AGW – Talkabout

As suggested, this where you can argue all you like about climate change.

469 comments on “AGW – Talkabout

  1. Climate alarmism grows less credible by the day:

    Mark Steyn on Michael Hockeystick Mann’s claim to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize….http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331829/mikes-nobel-trick-mark-steyn

    “Last Monday, hockey-stick progenitor Michael Mann filed suit in DC Superior Court against me, NR, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. I noticed on the press release (published on his Facebook page) that Dr Mann claimed to have been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize“, and that on the complaint itself we are accused of the hitherto unknown crime of “defamation of a Nobel prize recipient“.

    So my colleague Charles C W Cooke decided to call up the Nobel chaps in Oslo and ask them if Dr Mann was, in fact, a Nobel laureate:

    Cooke: I was wondering, has Dr. Michael Mann ever won the Nobel Peace Prize?

    Nobel Committee: No, no. He has never won the Nobel prize.

    Thomas Richard also contacted the Norwegians and asked, “Was Prof Michael Mann ‘awarded’ a Nobel Prize of any sort at any time? Is he a Nobel Laureate as implied elsewhere in his legal brief?” He received the following email from Geir Lundestad, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute:

    Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    In public, Dr Mann is a-huffin’ an’ a-puffin’ that this is just more smears from Koch-funded climate deniers. But, behind the scenes, a lot of quiet airbrushing of the record seems to be going on. Two days ago, his Penn State bio said he had been “co-awarded” the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, now merely that he “contributed… to the award” (whatever that means). Over at Wikipedia, they’re arguing over ever more unwieldy rewrites. Editing a false legal complaint is trickier but by now someone may have snuck into the DC court clerk’s office with a gallon of White-Out and amended “defamation of a Nobel prize recipient” to “defamation of a man who received one of two thousand photocopies of a commemorative thank-you certificate run off at the IPCC branch of Kinko’s”.

    So let’s see: A week ago, Michael Mann accused us of damaging his reputation – and seems to have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A week ago, he was a “Nobel prize recipient”. Now he’s not. Great work, Mike!”

  2. This man – Michael Mann must be an idiot . Masquerading as a Nobel Prize winner.
    It would be impossible to believe any hypothesis he presented , his life had
    become one big lie.
    Very damaging for his cause.

  3. Seven recent papers that disprove man-made global warming.

    Has Man-made global warming been disproved? A Review of Recent Papers.
    Anthony Cox and Jo Nova

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/seven-recent-papers-that-disprove-man.html

    1 Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve
    2 Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative
    3 R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean.
    4 Miskolczi – The optical depth of the atmosphere hasn’t changed
    5 McShane and Wyner24 – The Hockeystick is broken
    6 McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman26 – The hot spot is really missing
    7 Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N.: The only thing certain is the models are wrong.

    Conclusion

    The global warming models amplify CO2’s effect by 3 – 7 fold, but no matter how you measure it [outgoing long wave radiation, cloud changes, optical depth, historical temperatures, vertical heating patterns in the atmosphere] the real measurements contradict the models and their assumptions about the feedbacks appear to be unconnected with real data. It follows that the global warming predictions about climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 are exaggerated by at least 3C.

  4. “The timing of the possible conjunction of these storm occurs this weekend and extends into the middle of next week. Uncomfortably close to election day. Which begs the question — was it so wise for Mitt Romney and Republicans to deny climate change? And was it a good choice for Obama to decide not to publicly press the issue during the debates? Yes, the oil companies are rich and powerful and spend lots of money in an all-too-human attempt to morph public opinion to their ‘special,’ and increasingly damaging, interests. But what about Mother Nature? What about her say in all this heat-causing carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere? Never a good bet to ignore her.”

    http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/hurricane-sandy-winter-storm-climate-change-perfect-storm-for-election-day/

  5. The models are to blame for being overly sensitive (in regards to a harmless trace gas) because CO2 has been forced to get the right outcome.

    It really is an embarrassing disgrace.

  6. “was it so wise for Mitt Romney and Republicans to deny climate change? And was it a good choice for Obama to decide not to publicly press the issue during the debates?”

    Oh dear, when all else fails channel Gaia. Perhaps Bob Brown could help…What a load of drivel LOVO. Links to hufpo and Jeff Masters don’t count for a lot in the credibility stakes.

    WAPO has a detailed and less propagandised update for you….http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/hurricane-sandy-and-washington-dc-detailed-storm-timeline-maps-and-frequent-questions/2012/10/28/2c24af1a-2127-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html?hpid=z2#

  7. Too right el gordo, especially in light of today’s revelations by Melvin, Grudd and Briffa have reinstated the MWP and further nails Mann’s hockey stick in a most timely way!

  8. ‘reinstated the MWP’

    How could they do otherwise, denying reality was always going to be a risky venture.

  9. I had a look at your hockeyschtick link Treeman and got as far as the first article before it got silly.

    Lindzen and Choi:

    “They still found that outgoing long-wave radiation increased as the world warmed, which was different to what all the models predicted. “

    The trouble with that, is that it is not.

    If outgoing longwave radiation is increasing (to maintain equilibrium in the Earth’s energy budget) then why are satellite measurements showing the stratosphere is cooling ?

    This has nothing to do with models. It’s what’s actually being measured.

    If you don’t understand the implications of stratospheric cooling I suggest you do some reading.

    Watts, who doesn’t understand the difference between convection and radiation would not be a good source.

  10. Mangrove

    Perhaps you should have tried harder to understand Lindzen and Choi instead of taking the silly way out and bagging the lot. Did you note that their first paper was criticised by Kevin Trenberth and that they addressed the criticisms in a second paper?

    “This has nothing to do with models. It’s what’s actually being measured.”

    Rubbish, it has everything to do with models on which the entire IPCC policy effort has been based. It’s all about reconciling these models and that is where the debate is centered today.

    “If outgoing longwave radiation is increasing (to maintain equilibrium in the Earth’s energy budget) then why are satellite measurements showing the stratosphere is cooling ?”

    For starters, long term cooling in the lower stratosphere occurred in two downward steps in temperature both after the transient warming related to explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo. Only since 1996 is the trend slightly positive. And temps in the stratosphere are not the beginning and end of it…

    Although all the datasets show the expected tropospheric amplification at seasonal and annual timescales it is still debated whether or not the long term trends are consistent with the expected moist adiabatic lapse rate amplification due to difficulty of producing homogenized datasets, some satellite temperature reconstruction are consistent with the expected amplification while others are not.

  11. You’re sure a gun googler Treeman.

    From the same source (Wikipedia)

    “Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both
    models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 – 0.39°C/decade; avg 0.2°C/decade) and a cooling of the stratosphere (models range for TLS/T4 -0.7 – 0.08°C/decade; avg -0.25°C/decade).[35]”

    Own goal.

  12. Mangrove

    You left out the most important bit…It comes just after your quote above…

    “There remain, however, differences in detail between the satellite data and the climate models used.”

    It goes on to say ” some satellite temperature reconstruction are consistent with the expected amplification while others are not” which has been my point all along and is the crux of the seven papers that disprove global warming….

    Another own goal by mangrove!

  13. Following on from earlier discussions on the rediscovery of the MWP, the southern hemisphere hockeystick has, as you all know, been debunked as well. This is now old news, but a FOI request has produced some useful emails between Gergis et al.

    https://secure1.storegate.com/Shares/Home.aspx?ShareID=98933961-35af-4266-8396-9c5ffe0e549d

    The upshot is that the post normal science on the blogosphere forced them to admit the paper was a bit dodgy. Admittedly the major players had some serious personal problems to contend with at the time, nevertheless…its a victory for McIntyre even though Karoly and Gergis reckon they discovered the flaws first.

  14. Was interested in el gordo comment, if this report is based on flawed models, everything that you present must also be based on flawed models/

    ME link to http://tinyurl.com/8fsyfax An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces is a very good report, now, el gordo if it is flawed please explain with actual evidence to back up you claims.

  15. Its all based on the assumption that the earth will continue to warm as it did from 1976 to 1998 because of a supposed increase in CO2.

    They have no actual evidence that any of the alarmist guff they present will happen, its theoretical and the models gave them the answers they wanted because they forced the CO2.

    Junk in junk out.

    Might be better if I present evidence that global cooling has begun, which would make Romm’s essay a joke.

  16. Michael Mann has given tree rings a bad name, but real scientists put this together and the evidence shows that neither warming or cooling is happening beyond natural bounds.

    Adaptation is what all life does to survive…humanity is under no threat from climate change.

  17. ‘…this will lead to discussion over whether we’re witnessing the first impacts of climate change.’

    He means global warming not CC and the 1938 hurricane may prove to have been more destructive.

  18. Early winter in the UK slips under the radar….but at least the authorities are aware of regional cooling.

    ‘The Government announced that councils have stockpiled more than one million tonnes of road salt for the winter.

    ‘Councils have invested in new fleets of GPS-tracked gritting trucks, mini-gritters and specialist vehicles for narrow and hilly streets.

    ‘Thousands of grit bins have been placed in estates and side streets, while some families have been given their own bags of salt and salt spreaders.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224287/Autumn-chill-takes-grip-temperatures-plunge-7-3C-got-extra-hour-bed-remembered.html#ixzz2AgU1aJLJ
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  19. You really got to wonder at the hypocrisy of el gordo, who yet again uses local weather events to make a point but lambastes those who mentioned Sandy or other extreme weather events in the context of climate change.

    el gordo has been doing this from almost the first post, throwing in local cold weather events but always ignoring abnormally hot ones. Both having no context to global climate, but el gordo throwing in his cherry picked snippet to troll.

  20. ‘Andrew Steer said it’s a “make or break” decade for addressing climate change.

    ‘A recent study found that 97 percent of experts agree that climate change is real and caused mainly by human activity.’

    China Daily

    Much amusement.

    ————-

    Mobius this is a game, al gore is bringing out his weather watch thingy again in November and he wants us all to join in.

    Early cooling in Europe is created by a wobbly jet stream, which may have also attracted Sandy north. This is natural variability and very exciting to watch.

    The 1938 hurricane that hit the US north east took 600 lives, but due to satellite technology there probably won’t be anybody killed this time. This is the good news and looking forward there is no need for alarmist nonsense about the weather because humanity will adapt very nicely.

  21. What fun!

    WUWT-TV to debut on November 14th to counter Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather Telethon” on November 14th and 15th

  22. Al Gore is utterly bereft these days…trying to flog his failing TV network…meanwhile Gaia responds to activists…

    “A storm many environmentalists see as linked to climate change has forced the end of a climate vigil in Boston. Some 200 people had participated in a round-the-clock vigil since last Tuesday to protest the lack of discussion of climate change in the presidential debate and call on Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren to discuss the issue during their final scheduled debate Tuesday”

    An such big numbers were turning out….

    http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/10/29/sandy-disrupts-climate-vigil-boston/CQQWdVV0ph5NDPAi42pA2N/story.html

  23. In an attempt to join the dots Paul McGeough uses Climate Central as a source…guffaw….and is talking through his hat.

