailed note…
A spokesman from Tesla’s Australian office declined to comment.
Batteries will be cost-competitive around 2025, according to Wood Mackenzie. The consultancy estimates the fixed cost of batteries in 2017 at $81 a megawatt-hour compared with fixed costs of $9 a megawatt-hour for an open cycle gas plant. The charging cost for batteries is estimated at $57 a megawatt-hour compared with the cheapest gas seen at about $59 a megawatt-hour. By 2025 gas could be more expensive than batteries given the rising cost of the fuel.
Tesla’s battery plan will still leave the state’s blackout-plagued power grid vulnerable, Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysts led by Kobad Bhavnagri said in a July 10 report. While the 100 megawatt battery storage project would reduce its import dependency at peak energy use to 126 megawatts, the resulting shortfall will still need to be met by electricity interconnectors with neighboring Victoria, BNEF said.
A plan by the South Australian government to procure 200 megawatts of diesel generators for the 2018 summer and a 250-megawatt gas-fired generator will ultimately be needed to shore up supply, BNEF said.
Tesla’s battery plan “is a lot of sizzle for very little sausage,” Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg said in an interview with Sky News on Tuesday. “Let’s focus not necessarily on celebrity. Let’s focus on what is needed to stabilize South Australia’s system which unfortunately today has not had a very good record.”
https://about.bnef.com/blog/teslas-australian-battery-fix-comes-at-big-price-analyst-says/
10
Interesting that no one has challenged the implied reference Jo made to weather balloons radiosondes being any more accurate than satellites… Ie. Why should UAH be “better” than RSS (just) because its closer to the balloon data?.
30
2 out of 3 ain’t bad
00
I think the confidence in the balloon data as a reference is because it hasn’t been fiddled with (yet) and it predates the satellite data.
Or, as Dr. Roy Spencer says:
52
Macha.
I am so used to JoNova just claiming stuff all the time I no longer point that out. One wonders where she gets her fake facts from – from another denialist website probably.
Personally I do not know how good the radiosonde data is, other than it is an actual air temperature measurement, not a temperature deduced from microwaves from hundreds of kilometers away. But I have heard anecdotally that the radiosonde data is measured differently by different people, ie it is hard to amalgamate it consistently – it’s primary purpose is weather forecasting not climate change.
28
You wouldn’t want to dismiss all remote sensing data would you harry? From memory, the rate of sea level rise from satellites is about 3.1mm/yr, but from actual tide gauges it’s more like 1.6mm/yr.
Scary sea level rise, or else scary temperature rise, but you can’t keep both. Decisions, decisions! 🙂
70
Raising the temperature in the years 1999-2003 does not agree with other data.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadisst1_nino3.4a_1999:2003.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/rssv4-tlt-gl-vs-uahv6-tlt-gl-2.png
31
During winter and during periods of low solar activity, ionizing radiation in the lower atmosphere rises.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/table.png
20
Satellite Battle?
Sounds like an episode of Iron Chef.
NARRATOR1: Welcome back to satellite stadium, where Chairman Nature has unveiled this week’s secret ingredient is… Orbital decay!
NARRATOR2: Iron chef Spencer is preparing a two-course correction that he says is inspired by the tradition of empiricism. Meanwhile this week’s challenger Mears is busy with his dish.
ROVER: Hayaku-San!
NARRATOR1: Sounds like our roving camera has found something interesting. What is it?
ROVER: We have just seen challenger put a climate model into his dish!
NARRATOR1: A climate model? Can he even do that?
NARRATOR2: There doesn’t seem to be any rules against it in this stadium.
30
Well, that was a bit of a bust. Meant to be a reply to Craig Thomas at #51, who could use a refresher on what “ad hominem” means with regard to logical fallacies.
21
Credibility is very important in science.
You wouldn’t trust a homeopath with your neurosurgery any more than you should trust a cr34t10n1st with your climate science.
21
According to RSS trend temperature rise is the largest in the north. I remind you that the map is up to 2016 when there was strong El Ninio.
But in the south still cool.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt_v40/medium/global/MSU_AMSU_Channel_tlt_Trend_Map_v04_0_1979_2016.730_450.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inino34_daily_2014:2017.png
10
You miss a very important point.
RSS uses climate models for their diurnal drift estimates and calculations.
A method that would be laughable, if it wasn’t so sad.
11
So what to make of this?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
[Reading anything but the abstract requires you to log on. So if you don’t have the required account you can’t see the content.] AZ
00
[…] by JoNova, July 10, 2017 There are two main groups that use essentially the same NASA and NOAA satellites to estimate global temperatures. In the last year, they’ve both made adjustments, one down, and one up, getting further apart in their estimates. In ClimateWorld this is a big deal. Believers are excited that now a satellite set agrees a bit better with the maligned “hot” surface thermometers. But UAH still agrees more with millions of weather balloons. The debate continues. Here’s my short synopsis of the Roy Spencer (and John Christy) from the “Comments on the new RSS lower tropospheric temperature set.” (If something is wrong here, blame me). Model(s)Satellite DataTemperature […]
00