    ‘As reported on Climate Central: “The 2012 sea ice melt season, which ended just a month ago, was extreme, with sea ice extent, volume and other measures all hitting record lows.”

    ‘And why does this make a difference?

    “The loss of sea ice opens large expanses of open water, which then absorbs more of the incoming solar radiation and adds heat and moisture to the atmosphere, thereby helping to alter weather patterns.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/leviathan-how-sandy-links-to-a-warming-planet-20121030-28gg8.html#ixzz2AlQf9FjA

  24. El Gordo.. et al….. Hurricane Sandy IS historic :lol: … ‘she’ has started ‘that’ conversation…(possibly even re-started the convo)…. you know the convo i’m eluding to…… and just before the yank election….. and the historic view i’m.. ‘just say’n’ aboot… has/is world wide……. mmm! ….. wonder how many Wallstreeters have taken pause to consider………. mmm! …. JUST remember this El Gordo… there are no winners in the ‘game’ that you and ‘crew’ play….. just say’n …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… oi, oi, oi :(

  25. You may fail to understand the significance of this large magnitude storm happening 300 years earlier.

    The kitchen table scientists are searching for atmospheric linkage.

  26. “The right-wing factional power brokers within the Labor party are beginning a campaign against renewable energy,” Mr Bandt said.

    “This will be a litmus test for the Labor party to decide whether they have got their foot on the accelerator or the brake when it comes to Australia’s transition to a clean energy economy.

    “Joel Fitzgibbon needs to back off. If Labor is serious about a renewable energy future, with the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will come with that as Australia plays its part to tackle global warming, then Joel Fitzgibbon needs to back off from his campaign to wind back the renewable energy target.”

    Adam Brandt

  27. In the UK the new Conservative energy minister is rethinking wind farms.

    ‘John Hayes said that we can “no longer have wind turbines imposed on communities” and added that it “seems extraordinary” they have allowed to spread so much throughout the country.

    ‘The energy minister said he had ordered a new analysis of the case for onshore wind power which would form the basis of future government policy, rather than “a bourgeois Left article of faith based on some academic perspective”.

    ‘The comments sparked speculation that Conservative ministers are planning to drop their support for wind farms — a move which would trigger a major Coalition rift.’

    Robert Winnett UK Telegraph

  28. The warminista aren’t sure, while the denialati is convinced. (from the link above)

    ‘Hurricane Sandy is a precursor of extreme events which will become more frequent as the empirically observed cooling trend accelerates from 2014 on as solar cycle 24 winds down.

    ‘It is now very clear that the generally more meridional path of the Jet Stream on a cooling planet with the associated development of blocking highs with steep temperature and pressure gradients between the air masses is a recipe for such extreme events.The obvious climate signal is the development of heavy snows and blizzards on the west side of this storm.

    ‘By contrast a warming world would have a less steep temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles with a more latitudinal Jet Stream path and a more equable climate.

    ‘Another sign of cooling is an increase in La Nina as opposed to El Nino events,.It is not perhaps merely coincidental that Sandy developed just as an El Nino event much anticipated by the AGW faithful failed to appear. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology said on 10/29/12′

  29. You can see in that link how they cleverly combined fact and fiction (propaganda) into a readable biased article. With reality in one par at the base.

    “Although they have shown a correlation between their surge index and measures of hurricane activity,” said Gabriel Vecchi, of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, in an email, “it is far from a 1:1 relationship.”

    Good effort Mo, but you can do better.

  30. From Steve McIntyre, whose tireless work continues to expose climate charlatans.

    Read carefully to see how our own David Karoly and Joelle Gergis first admitted problems with their analysis, then how they rejected Michael Mann’s attempt to sell them a collection of different workarounds and then how they were requested to withdraw the paper by Journal of Science editor Chiang….It’s all in the email trail obtained under FOI and drives yet another nail into the already widely discredited coffin of AGW.

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/30/karoly-and-gergis-vs-journal-of-climate/

    Suck it up Mobius et al, your new age religion is taking a hammering!

  31. ‘It’s called “reverse tribalism.” It goes like this: An extreme weather event takes place; climate activists (and the occasional journalist) make a connection to climate change; and then, a pack of climate wonks and journalists descends, scolding activists for exaggerating, going overboard, exceeding the bounds of evidence, and “giving the other side ammunition.” (That last bit is crucial. The idea that the scolds are saving the activists from themselves is what gives the scolding a patina of public purpose. Otherwise it’s just self-righteous hectoring.)’

    David Roberts…Grist

  32. “Ten years from now, will we think of renewable energy as clean and green? Emerging research on the side effects and limitations of solar cells, wind turbines, biofuels, electric cars and other alternative energy strategies will likely transform conventional wisdom about what’s green, and what’s not. Which players will be left in the dust? Who will innovate the next green revolution? And how?

    The Sunday Times describes Ozzie Zehner an “an academic who is causing shockwaves.” He is the author of Green Illusions and a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. He lectures at universities and public policy organizations.”

  33. Well eo gordo, one cannot rule it out. Many experts today are saying so.

    The once in generation tragedies are showing up every couple of years.

    Maybe yes, maybe no.

    You simply do not know.

  34. No, el gordo, we do not have to stop eating.

    We have to find a smarter way to produce that food, especially as the dry areas in Australia are growing.

    Acting as an ostrich, hiding one’s head in the sand, will achieve nothing.

  35. ‘The once in generation tragedies are showing up every couple of years.’

    Could you give a couple of examples?

    I appreciate you are seeing it from a western viewpoint…when Bagladesh floods and thousands lose their lives on a regular basis its not as newsworthy.

    ‘Acting as an ostrich, hiding one’s head in the sand, will achieve nothing.’

    Global cooling has begun and the irony is delicious.

  36. scaper, as it does not occur often, I thought people would be interested. Obviously not. Generosity it appears, does not even extend to our soldiers. Sorry to upset one so.

    I take it, you and your ilk are going to leave other sites alone, and stick to the rules.

    It was not meant to divert. Just to spread some information.

    Such thin skins, our visitors have.

  37. I just worked out what scaper problem is.

    The PM has managed to get herself involved in a positive situation.

    Cannot have that, can we.

    By the way, when they moved off, Mr. Abbott did not appear to be a part of the official party. Wonder why.

  38. el goro, I heard that comment this morning on radio 702, when they were talking to people on the east coast of America. No, not the near east, but in the land of the brave, USA.

  39. “What’s a VC winner got to do with the topic of this thread???”

    Exactly and what on earth has a ranga to do with it?

    “The PM has managed to get herself involved in a positive situation”

    RIGHT! let’s have some facts here, from the last first…
    White paper canned by business sector and in general
    Poor response in QT to all questions, especially those from Julie Bishop
    Undermined by Krudd
    Offended millions by playing victim, sexist and misogynyst cards

    Attempting to turn a sows ear into silk at CW…

  40. Tree, we are touchy. When did you take over the site. How can a comment on our new VC winner raise so much angst.

    If you are indeed the owner, I will be moving on.

    Now, throw away lines are not allowed, nor a little humour..

    It is not the PM playing the sexist card. That honour belongs to those, including the women on the other side of the chamber.

    Pity we could not hear what Mirabella was screaming across the chamber, but if true to form,. it will be sexist or you are a liar remark.

    Must be close to the insults to start flowing.

  41. Yeah, what does being a ranga have to do with this topic???

    What’s the big deal about been a ranga? Rangas are not special…especially dyed rangas. Gee, next the squatter at the lodge will be launching into a hair colour war.

  42. CU

    Not touchy at all…quite the contrary, thick skinned if anything, merely pointing out a few facts. Here’s something to refer to before making any comment about rainfall trends.

    I’ve had the poster on my office wall for over 20 years and have given various updates as gifts to friends. It’s Australia’s rainfall distribution for each year since 1890. There is no discernible trend nor are any two years remotely similar.

    http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/pdf/australiasvariablerainfall.pdf

    No one in their right mind should attempt to predict rainfall anywhere in Australia. Just look at what happened to Tim Flannery who is much more at home taking trophy specimens in PNG…but that’s another story.

  43. Yes, another story, and another misreperesented in what was said. Once again words taken put of context.

    I believe some of our visitors need to lighten up a bit.

    Not one word of congratulations to that young VC winner.

  44. Natural variability appears as chaos, although looking at scaper’s graph and the longpaddock link we may unravel something useful.

    Off the top of my head… we may be back in the mid-1920s.

  45. Treeman, if you follow the graph on the bottom you can definitely see a trend, from El Nino to La Nina, or are you going blind

  46. Paul the IPO gives a better fit…this from Alablaster et al 2001.

    ‘Other studies have investigated the influence of interdecadal variability on Australian climate. Latif et al. (1997) noted the strong relationship between an index of Pacific decadal variability and the Australian summer monsoon, with positive phases (above normal tropical Pacific SSTs) of the decadal index resulting in below normal Australian monsoon rainfall.

    ‘Negative decadal phases (below normal tropical Pacific SSTs) were found to result in above normal monsoon rainfall. Power et al. (1999a) found an interdecadal modulation of the relationship between ENSO and Australian climate.

    ‘Their index of interdecadal variability, which they name the InterDecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) is shown to strongly modulate the correlations of SOI and Australian continental climate variables such as rainfall, maximum temperature, river flow and crop yield.

    ‘During positive IPO phases, when tropical Pacific SSTs are warmer than average, correlations between SOI and Australian climate are very weak. During negative IPO phases, the correlations are strong.’

  47. The train wreck that is AGW alarmism just keeps on giving…

    “It seems absolutely clear now that Dr. Schmidt already knew the emails were “legitimate” days and hours before and was telling a lie to Lucia to prevent/forestall the release of the truth. Below is the full transcript of the BBC radio program from yesterday. I want to thank Dr. Paul Dennis for this statement made to the program:

    Paul Dennis: The key problem is that it’s often presented as a majority of scientists and then the minority are whackos or deniers or something else. They’re not. They’re intelligent people who are coming to a different conclusion from the same sets of data. I’ve seen horrific language on both sides of the debate. It’s not very pleasant if it’s directed against you as somebody who’s active in climate science. It’s not very nice if it’s directed against you as somebody who is on the sceptic side of the debate as well.

    Tell that to Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook, who have been mounting an active smear campaign to paint skeptics as “moon landing deniers” and worse.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/01/gavins-explanation-of-climategates-early-hours-then-and-now/

    Tell that to those here who regurgitate propaganda in the name of science….

  48. Meanwhile Penn State University boss is in trouble. This is the bloke who dealt with the complaints against Robert Mann of Hockeystick and “I won the Nobel Prize” fame.

    “Prosecutors reveal they are today filing charges against former president Graham Spanier. Spanier is widely suspected as leader of the conspiracy that covered up former football coach, Jerry Sandusky’s sexual abuse of boys at Penn State. Sandusky is now serving 30 to 60 years in state prison. Questions are being asked whether state prosecutors will indict PSU climatologist, Michael Mann, too. NBC’s Michael Isikoff reports, “Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly and state Police Commissioner Frank Noonan have scheduled a news conference in the state capital of Harrisburg to announce what the sources describe as a major new development in the case. “ But this sorry web of criminal conspiracy may soon trap another PSU bad boy climatologist, Michael Mann. As I reported recently, there are eerie similarities in the way Spanier dealt with complaints against Sandusky and Mann.

    The news will be a huge worry for Mann who last week rendered himself liable to criminal charges for perjury after the Nobel Committee affirmed he lied about being a Nobel Peace Prize winner in sworn statements in two high profile libel suits. Mann’s employer has spent the last week removing all reference to Mann’s counterfeit claims from PSU publications and website”

  49. The storm surge of Sandy was surpassed by the hurricanes of 1635 and 1638….in the depths of the Little Ice Age.

  50. ‘AUSTRALIA’S Climate Commission has misrepresented data from the leading US meteorological bureau to highlight a link between climate change and the severity of Superstorm Sandy which this week crippled New York.

    ‘In a statement on the disaster that hit North America on Monday, the federal government-sponsored Climate Commission said “all the evidence suggests that climate change exacerbated the severity of Hurricane Sandy”.

    Graham Lloyd in the Oz

  51. It’s been a tough year for global-warming activists. Temperature trends, based on global numbers collected by U.K. officials, show warming stalled for the past 16 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in disarray. Disbelief in the alleged “consensus” on the scale of anthropogenic global warming is on the rise. Political interest has been waning, in Canada and especially the United States, where the presidential candidates did not even mention climate change over three debates, to the chagrin of many.

    As gloom descended over the warmist camps across the continent, their overheated claims flickering dimly like dying campfires, their cause lost, there suddenly rose in the East a powerful force. Look! What’s that on the horizon? A mighty blast of good news! FRANKENSTORM!!!!!!!!!

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/29/terence-corcoran-frankenscience/

    There’s no joy for warmenistas here at all…”Even if Sandy turns out to be a record breaker, however, it appears to add nothing to support or take away from the grand theories of man-made climate change. Prof. Pielke says, “Trying to wage the climate battle, day by day, weather event by weather, leads you down a pretty slippery slope of bad science.” It’s a slope many are more than willing go down, and now they have the winds of Sandy at their backs.”

  52. This about Terence Corcoran

    Readers here, for the most part, are learned and well informed on the issues of the day. Yet you insist in making baseless and at times false accusations. Personally, I find it offensive and insulting that you would be here, at SS of all places, continuing to smear the scientists with long debunked spin, despite six inquiries ruling (mostly– there was some valid criticism) in the scientists’ favour. Please don’t try and argue that they were all “whitewashes”, we’ve quite had enough of the conspiracy theories the past year.

    “The best layman’s summary I have read is by Terence Corcoran of Canada’s National Post.

    Posting that was a strategic error on your part. Corocoran clearly has an agenda against climate scientists, and frequently smears them. In fact, Dr. Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post (including Corcoran) for libel (and for fabrication) for that very reason.

    The National Post is, it seems, only accountable to the courts, they do not even make their code of practice available, and they are not a member of any professional print media association– so it is hopeless trying to challenge their misinformation or hold them accountable. So you, quoting Corcoran here in your defense, is not doing you any good. It shows that you would rather take the word of a second-rate journalist with an ideological agenda, over the findings of six inquiries. Why? Perhaps it is because they are telling you what you wish to hear?

    Not a very credible source there treeman.

  53. This seems to be a site, not for whether there is man made climate change but for denialist. That is OK, but6 why is there so much talk about the weather.

    Are there any creditable sources available that support the denialist claims. That is scientist, who work and study in the field.

    It is my impression that most that pushed the idea that there is no globing warming, are found to be suspect at the least and plain out liars at the worse.

    Now, that is just my observation, leading to my opinion. Could be wrong. Time will tell. I sense we do not have long to wait. May even find out before I depart this world.

    I hope they are correct for my descendants shake. If not, they are in trouble.

    The economy can be fixed. Any damage caused by excessive carbon emissions cannot.

  54. Paulwello you are deceptive to suggest quotes where they clearly don’t exist…I never claimed a best perspective, merely reported.

    More perspective on hurricanes for you Paul…

    With CO2 well within the “safe” levels during those years how come all those hurricanes happened back then Paul?

  55. Oh dear, hear comes CU with a dose of reason…” not for whether there is man made climate change but for denialis” Out of your depth CU, name calling merely reinforces that!

  56. It’s not up to the sceptics to prove anything. It’s up to the Doomsday Cult to prove that we will all drown, die of thirst and the planet will cook. Thus far, no evidence. Oh, what happened to the 50M climate refugees plus by 2010???

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm

    I see the ‘sustainable development’ used in the same paragraph. They should just cut the shit and call it for what it is…AGENDA 21!

  57. Well treeman, that is a nice pic of the east coast USA, now what is it suppose to represent. there is nothing in your post, no relevant data, no nothing, seems typical of you treeman, from I have been reading here, all flash nothing else.

  58. Out of my depth. I do know the difference between weather and climate.

    I do know fraudulent so called scientist when I read them. I find it safer to keep with the other 97% of scientist that you disagree with. I know if I was sick, I would go with the opinion of 97% of doctors, not the three who disagreed.

    Trying to use the disaster in the USA, which by the way is weather, to prove or disprove the case against man made climate change does not make sense.

    Now study and research might establish if it is a result of climate change. We do not know, until that occurs.

    I just find it hard to understand why some are so passionate about an issue, that the big majority of the world scientist do not agree with. People who keep coming up with explanations that are quickly mowed down by those in the field.

    What we do know, this is the worse storms they have had in the area, over such a large tract of land.

    No one has said it is the result of man made climate change.

    We know that there were many different “weather” factors at the same tie, in the region that merged together to cause the havoc. Something it is said that has not happened before.

    Why is everyone that does not agree with you, naive, knows nothing, or are stupid.

    Are you the font of all knowledge, and how did you discover this wondrous thing.

    Funny, I do not see you as having such ability or skills. All I see is you putting forward the arguments of others, that suit what you believe.

  59. Goodness, the denialists are quick to point out that Sandy was nothing out of the ordinary.

    It the coming decades we might well be agreeing that it wasn’t.

  60. ‘I just find it hard to understand why some are so passionate about an issue, that the big majority of the world scientist do not agree with.’

    The 97% figure for scientists who believe in global warming is a fraud, there is actually a debate happening on the blogosphere (post normal science) which has galvanised a social movement against the ignorance of AGW.

    In this war of words we have warmists, backed up by the Klimatariat, who believe humans are doing irreparable damage to the biosphere. The sceptics say this is nonsense and the ‘precautionary principle’ a farce, although they accept CO2 maybe adding a little bit of warming to the system but there is nothing to worry about.

    The denialati take a more serious view….CO2 has no part to play in global warming and as a consequence global cooling has begun.

  61. “Why is everyone that does not agree with you, naive, knows nothing, or are stupid.
    Are you the font of all knowledge, and how did you discover this wondrous thing.
    Funny, I do not see you as having such ability or skills. All I see is you putting forward the arguments of others, that suit what you believe”

    Isn’t that exactly what you and your fellow travellers are doing here? Every time you get challenged you resort to name calling and appeals to authority. Quite frankly, you will have to do a lot better than that to get rid of me.

    “Goodness, the denialists are quick to point out that Sandy was nothing out of the ordinary”

    And alarmists have been slow to point out a connection between CO2/warming/climate change and Sandy?

  62. Sandy was a category 1 storm and hit the north east during a full moon high tide. A very negative North Atlantic Oscillation created a funnel which caused the storm surge.

    So we know it had nothing to do with CAGW.

  63. Paul Dennis: ‘The key problem is that it’s often presented as a majority of scientists and then the minority are whackos or deniers or something else. They’re not. They’re intelligent people who are coming to a different conclusion from the same sets of data. I’ve seen horrific language on both sides of the debate. It’s not very pleasant if it’s directed against you as somebody who’s active in climate science. It’s not very nice if it’s directed against you as somebody who is on the sceptic side of the debate as well.’

    Paul Dennis (scientist at East Anglia) was accused of leaking emails (Climategate) which he denies.

  64. CU
    “Are there any creditable sources available that support the denialist claims. That is scientist, who work and study in the field.”

    You should take the time to look more closely at what those you so fondly refer to as denialists have been posting here. By dismissing us you become a denialist yourself.

    I’ll make it easy for you. Start here for a very conservative view.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Then have a look here and by linking to Marc Morano I can already hear the howls of derision but he’s the one the shysters really love to hate because he get’s the message out. Shooting the messenger is a favourite pastime of AGW alarmists….There are now over 1000 dissenting scientists which is 20 times the number that authored the 2007 UN IPCC report for policymakers.

    http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cd863ed0cb58525e&c_id=2869473

  65. Only for those who want to understand el gordo. For those who deny the validity of increasing scepticism for AGW nothing really counts except the swill dished up to them, by their unrepresentatives…

    Ad homs and smears against Abbott are de rigueur here but as soon as they get the same back there are howls of derision as the ganders get goosed!

  66. ‘It the coming decades we might well be agreeing that it wasn’t.’

    Sandy came about naturally, there is nothing to support the argument that it has anything to do with global warming.

    Remember the big snows in the UK winters of recent years… well this year is ramping up to be another freezing minor disaster after a very wet summer.

    This is not what’s supposed to happen in a slowly warming world, but has all the hallmarks of regional cooling.

  67. Take it easy Treeman. You’ve had a long day.

    I was tempted to comment but I learned long ago never try to pat a snarling dog on a chain.

  68. “Sandy came about naturally, there is nothing to support the argument that it has anything to do with global warming.”

    I agree totally EG.

    Calm down.

  69. Maybe that melting ice did bring about current changes that have never happened before, at least in living memory. Of course our resident experts know better.

    Australia’s Climate Commission says superstorm Sandy has been made worse by climate change.

    The death toll in the United States has climbed past 80, bringing to more than 140 the number killed by Sandy since it swept across the Caribbean, including Haiti and Cuba.

    The Chairman of the Climate Commission’s science advisory panel, Professor Matthew England, says the evidence suggests climate change exacerbated the severity of Hurricane Sandy.

    http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=812413

  70. ‘…climate change exacerbated the severity of Hurricane Sandy.’

    Damn lies and a complete disgrace…professor England….guffaw.

    Sack the Klimatariat!

  71. Funny how people like el gordo denounce an event like Sandy as having anything to do with climate change, but a cold Summer’s day is taken as a sign that global warming is being reversed.

  72. Interesting link to the Huff Post, ME.

    I’ve now added the term “systemic causation” to my vocabulary.

    I’m hoping for a ‘one step removed’ systemic causation in the enhanced prospects of an Obama victory, and the hope that another 4 year term might see some progress on smarter CO2-free ways to power our lifestyle.

  73. “As suggested, this where you can argue all you like about climate change.”

    Not true, as some see it. They only want one point of view put forward. Rename.

    The denialist site on the false notion of man made climate change.

    There that should fix it. No other contributors to post, if not in full agreement.

  74. MG
    I honestly don’t know if global warming had an impact on Sandy or not, just as the deniers here haven’t a clue if it didn’t. It was a local weather event, a record one yes, but in the end another local weather event.

    There are some weather events that have occurred less frequently than 40-50 years ago, others are occurring more. Some have become more severe, others have remained much the same. I don’t think any have become less severe.

    Fact is the sea levels are higher, the ocean warmer and the Arctic had a record melt. That had an impact on the weather for the area and each is linked to global warming.

    And if a weather event that may or may not be linked to global warming causes the US to go further on reducing CO2, become more energy efficient and take up more renewables, then it can only be good.

  75. ME, that ice melting must make a difference to how currents act, I would believe.

    In nature, it does not take much to upset the system. Clear land, one has erosion etc.

    Bring rabbits into a country with no natural enemy leads to much destruction. The balance of nature is finely tuned.

  76. … offers a baseball analogy: “We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”

    Just about sums it up!

  77. Since the usual suspects who are usually wrong on everything say global warming is happening, i suspect that the next phase of our changing climate will be global cooling.

  78. ‘…a cold Summer’s day is taken as a sign that global warming is being reversed.’

    Ahhh…no, the years of cool wet summers and freezing winters is a sign that global warming has come to an end.

  79. “only among the stupid”

    They’ve arrived. I see. Those who have qualifications and actually work in the area. Not!

    No doubt the ‘stupid’ when faced with a medical problem consult a ‘shaman’ or its equivalent.

  80. ‘Fact is the sea levels are higher, the ocean warmer and the Arctic had a record melt. That had an impact on the weather for the area and each is linked to global warming.’

    Its true that sea level has been rising, but that appears to have slowed. I’ll search for a link.

    The Atlantic is warmer (hence the Hurricane) while the Pacific is cooler.

    The Arctic did have a big ice melt, but its not exceptional and there is ample evidence to back this up.

  81. But the hot summers and warm winters are not.

    Bit selective, again.

    I remember once when el gordo was pointing out some unusual cold event somewhere at the same time Russia was having one of it’s warmest winters on record and for the first time in living memory Red Square didn’t have any snow on Xmas day.

    From the very first time el gordo started posting here there have been lots of links and stories to cold events but unsurprisingly not a one to any hot event.

  82. Oh for fuck sake another link to a graph without context and when you chase up the site and look into it yet again it doesn’t actually say what el gordo is intimating it does.

    If el gordo wants to continue on with that stupid way of making a point then I and others caj post links to graphs out of context that just happen to look like they support our contentions. They will be just as valid as el gordo’s posts without context.

  83. Mo its sea level rise from a respected source.

    Of the earlier links you put up, only the Sutherland article was balanced.

  84. But you used 2011 data when 2012 existed, and it shows the trend continuing upwards after a dip the previous year or so. There have been dips and rises throughout the recorded period but the trend is upwards.

    You also yet again posted to an image of a graph with no context, something you have done with monotonous regularity and just as often when the context is shown they have not shown what you intimated they did.

    And who are you to say what’s balanced or not? What qualifications allow you to make that assertion?

  85. ‘i suspect that the next phase of our changing climate will be global cooling.’

    I take that as a vote of confidence in the theory that cooling follows warming, like night follows day. Humans are only spectators of climate change, not active participants in its alteration.

  86. ‘And who are you to say what’s balanced or not? What qualifications allow you to make that assertion?’

    Read them again Mo and if they support your ideas in toto then they are biased.

  87. But el gordo you have posted so much stuff that is unbalanced and utterly biased, yet you never stated them as being unbalanced or biased, in fact you normally state them as being definitive and authoritative.

  88. And your link is?

    Don’t bother! Your links to date are of the ‘religious’ variety. As opposed to any with ‘scientific’ credibility.

    BTW, what’s it like in the alternative … ?

    Again, don’t bother.

    Good night. And goodbye.

  89. ‘And your link is?’

    It was 1000 years ago, so I may be gone a little while.

    The ‘smallest extent ever recorded’ comes from three decades of satellite record….its laughable.

  90. Thank you ME taking the trouble to check out EG’s links. I’m not surprised they’re duds.

    Sort of reminds me of Groucho Marx’ (I think) famous aphorism:

    “Who you gunna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”

    I have unfortunately burdened myself over the years with a rudimentary understanding of the science, so watching the Arctic fall apart is no surprise.

    I wish “weather” was the explanation, but there seems to be a pattern, suggesting it’s more “climate”.

    Sometimes I think that ignorance is indeed bliss.

  91. MG you will note that el gordo does something that is disingenuous and has been for as long as I’ve seen el gordo posting.

    Post a short paragraph or two, or an article link, or a link to just a graph, all with no context as it seems to support el gordo’s often flawed or erroneous contentions. Up to this point the authority or author of that graph or article is credible and OK. Follow the source of el gordo’s out of context pictures and articles and often they don’t contend what el gordo intimates they do at all, or they aren’t credible sources at all.

    Point out the source actually supports global warming and all of a sudden they are no longer credible and in comes a string of diversions away from the original furphy,

    Proves that el gordo cares not for the credibility of the sources used only that they appear to support a set point of view, even if they are proven scams or falsehoods. It also makes just about anything el gordo contends a nonsense.

  92. “Sometimes I think that ignorance is indeed bliss”……. and then you come across a place like the Cafe……. and then only the bliss remains………just say’n ;)

  93. Oops Climate Commission graph: Queensland warmed nearly 3 degrees in 50 years?
    “The latest Climate Commission report: “The Critical Decade: Queensland climate impact and opportunities” starts with blatantly incorrect figure. Since when do “averages” run outside the extreme highs and lows? ”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/climate-commission-report-queensland-warmed-by-3-degrees-in-50-years-look-out/

    CU, it’s stuffups like this that take a big toll on the credibility of so called experts. Those who blindly accept their alarmist message deserve to be challenged as indeed do the experts who are producing the shoddy work.

  94. “If any climate scientist had tried to use a trick liked this to ‘prove’ Climate Change, then it would have been all over for the discipline. C3 Headlines can get away with this stuff because it serves a particularly gullible and self interested client group.”

    That is the significant paragraph from Bloomberg’s link and shows what utter hypocrites the right wingers here are.

    If a climate scientist or spokespersons for climate organisations either cooks the figures or makes an honest mistake then the deniers are all over it like a rash, but they don’t just jump on it and leave it, the bash it for the rest of time as many times as they can.

    Contrast that to the litany of constant misinformation, misrepresentation, scams, lies and deceits by some opposing scientists but mostly the right wing vested interest groups and fronts, and they’re instantly dismissed or glossed over, they quickly move on to another diversion and attack point.

    This blatant double standard of accountability applied by the right does not only apply to the climate change debate but to nearly everything they engage in. They have one extremely high impossible to achieve standard for everyone and everything they oppose, and a low standard for themselves, with everything being allowed no matter how dishonest and deceptive.

    All the while they project their double standards as a failing of meeting their arbitrary set ethic requirements, ethics they never hold themselves to.

    Says it all.

  95. ME, I must confess I don’t bother chasing down EG’s or Treeman’s links. I know where they lead.

    Some years ago I used to mix it with the deniers at Deltoid, Tamino, RealClimate etc but I tired of the game.

    In the process I certainly picked up a lot of the science, rushing around downloading academic papers, gathering facts, reading text books. Conversely, it was telling that when cornered, the skeptics usually displayed very scant knowledge of the science, relying entirely on the pre-packaged nonsense from their favourite denialist blogsites.

    I never figured out if it was lack of education in the basics, lack of intelligence, or blinding bigotry. Our resident deniers will howl with rage at such a suggestion and say it’s me who doesn’t “get it”. So be it. I couldn’t care less.

    I find it amusing that the skeptics are always accusing those of us who are concerned about AGW as religious zealots, but it seems to me there’s more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for their cause.

    I tend to believe what I can see with my own “lyin’ eyes”.

    What is also telling is that the AGW skepticism comes as part of a suite of hardline conservative values. Vide Treeman. Not sure about EG, who, unlike Treeman, doesn’t seem to take it too seriously, getting his/her jollies by just being a bit of a pest.

    I do tend to read EG’s comments however as I find them amusing, and possibly a bit “tongue in cheek”, but scroll quickly through Treeman’s turgid and angry offerings.

  96. Mobius
    As if a blog called thesnuffkin with a mission defined as: “Green politics, philosophy, history, paganism and a lot of self righteous grandstanding.” has enough cred prompt a blather like that leaves you looking very ordinary…

    Truth is, there is no significance in snuffkin’s comments, especially when he cherry picks monthly trends trying to prove that C3 have done exactly that.

    EPIC FAIL

  97. Mangrove

    “Some years ago I used to mix it with the deniers at Deltoid, Tamino, RealClimate etc but I tired of the game.”

    You’re a laugh a minute…these three are alarmist sites!

    EPIC FAIL

  98. Concur MJ.

    el gordo mostly trolls, thus the preponderance of posts with one or two laconic paragraphs of matter of fact statements with no source or links.

    You are right in stating el gordo gets their jollies by being contrary and provoking a reaction. I know and accept that for what it is and then delight in the occasional gem of a post el gordo throws up. But there is no getting around el gordo’s purpose is to be as disruptive as possible.

    I now treat Treeman as I ended up treated Iain. Same brush but a weaker tar.

  99. ‘gets their jollies by being contrary and provoking a reaction.’

    Heretics are misunderstood, but I’m warming to the idea of morphing into ironic man.

  100. “I spent a year at Deltoid and picked up my stripes.”

    More like you “wasted” a year EG

    (musta been long after I’d wandered off)

  101. ‘But there is no getting around el gordo’s purpose is to be as disruptive as possible.’

    Excuse me…the sub editor kindly produced this thread to avoid a clash of cultures.

    There are other threads for you to inhabit.

  102. MJ.

    Deltoid got so jack of el gordo’s disruptions, nonsense posts and bullshit pretending to be science that they gave el gordo their own thread where anyone could discuss el gordo’s crap to their hearts content and el gordo had open reign to prove their worth on the subject.

    el gordo didn’t last very long and self banned. Something el gordo did here once as well but not before saying they were banned, intimating it was the blog that banned them when it was actually el gordo banning el gordo.

    Gives you a little insight into the person but nothing does that more than the constant barrage of contradictions and nonsense.

  103. ‘ME, I must confess I don’t bother chasing down EG’s or Treeman’s links. I know where they lead.’

    Hmmm….

    ‘mostly trolls, thus the preponderance of posts with one or two laconic paragraphs of matter of fact statements with no source or links.’

    If you got up to speed we could get to the chase…climate change is happening now and its exciting to watch.

    I still have to work and don’t have your obvious leisure… ‘laconic paragraphs’ are nice because nobody has the time these days. So I’m trying to say a lot with brevity.

  104. I’ll “vouch for” eg’s presence as a troll at Deltoid It may well have learned some humility there :lol: Seems to be a bit less offensive here, but troll = troll, imho

    I wouldn’t mind a quid or so for every time I’ve seen the “triumphant” cry of a denialist proclaiming “the AGW scam is dead” , or words to that effect.. :twisted:

    The fact that such claims are unsupportable, rely on deceit, misrepresentation, and/or slurs further lowers their “case”, and provides sure indications as to their credibility, and, often, their extreme right wing ideologies

  105. ‘…didn’t last very long and self banned’

    Timmy Lambert produced the thread to isolate me and people came to throw tomatoes, which was nothing unusual, but when the thread fell off the end and slipped into archives I jumped ship.

    It was a troll dungeon.

  106. Jeff Harvey at Deltoid makes a succinct statement wrt to the smears currently run bt the denialist lackeys, concluding

    these people have no shame or scruples. They are not skeptics, because most of them will never, ever change their views no matter how much datas come in. They are anti-environmental global change deniers. Pure and simple.

    @EG

    t was a troll dungeon

    YES! YES! :lol:

  107. “I think you missed the point Treeman”

    Yes, the likes of him come and go. We are all still here.

    What occurs, is the limited arguments they put forward, become a little tedious, when repeated, over and over and over. Always ends in denigrating who they are replying to. Says more about them than us. They all move on, except for el gordo that is.

    I fear el gordo might just be genuine in his/her beliefs.

    All tree are about, is gotcha moments Gotcha moments, which he rarely pulls off. Most of what he rushes here with, had already been on the site, often days before.

    Most are allegations and rumour, nothing more.

    He is into guilt by association, but only to be applied to members of Labor.

    Maybe trolls could gain more by doing more time listening and less writing.

    One could say that Abbott did help bring sown Rudd. It annoyed me at the time that Rudd did not seem to have the ability to hand it back to Abbott, and looks like he would never be able to. The rot as far as I am concerned, began for not standing up to Abbott with the allegations re the Installation Programme and not defending Garrett. The PM did a better job of defending BER.

    Investigations and history has shown the outcries of waste in both schemes was not true. Both w3here worthwhile and help to keep many employed, the basic reason for their introduction.

    Rudd instead of giving into the rubbish coming from Abbott, should have gone out and fought for both. What Rudd did was attempting to create a diversion by turning up each day in a hospital, all over the country.

    Maybe that is where Abbott got the idea from, for his daily stunt, we had to endure for the last two years.

    I read a comment yesterday, that it has cost the Liberal party much money for the daily stunts. Therefore I assume it is they who are meeting the costs, not the tax payer. That is good, if true. It is a question I have been asking, who pays for Abbott to turn up in up to three states in one day, spruiking the same limited slogans and photo opt.

  108. ‘I fear el gordo might just be genuine in his beliefs.’ There… fixed it.

    ‘What occurs, is the limited arguments they put forward, become a little tedious, when repeated, over and over and over.’

    Don’t know how to get around this.

  109. “I still have to work and don’t have your obvious leisure…”

    There you go making assertions and assumptions again, and yet again getting it very wrong, there’s nothing obvious at all.

    I guess you don’t bother to notice the sometimes long gaps between posts, or only one or two than a short drought from me, and then maybe a flurry and then silence for a while again.

    I get most weekends off but not all, am interstate a lot sometimes in the field, and by field I mean remote outback and occasionally overseas due to work.

    I have the most outstanding RDOs and leave piled up at work of any of the employees.

    I do attempt to come here whilst in Qantas lounges or in hotel rooms, but mostly it’s inbetween work and domestics.

    “So I’m trying to say a lot with brevity.”

    You’ve made that contention before and I called it bullshit then and am calling it bullshit now.

    A paragraph out of context with no reference stated as absolute fact is nonsense. The only one who knows the veracity and credibility is the person who posts it, so that person is asked everyone who reads it to take their word as fact and of their veraciousness.

    But when challenged to provide context and sources more often than not the paragraph or two turn out to not communicate what the poster intimated they did, then that person rightly loses credibility and the readers have the right to take every unsourced paragraph as a nonsense.

    So rather than saying a lot with brevity you are saying little with nonsense.

  110. We could talk about the weather in the UK…cool, wet and cold means regional cooling has begun. Or perhaps you can show me how this is global warming?

    ‘The Met Office issued a severe weather alert from tomorrow across the South, South-East and south Midlands for up to 40mm of rain – two weeks’ worth – fanning flood worries.

    ‘Forecasters said wet snow threatens the North Downs, South Downs, Chilterns, Cotswolds, Salisbury Plain, Exmoor and Dartmoor, with slushy deposits possible.

    ‘Monday will be the coldest November 5 since daily temperature records began in 1999, Met Office data passed to Reading University meteorology expert Dr Roger Brugge showed.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226980/UK-Weather-Britain-braces-coldest-bonfire-night-14-years.html#ixzz2BD9KgSZl
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  111. No, el gordo, I was not trying to be funny. I respect the views of others, as long as they are genuine. In your case, I have chosen to believe you are.

    Others put forwarded views they do not believe one way or another.

    They are only out to make the party we support look bad. I do not respect these types of views.

    I have little time for trouble makers, or those who do not respect the views of others.

    I cannot understand why some see it as OK to get pleasure out of denigrating others. I cannot see why we should let them.

  112. “I wouldn’t mind a quid or so for every time I’ve seen the “triumphant” cry of a denialist proclaiming “the AGW scam is dead” , or words to that effect.”

    Or every time they rub their hands with glee, and say the PM and Labor has gone.

  113. If you are going to mention the coldest local weather events why don’t you ever mention the warmest? That would be the fair thing to do.
    Like in the US:
    Summer 2012 In Running for Hottest Summer on Record

    Or these for the UK:
    RED-HOT SUMMER TO BREAK RECORDS

    UK scientists predict hottest summer in 2012

    The shape of British summers to come?

    And both of us could go around in circles being disingenuous by picking the coldest and hottest weather events at any given time in any given location. You have been doing that, well the coldest part anyway, from the first post of yours I came across.

  114. The deliberate distortion of facts is like Watts Up With That deliberately misconstruing the words from a legal document on the awarding of a Nobel Peace prize and then saying Mann falsely claimed to have been awarded one, when he was, as part of a group.

  115. Well it seems like everyone here is having fun.

    I might say, though, that the circularity of argument can be a little tedious. But hey, that’s why this page was set up in the first place.

    I’m happy to accept (and I wish it were otherwise) that “most probably”, the science in favour of AGW is correct. To me it seems logical.

    So argue all you like…

    the sub-editor. :D

  116. The rot as far as I am concerned, began for not standing up to Abbott with the allegations re the Installation Programme and not defending Garrett. The PM did a better job of defending BER.

    Snap, CU! that’s when the first niggling doubts about Rudd started for me. Instead of going in full bore defending both BER and HIP and standing up for Peter Garrett, he did nothing.

    I couldn’t imagine Whitlam, Hawke or Keating not defending one of their Ministers against the gutless attacks by the Liars or letting them get away with the lies about BER and HIP both by the media and the Liars.

    Although I was shocked when Rudd was replaced, that decision has been vindicated time and again. We now have a PM who enjoys the confidence of the Caucus, her fellow Cabinet Ministers and the Independents.

    I must admit I felt unsure that the minority government could work, but I think it’s worked surprisingly well due to the rapport between the PM and Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and for the most part Andrew Wilkie, who stuck their necks out by agreeing to keep an ALP government alive.The people in their electorates have been well served by them.

    And the fact that the three have pretty much stuck with the PM gives the lie to the accusations from the dingbats that she’s an untrustworthy, incompetent liar. In fact that has been their assessment of the LOTO, not the PM.

    Certainly there are decisions I’m not particularly happy with-the continued draconian treatment of the unemployed who have been denied carbon price compensation and the the proposed cut backs to single parents. The ones who will really suffer are the children.

    I’m prepared to wait and see what effect the excision has before passing judgement. I hope that it’s the first step to a regional approach to asylum seeker welfare.

  117. jane., I was angry when Rudd sold out Garrett and the insulation scheme, Dor me, it was all down hill for Rudd.

    Maybe many did not like him, nut I do not think many would have moved just for that,. The polls were turning quickly, after staying high for so long. Rudd had a long hom\ney moon with the polls.

    Ir was clear to me, that Ri\udd would never in the long run, beat the media and Opposition attacks on him.

    I always believe that Gillard could, and has proven so.

    Yes, she waited two years, but has not taken a backward step, no matter how vile the attack has been.

    Yes, the PM is showing some discomfort and anger that they are continuing with allegations from nearly 20 years ago, which she has dealt with every time they arise. There must come a time, when one feels re\enought is enough.

    The truth is that it does not matter how the PM deals with the ancient and unproven allegations, they will keep coming back, They are not interested in her answers, just in stirring and spreading mud.

    jane, we will be in strife for taking this post off topic. el gordo and the visitor will come after us. Do you care, I don’t. Give them spome of theior own treatment.

  118. jane, yes not everything is roses with the Gillard government. The problem is that the PM is condemned unfairly for the things this minority government has achieved.

    It was put forward on Insiders this morning, that electricity prices have peaked and there is a good chance they may come down a little by the next election.

    I do not see Labor going early. I do not believe that would be the PM’s way.

    If she does,it will not be because of the budget, but because it could put the elections of both houses out of kilter and make it more difficult to pull off a double dissolution election.

  119. Jane and,

    Instead of going in full bore defending both BER and HIP and standing up for Peter Garrett, he did nothing.

    Likewise, Jane and Cu. I noted a sense of panic from Rudd..perhaps as a person of superior intellect he could not comprehend why the obvious (ie the benefits of the BER and the insulation scheme) were not likewise obvious to the public..and I guess that we’ve all felt that way.

    From the time Rudd let Garrett be the fall guy for the insulation scheme, it was all down hill. And agreed Cu, Rudd had/has few personal resources to combat an illogical and out of control MSM.

    ps. the flu is still running rife. :(

  120. Cu, with a couple of exceptions one being the Malaysia solution where an unforeseen event occurred, that being the High Court overturning a ruling of the Supreme Court, the MSM has had so little to criticise re achievements of this government that they have had to resort to attacking the person.

    Attacking the person (the PM) does nothing for the benefit of Australia, it neither scrutinises nor seeks to improve policy.

    I likewise do not see Gillard calling an early election, my reasoning being that IF Gillard did, then the MSM would label this action a *panic* election. Gillard has resolutely stayed on message and will be able to sustain this by going full term..a very strong lady is our PM.

  121. Abbott already has labelled such action is that they cannot bring down a balance budget. That is not this PM’s way. This PM plans ahead, as the last two years have shown. This PM is ready to wait until the time is right.

  122. Will push this back to the Talk thread and out of the AGW one. This was set up as el gordo was railroading political discussion threads with climate discussions. So it’s not fair we now railroad this topic with politics outside of climate.

  123. Why not ME.

    Saying that, I will refrain from playing the spoiler, as others do. Just evolved that way.

  124. ‘But hey, that’s why this page was set up in the first place.’

    Credit to you rabbit, well executed executive decision. I had my doubts, but its been a stunning success.

  125. el gordo, maybe you will take pity on some of us that are not interested in other pages. That would be nice.

  126. Mo, from the Express article.

    ‘The past four summers have been fairly wet and cool across the UK’

    Looking at historical data you will find this is natural variability and cannot be AGW…no matter how its spun.

  127. From the Guardian article…

    ‘the meandering of the jet stream could be linked to the reduction in sea ice.’

    OK we have balance, I’ll pay that.

  128. Back to the Express link…

    ‘Chief meteorologist Dr Todd Crawford said: “The past four summers have been fairly wet and cool across the UK. This was driven by extreme levels of North Atlantic pressure blocking, as seen in summers 2007-11, but that pattern has now seemingly ended.’

    They were wrong, it was seriously wet and a freezing winter approaches…like in days of yore when thousands of people starved because of the ruined crops.

    The meandering jet stream is the culprit, but what is the cause?

  129. el gordo you again are attempting to link cold local weather events as climate.

    Four past summers or a hundred past summers for just the UK do not a global climate change make.

    Out of interest can you post the historical UK weather data showing the natural variability?

    This is the only thing I’ve found, admittedly after a short search as I’m going out soon. Met Office historic UK climate records

    This is the Met Office that was deliberately misrepresented in a scam, one you fell for by the way, and still unconditionally states the globe is warming with a man made component involved. They have all the historical data for the UK at hand as far back as accurate instrument records were taken and then through palaeoclimatology.

  130. “The deliberate distortion of facts is like Watts Up With That deliberately misconstruing the words from a legal document on the awarding of a Nobel Peace prize and then saying Mann falsely claimed to have been awarded one, when he was, as part of a group.”

    Fact is that Mann did claim that he was a Nobel recipient and as a result the UNIPCC issues this statement. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

    mann then changed his bio on the Campus server….http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/

  131. The way to see natural variability operating is best seen through the eyes of the agricultural workers and the price of food. This book is a wonderful history of climate change.

    Agricultural records A.D. 220-1968 / [by] J. M. Stratton

  132. The CET record is useful data.

    ‘The Central England Temperature record is one of the longest continuous temperature records in the world. It extends back to the Little Ice Age in 1659. Based on 352 years of data, December 2010 was the coldest December in 120 years with an average of -0.7C just short of the record of -0.8C recorded in December 1890. It was also the second coldest December in the entire 350+ year record!’

    Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/england-endures-historic-cold-weather#ixzz2BF5fpBqn

  133. CU and Min, I agree the PM won’t go to an early election. For one thing, that was one of the conditions the Independents imposed for their support.

    Another, equally important reason imo, is that the PM probably still has a raft of policies she wants to implement. I don’t see any sign of her, or the government, slowing down. And that must be making the Nopposition ropable, considering they’re a policy free zone.

    And also as you say, Min, it would give the msm another excuse (as if they needed one) to lie about and abuse the PM. She sure is one strong lady.

    Hope the flu buggers off soon.

  134. The document Treeman referenced above suggesting UNIPCC had issued a statement in conflict with Michael Mann’s claim to have been a Nobel recipient is nothing of the sort.

    It’s a scan of Mann’s writ (an interesting read anyway…thanks Treeman)

  135. MJ, it seems the treetroll doesn’t read (or comprehend) the links it provides. :lol:
    wrt to its attempt to beatup a smear against Mann wrt to the Nobel Prize he was jointly awarded, a few FACTS may be pertinent :grin:

  136. FACTS…omg pterosaur !

    Like the morning light that puts the stars to flight.

    Along with the treeman.

    (apologies to Mr Khayyam)

  137. MG.
    I bought up the deliberate Watts confabulation of the Mann Nobel prize @ 12:29pm.

    Several sites and Twitter are hoeing into Watts and others who yet again attempted to deceive and scam.

    Of course our resident denialists as they always do, for they almost solely rely on those shifty sites as their sources, jumped in with both feet and landed squarely on their arses.

  138. Maurice L Newman has you lot in perspective…AGW belief is nothing more than a nutty religion.

    Due to the no show of predictions like millions of climate refugees, tipping points predicted that have lapsed, never going to rain again and if it did the ground would be too hot to absorb water, our dams would never fill again and that 100M sea level rise, many sensible people have dropped off. Now the Global Warming Doomsdayers have morphed into a minority nutjob cult.

    Time to gather all the deciples…about fifty acres would be required and partake in the ritualistic kool aid as the end is nigh. Just leave the children at home because you’ve done enough damage to them with your pathetic predictions.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/losing-their-religion-as-evidence-cools-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226510184533

  139. The education system has been caught up in the AGW hysteria, but there is no evidence to show that it has done irreparable harm to a generation They can been debriefed easily, yet the older brainwashed members of the community may require a catalyst.

    Maurice was working at the ABC when they were pumping out propaganda….how long has he been aware that something is not right at our ABC?

  140. “Due to the no show of predictions like millions of climate refugees, tipping points predicted that have lapsed, never going to rain again..etc.”

    If, like you Scaper, I believed that’s what the science was saying I’d probably be a denier too.

  141. That’s where you people fall down. You believe in a static climate which is the climate never changes. It is quite clear that historically the climate has been hotter and colder so ignoring this fact I would say the warmists are the true deniers.

    I don’t see CO2 as a problem at all. In fact 550ppm would be great for the planet. I wonder what true effect pumping water out of the aquifers into the water cycle? Most probably nothing more than a mere rise in sea levels.

  142. Ladbrokes latest betting:
    Will there be snow on Christmas Day?

    Edinburgh 3/1
    London 7/2
    Manchester 7/2
    Belfast 4/1
    Birmingham 4/1
    Cardiff 4/1

    Snow was going to become a thing of the past in the UK, but that prediction was totally wrong.

  143. Snow was going to become a thing of the past in the UK, but that prediction was totally wrong.

    Yes, el gordo, I believe that was sad. You cannot recall the context or timeline for that statement, could you.

    I have a feeling that what was being discussed was what will happen in the future, as one approaches that tipping point. The same goes for people saying the rivers will not run.

    Things that will happen unless there is some attempt of slowing down the carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

    As the timeline was for a time in the future, there is still time for that to occur. Also it is a is predicted that there will be extremes of temperatures and weather.

  144. Just found this article on

    Global Warming and Cold Winters

    Posted on 15 January 2011 by D.Salmons
    Guest post by D.Salmons

    If you were to look out most windows as of this writing, there is a good chance that you would be presented with an image of winter. All around me, winter has sprung, dumping measurable inches of frozen precipitation and snarling the usual habits of work and school as we struggle to cope with its effects on modern life. And more than a few of you might be asking yourself, “What happened to global warming?”

    Well, the effects of global warming are all around us. That harsh winter that we are experiencing, it is not proof that global warming is not happening, but rather serves as proof that it is indeed happening, and even a bit faster than we might like to think. It also shows why the phrase “Climate Change” is a better term to describe the effects of man on his environment.

    Vladimir Petoukhov, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has recently completed a study on the effect of climate change on winter. According to Petoukhov,

    These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia. Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.
    But how does a colder winter support the idea of a warming earth? It’s really simple when you look at the evidence.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-Cold-Winters.html

    So treeman and el gordo are on about cooler winter’s are an indication that Global cooling is actually happening, this article begs to differ, how do they explain this article, I know they will come out say that so and so is this and that article is nonsense.

  145. So treeman and el gordo are on about cooler winter’s are an indication that Global cooling is actually happening, this article begs to differ, how do they explain this article, I know they will come out say that so and so is this and that article is nonsense.

    Of course they will, Paul. As sure as night meets day.

  146. “The Kyoto protocol is slowly limping to an end. The “parties” agreed to agree on a future agreement to be negotiated to extend the agreed agreement to some unknown future date to be agreed on later… that hasn’t been delivered…”

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/kyoto-limping-to-an-end/

    “Sometimes you find things in the strangest places. Like this list of the folks sucking up the goodies from the Public Trough:

    The COP includes (see Bodies for the function of each committee) (3):
    • CMP – Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
    • SBSTA – Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
    • SBI – Subsidiary Body for Implementation
    • AWG-KP – Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol
    • AWG-LCA – Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention
    • ADP – Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
    • Bureau of the COP
    • Compliance Committee
    • CDM EB – Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism
    • JISC – Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee
    • TEC – Technology Executive Committee
    • LEG – Least Developed Countries Expert Group
    • CGE – Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications
    • Secretariat
    • United Nations institutional linkage
    • GEF – Global Environment Facility
    • IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    • AFB – Adaptation Fund Board
    • TC-GCF – Transitional Committee for the Green Climate Fund

    These resource suckers multiply so much they make rabbits look slow…

    The entire structure of Kyoto was a wealth transfer from Rich nations to Poor nations. It was to hobble the west and enrich those invested in the planned money transfer and industrial movement. That game has played out. It’s a done deal. So not enough left in the ‘host nations’ for the parasites dinner… That, IMHO, is why Son Of Kyoto will be a ‘brain fart’ at best. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    But the catering will be excellent…”

  147. Extreme heat in 1896: Panic stricken people fled the outback on special trains as hundreds die.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/extreme-heat-in-1896-panic-stricken-people-fled-the-outback-on-special-trains-as-hundreds-die/#more-24246

    “It is as if history is being erased. For all that we hear about recent record-breaking climate extremes, records that are equally extreme, and sometimes even more so, are ignored.

    In January 1896 a savage blast “like a furnace” stretched across Australia from east to west and lasted for weeks. The death toll reached 437 people in the eastern states. Newspaper reports showed that in Bourke the heat approached 120°F (48.9°C) on three days (1)(2)(3). It stayed above 100 degrees F (38.8°C) for 24 days straight.

    By Tuesday Jan 14, people were reported falling dead in the streets. Unable to sleep, people in Brewarrina walked the streets at night for hours, the thermometer recording 109F at midnight. Overnight, the temperature did not fall below 103°F. On Jan 18 in Wilcannia, five deaths were recorded in one day, the hospitals were overcrowded and reports said that “more deaths are hourly expected”. By January 24, in Bourke, many businesses had shut down (almost everything bar the hotels). Panic stricken Australians were fleeing to the hills in climate refugee trains. As reported at the time, the government felt the situation was so serious that to save lives and ease the suffering of its citizens they added cheaper train services….

    What caused the phenomenal heatwaves that hit the world in the late 1800s? It obviously wasn’t our air-conditioners and SUV’s, and carbon dioxide levels had barely risen over pre-industrial levels (the rise nearly all occurs after WWII).

  148. “Are you Jaws, Walrus or one of the many other names of the same person ?” Are the above as tedious and tiresome as our present visitor.

    Wonder who the next one will be, when this one departs the site.

    What type of person, gets their pleasure by putting down others. Sad really when one thinks about it.

    You know what got to me about the slaughter of those sheep, was not only the cruelty, but the waste of good meat, in a country where many go hungry.

  149. Migs and ME

    There are far too many similarities in writing style, words and tone, combined with the sudden timing of appearance at this site, that have convinced me

  150. “There are far too many similarities in writing style, words and tone, combined with the sudden timing of appearance at this site, that have convinced me”

    Hahahahaha…convinced by his own imaginings!

    “What type of person, gets their pleasure by putting down others. Sad really when one thinks about it”

    Putting down Abbott and anyone who doesn’t “share” excepted of course

    “You know what got to me about the slaughter of those sheep, was not only the cruelty, but the waste of good meat, in a country where many go hungry.”

    Agreed to a point, waste is inexcusable but hunger did not trump the other issues that drove the mad slaughter?

  151. ‘Later in 1896, heat waves also occurred in India, Burma, Borneo, America. (It was bad in New York. Listen here.) There was heat in England, Germany and Spain. 1896 was an example of extreme weather.’

    Jo Nova from Treeman’s link.

    Fascinating.

  152. “Actually, the 1896 heat blast was probably caused by a meandering jet stream.”

    You could be right EG. A weather perturbation triggered by the beating wings of an Amazonian butterfly maybe…

    The message I take from the 1896 heatwave was that when it comes to extremes, Australia can mix it with the best.

    Treeman is almost certainly correct inferring that increasing levels of CO2 could not have been responsible, but once again seems to miss the point in his eagerness to score a point.

    The temperature anomalies of that and subsequent heatwaves, ranging perhaps 20 to 30 degrees outside recorded averages just show us what this kind of weather this wide brown land can turn up.

    The last century might’ve warmed somewhat less than 1 degree as a result of the increasing CO2, a negligible shift when compared with the weather variables.

    There are long term economic and ecological consequences of larger departures from long term averages, but Treeman is talking about a catastrophic weather event and attempting to distract with a fallacy of composition.

    The science of AGW however, which Treeman might prefer I put in pejorative quotes, talks about probabilities of increasing frequency of such events. So time will tell. Some say this is already happening, but that’s another discussion.

  153. This 60 year cycle buries AGW because the PDO/AMO 60 year cycles appear as major determinants in the rise and fall of sea level.

  154. No doubt the climate science websites will provide a more reality based take on Anthony Watts latest offering, as they usually do.

    Might have to wait a bit as there are usually much more interesting things being discussed.

    Treeman doesn’t seem to realise that providing a link to wattsupwiththat is a signal to the rest of us to stop reading and scroll on to the next comment.

  155. If 70% probability means “fairly likely” then the BoM got it right for about 1/3rd of the continent.

    And the Minimum Temperature Anomaly was between 0 and 2 degrees below for the remaining 2/3rds but with lower confidence intervals.

    What the hell are you talking about !

    The headline claim of 5 degrees warmer is total bullshit.

    All “cut and paste, no responsibility taken”

    Why do you waste our time ?

  156. ‘…is a signal to the rest of us to stop reading and scroll on to the next comment.’

    Give him a break, he’s new here, not that it matters either way… you lot refuse to even think about the possibility that 97% of scientists may have got it badly wrong.

    By coincidence, when Al Gore recently began publicising ‘dirty weather’ it became fashionable and now we are all playing the game in ernest. Especially now the weather has changed in our favour.

    I mentioned earlier how the Walker Circulation is not growing weaker as expected by the Klimatariat and sea level rise and fall depends on the PDO/AMO 60 year oscillations.

    The MSM should be talking about this, but as its not happening I’ll continue to waste my time here….in the new media.

  157. “about the possibility that 97% of scientists may have got it badly wrong.”

    When we are talking about world wide and in all spheres, it is hardly likely.

  158. Did global warming cause Hurricane Sandy? After the latest batch of weather disasters the scale of the climate problem is becoming clear – but the solutions are within our reach, writes Steve O’Connor

    Most people have heard that old joke about a man climbing onto his roof duing a flood: he prays hard and refuses help several times, insisting that God will save him, but eventually drowns. In Heaven, the man confronts God, who angrily replies, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”

    After the devastation that yet another “freak” weather event wrought last week, the question must be asked: how many more “Sandys” have to occur before people start seeing greenhouse gas pollution as the main underlying cause?

    There are glimmers that Americans, at least, might be finally not only getting the message about climate change, but are increasingly willing to link it to extreme weather. The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg last week made a surprise announcement backing Barack Obama, citing — among other things — his stance on climate change.

    Scientifically speaking, we currently lack the knowledge to attribute individual events purely to climate change, yet we know that the weather is definitely getting weird.

    National Geographic asked recently, “What’s up with the weather?” concluding that it’s probably a combination of human-made shifts in Earth’s climate and a natural stretch of bad luck; Dr Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist at The Climate Institute, told me a couple of months ago that meteorologists are starting to find their empirical “rules of thumb” aren’t working as well as they used to.

    Importantly, evidence is continuing to mount that a warmer Arctic affects the polar jet-stream in a profound way, leading to a wavier motion and increased formation of blocking patterns. Is it merely a coincidence that warmer sea-temperatures and an unusual meterological blocking ridge were both major factors in Sandy’s scale, size and path? The link between extreme weather and climate is getting stronger and harder to deny.

    So, what’s up with the climate?

    It’s starting to become apparent that, paradoxically, we know both less and more about the climate: more ways that the climate can be influenced (by mechanisms such as the polar jet-stream, for example) but less about how these mechanisms actually work and interact with one another. Our state-of-the-art models are lagging painfully behind reality, and it’s not just a question of adding more raw computing power — although that would help enormously.

    Recently, there was a brief media blitz when the Arctic ice-cap reached a record low in its annual melt, but unless you’re a climate junkie, the reported facts and figures probably don’t mean all that much.

    For anyone left in any doubt as to how bad the situation is, the diagram below shows how satellite measurements of the ice coverage (the thick red line) stack up against computer models from the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.,,,,,

    http://newmatilda.com/2012/11/06/freak-weather-or-changing-climate

  159. Amazing that so vmany get it wrong, especially over so many decades. 97% is generally said to be a sure thing.

  160. “… you lot refuse to even think about the possibility that 97% of scientists may have got it badly wrong.”

    As you would know EG they often get it wrong, but usually only in some minor way that has little or no bearing on the broad conclusions. And they always admit it.

    I can recall Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate thanking the occasional commenter for setting him straight on some technical issue, but please don’t ask me for examples…it is some years since I spent any time trawling through all that stuff.

    But I don’t believe it will be a climate scientist (either ‘for’ or ‘against’) who pulls the rug from under the so-called consensus, it will be some natural variation, if it ever happens. The cost of re-writing all those text books would be horrendous.

    If your cooling cycle ever kicks in I will be overjoyed, as would any ‘warmanista’ I should think. It would be a serious nut case that would exult in seeing the worst projections of AGW come to pass. I have to confess that thinking too much about AGW knocks the edge off my usual ebullient self and I’d prefer it was otherwise.

    What puzzles me though EG, is this: the cost of mitigation, that is, developing better and cleaner sources of energy will be no crippling burden, economically. I suspect that for a country like Australia it might even be positively advantageous. Maybe there’s some modelling been done already. I find the prospect quite exciting.

    Developments in cleaner energy however are not in the interests of Big Smoke. Are you sure you haven’t allowed yourself to be recruited to their cause ?

    I wonder who won the cup ?

  161. ‘it will be some natural variation’

    I agree, but a mini ice age is not something to wish for.

    Green energy is expensive to set up and not terrifically efficient. The so called dirty energy which produces CO2 should be maintained and improved, because carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming or sea level rise.

    ‘Are you sure you haven’t allowed yourself to be recruited to their cause ?’

    I voted for Julia, but have walked away from my left wing past on this single issue… so the answer is no.

  162. Scrambled @1.43am..your comment was found in spam. As Migs mentioned, it is more than likely the link you are connected to which is causing this.

  163. THE next United Nations climate report will ”scare the wits out of everyone” and should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming, the former head of the UN negotiations said.
    Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking.

    “That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,” Mr de Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia. “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”

    The IPCC’s fifth assessment report is due to be published in late 2013 and early 2014.

    Before then is the next end-of-year UN climate meeting in Doha, Qatar. Delegates will discuss a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/finance/climate-report-will-shock-nations-into-action/2632792.aspx

  164. Thank-you Min, the toxic link is out, and somebody said the carbon dioxide stalker was at the dailytrash and I was very scared so I ran over here and hid in the spam filter.

  165. Obama mentioned fighting man made climate change in his victory speech as one of the things the US must do.

  166. Yes, ME, and didn’t that get more rousing applause than most of his other aims, all of which were enthusiastically received. I think the average American is far more aware of climate change and the dangers from global warming than their leaders have taken note of.

  167. Greetings! So this is the thread that is linked to my blog. Mind if I pull up a chair and join the debate?

    Interesting to see people who still doubt the science on Climate Change. I’m not a climate scientist myself, but if anyone has any specific reasons why they doubt the experts, I’ll do my best to answer them.

  168. thesnufkin, waste of times. Nothing sinks in with our visitors. They just go around in circles, no matter what is said.

    The always end up where they started, some adding abuse of those who disagree.

    That is why they have been given this site.

    I, for one, am always interested in new arguments. Both for and against, from reliable sources.

  169. thesnufkin, ….Seems our ‘experts’ have left, only El Gordo here to answer the ‘call’….may be you could clarify the differences between AGW, Global warming, Global cooling and CC. Remembering of course that some of the Cafes ‘experts believe CO2 is just so much plant food…. but, alas, they seem to have scarpered :D

  170. ‘Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings.

    ‘A tax starting at $20 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates. “Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.’

  171. ‘That formal government advisory bodies such as the Climate Commission are supported in their flagrant disregard for scientific principles and facts by senior CSIRO and university research managers is cause for severe national concern.

    ‘A Climate Commission that had the safety and welfare of Australians at its heart would be advising Parliament to expend resources on community infrastructure that mitigates the hazards associated with climate extremes. It would resile from opportunistic attempts to link human tragedies such as Sandy with speculative anthropogenic global warming.’

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cometh-the-storm-cometh-the-climate-lies-20121107-28ytj.html#ixzz2BbHDr3b3

  172. Imagine 28 scientists gathering to convince the BBC to stop alternative views on climate change being heard….but we aren’t told their names.

    ‘The case is a six-year freedom of information battle in which the BBC is refusing to disclose who attended a seminar it held in 2006.

    ‘This seminar is historically significant. The BBC’s global reputation for news reporting stems from its unshakable impartiality; even in wartime its commitment to maintaining evenhandedness has occasionally enraged British politicians (and sometimes servicemen).

    ‘Following that 2006 seminar, however, the corporation made a decision to abandon impartiality when covering climate change – and that’s according to the BBC Trust. This was an unprecedented decision for the BBC in peacetime.’

    Andrew Orlowski in The Register

  173. From the link above.

    ‘A minority of scientists who doubt that mankind’s emissions have much impact say that natural swings are the main cause of rising temperatures in recent decades. If true, that would make it less urgent to invest in measures to cut emissions.

    “Natural internal variability due to heat exchanges between the ocean and the surface” account for the apparent slowdown since 2000, said Richard Lindzen, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

    ‘He said the IPCC exaggerated the risks.’

  174. el gordo – as your link says ‘global dimming’ adequately explains what’s happening so by applying Occam’s ever-sharp Razor we should run with that before we start re-writing the rules of the game.

    Temperatures are, unfortunately for us all, tracking a medium-worst case scenario. Lindzen, meanwhile, has been predicting global cooling for a while and there’s no sign yet, whilst the ice is getting a little thin up here in the north.

  175. What alternative views?

    Sceptics like Melanie Philips and Nigel Lawson get plenty of air time, the BBC just doesn’t claim they’re scientists or that they have science behind them.

    Alternative scientific views of Climate Change get just as much air time as alternative scientific views of gravity or evolution.

  176. That the term “climate change” has been universally substituted for the original term “anthropogenic global warming” is testimony to the alternative views influence within the media.

    I find it amusing when the deniers and sceptics accuse the other side with manufacturing the expression to suit some evil purpose when it was in fact the deniers who introduced the term to help de-rail the dabate.

  177. A meeting between Indonesia, Timor and Australia, shows how far the region has come in recent time.

    Another win for our PM, I believe.

  178. Will save the USA, some believe, here in Australia, we are told it will lead to our ruin.

    …………A carbon tax is a mechanism to charge emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants and oil refiners, for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit.
    Prospects for such a tax as a way to address pollution and climate are probably dim in a still deeply-divided Congress, but some analysts say the measure would be more attractive if positioned as a source of new revenue.
    In fact, a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, suggesting a $20 per ton tax on carbon emissions could halve the U.S. budget deficit over time.
    Such a tax would generate about $88 billion in 2012, rising to $144 billion by 2020, the report said, slashing U.S. debt by between 12 and 50 percent within a decade, depending on how high the deficit climbs, the report said.
    A handful of former Republican policymakers – ones most likely to reject new or higher taxes as a matter of principle – has been touting its potential to raise revenue for a cash-strapped federal budget………..

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49751113/ns/us_news-environment/#.UJxIZOQm2t8

  179. “Presumably the three percent of scientists who are sceptical.”

    So they should get 3% of the media, shoudln’t they ?

    Otherwise the media are totally biased towards the 3%.

  180. Just when you thought the science was settled…

    Mankind’s emissions of fossil carbon and the resulting increase in temperature could prove to be our salvation from the next ice age. According to new research from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, the current increase in the extent of peatland is having the opposite effect.

    “We are probably entering a new ice age right now. However, we’re not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide”, says researcher Professor Lars Franzén.

    http://www.uni-protokolle.de/nachrichten/id/248020/

    “It is certainly possible that mankind’s various activities contributed towards extending our ice age interval by keeping carbon dioxide levels high enough,” explains Lars Franzén, Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Gothenburg.

    “Without the human impact, the inevitable progression towards an ice age would have continued. The spread of peatlands is an important factor.”

    Full Paper here: http://www.mires-and-peat.net/map10/map_10_08.pdf

  181. “I find it amusing when the deniers and sceptics accuse the other side with manufacturing the expression to suit some evil purpose when it was in fact the deniers who introduced the term to help de-rail the dabate.”

    Mangrove, this is the only place where you can get away with such a scurrilous comment.

  182. Snuff

    “Alternative scientific views of Climate Change get just as much air time as alternative scientific views of gravity or evolution”

    Where’s the bullshit button here Michael?

  183. ‘There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that we are near the end of the current interglacial.’

    Surely not, what an outlandish idea.

    The upshot is … CO2 follows temperature and will play no part in forestalling the approaching mini ice age.

  184. ‘…when it was in fact the deniers who introduced the term to help de-rail the debate.’

    A few years ago, with temperature remaining flat, the warmists invented the idea of calling global warming to CC for obvious reasons.

  185. tree, I suspect there are not many sites, that accept your drivel. Well at least not sites from the left side of the political fence.

    This is worth watching, if one has not already done so.

  186. ‘I suspect there are not many sites, that accept your drivel.’

    The man is an intellectual giant compared to the rabble here.

  187. ‘No one who is serious about getting power prices down whacks on a carbon tax because the whole point of a carbon tax is to get prices up. If they don’t go up, the carbon tax isn’t working. That’s the whole point of a price signal, Lisa.’

    Tony Abbott interviewed by Lisa Wilkinson

  188. ‘…you might turn them against me!’

    The denialati will not forget your contribution to the cause.

  189. “Mangrove, this is the only place where you can get away with such a scurrilous comment.”

    It’s the only place I’ve tried Treeman, but it looks like FACTS might be on my side. This from The Guardian 10 years ago…

    “The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding “frightening” phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

    The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

    The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says…”

    In my reality based world this is not really controversial.

    Certainly the term “climate change” is not new, just its recent recruitment for the purposes of leaving the mob with the impression it’s all a natural part of life. And it’s been very effective. You bought it.

  190. “A few years ago, with temperature remaining flat, the warmists invented the idea of calling global warming to CC for obvious reasons.”

    Et tu eg.

    See my comment above.

  191. Mangrove
    I bought nothing, least of all trash printed in the Guardian which btw did not print any memo and did not quote a sentence with global warming or climate change in its piece which ends with this: “A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth,”

    There’s plenty of dry in the argument above on who or what first changed the climate from the weather!

  192. “The upshot is … CO2 follows temperature and will play no part in forestalling the approaching mini ice age.”

    That’s certainly been the case in the past eg when CO2 was a feedback, not a forcing. The actual climate change was the result of orbital perturbations.

    We’re now experimenting to see if we can shift the climate to a new state by reversing the process, making the feedback the forcing.

    I won’t be around to see the final results but early findings are promising.

  193. And then some bright spark decided it was climate disruption so lets play who invented that for a while while waiting for the gullible to suck up the Goracle’s next round of dirty weather.

  194. “That’s certainly been the case in the past eg when CO2 was a feedback, not a forcing. The actual climate change was the result of orbital perturbations.

    We’re now experimenting to see if we can shift the climate to a new state by reversing the process, making the feedback the forcing.

    I won’t be around to see the final results but early findings are promising.”

    Mangrove Jack masquerading as a scientist on cafe weather makers!

  195. “Mangrove Jack masquerading as a scientist on cafe weather makers!”

    About the only inference I can draw from that comment Treeman is that you’ve got no idea what I’m talking about…try google.

  196. MJ, I am sure he is bullshitting. I find it hard to make anything out of what he is saying.

    Maybe el gordo can explain it to us.

  197. Yeah mangrove, i read it all a couple of times and I’m not bullshitting, merely having a bit of fun with mediocre and stupid discussions. Greener pastures beckoning…

  198. el gordo

    The seventies was the era of dinosaur rock bands, but it wasn’t an ice age. What we need to explain is the warming since 1980, and an interglacial doesn’t cut it.

    We understand ice ages pretty well now, and whilst wobbles in the earth’s orbit trigger them, 80% of the warming takes place after CO2 joins the party.

    As Mangrove Jack says, the feedback is now the forcing.

  199. ‘…80% of the warming takes place after CO2 joins the party.’

    Good starting point. Shall we begin with the earth’s emergence from glaciation?

  200. Time for a graph… CO2 appears to follow temperatures and that is clearly indicated in the Eemian interglacial.

  201. el gordo does it again.

    Hunts around and finds a graph that seems to support a very flawed point of view so posts it without context.

    Go to the root of where that graph comes from and voila, a site that contends the globe is warming and offers lots of information and sources to support it,

    So a standalone graph again doesn’t really mean what el gordo thinks it does, and yet again el gordo posts graphs with no context or explanation, something all of us can do to counter el gordo’s stream of nonsense, and it would be just as meaningless.

  202. In that graph you can see the Eemian interglacial around 125,000 years bp. Notice how the temperature keeps on rising while CO2 has plateaued, then it falls and takes CO2 down with it.

  203. Give us the full context el gordo. The source and explanation that goes with it and what the author meant for it to represent.

    As I keep saying posting a graph in isolation is useless. Anyone can come along and put their own interpretation on any part or the whole and it would be just as valid.

    And as I said the website back from that graph contends that global warming is real and posts lots of information and sources for it.

  204. tree, I challenge you to back up that statement with evidence. Just one example will do.

    I will not hold my breath waiting, as I have enough faith in those you infer are liars, to know this is one challenge you cannot deliver on.

    You are a very dishonest person, which I believe most that pass through this site have already come to a similar conclusion.

  205. That looks a bit like the Vostok ice core record, el gordo (even at this time of the evening :-) )

    Yes, it’s obvious that CO2 followed the temperature anomalies that followed the orbital perturbations that I mentioned before (Milankovic cycles?…I’m not so familiar with this stuff these days)

    In that graph CO2 is obviously a feedback which at least establishes some kind of ‘thermal’ link between CO2 and temperature, even though it’s a lagging not a leading relationship in the planet’s climate. I think you question that there’s a link?

    I think what we ‘warmists’ are saying is that is that we have taken a short cut this time and are curious about what might happen if we raised CO2 levels that obtained in previous much warmer periods, but without the orbital effects of those times. Will we get the warming without the orbital contributions ?

    Can CO2 be a forcing as well as a feedback.

    I think it’s a fair question to ask.

    These earlier cooling cycles were caused by something…orbital variations (on fairly predictable cycles…looking back) or weaker insolation.

    Until someone can show me we’re moving in that direction, I’ll have 2 bucks each-way on AGW.

  206. tree, I challenge you to back up that statement with evidence. Just one example will do.

    Big call, Cu. Such a task might be beyond Treefrog.

  207. Miglo, I believe it would be beyond anyone, as what he is inferring is just not true.

    I believe that tree, like Abbott is willing to say anything, to get his way. Truth and those two barely meet.

  208. ” I believe it would be beyond anyone, as what he is inferring is just not true.”

    Spoken like a true believer…at least mangrove is prepared to have a quid each way!

    Migloid, true, CU does make the big calls but the bigger they are the harder they fall…

    “You are a very dishonest person, which I believe most that pass through this site have already come to a similar conclusion.”

    Gee CU I’m touched!

  209. No you are not. You are just a coward, who cannot face the real world. Not worth worrying about, in MHO.

  210. ‘Can CO2 be a forcing as well as a feedback?’

    The AGW theory believes CO2 is the culprit and positive feedback will be the end of us.

    As you know water vapour is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and can supposedly produce a strong positive feedback. The hotter it gets the more water vapour, which in turn increases warming and so on, but then we have a negative feedback where clouds can have both a warming or cooling effect.

    The rise and fall of temperature determines where CO2 fits into the equation and its role is miniscule. Although I hasten to add the world has been greening-up thanks to the increase in CO2 and the carbon sinks are managing well, despite rumours that they are near collapse.

  211. But you just cant explain Ice Ages without CO2, You just can’t. Clouds and wobbles in the earth’s orbit don’t produce ice sheets 3 miles thick over North America.

  212. Please note, and I will bring this to everyone’s attention every time I catch el gordo doing it, as it highlights that el gordo really is just pissing in the wind, snatching bits and bobs that appear to make them look knowledgeable when in reality the opposite is the case.

    el gordo again posted a graph in isolation with no context. Challenged, as always, el gordo a short while later throws in a nonsense post as a diversion away from the original discussion they were caught out in.

    I will highlight this tactic from el gordo as often as I come across it.

    On the topic of el gordo’s diversion, thus being diverted.

    If el gordo doesn’t know why the emphasis is on man made CO2 when water vapour, and indeed other greenhouse gases like methane are greater contributors then el gordo really doesn’t have a clue.

    Also el gordo is being extremely disingenuous in continually averring CO2’s role is minuscule when time and again CO2’s role has been explained, but of course is ignored.

  213. “CU, perhaps you should take up counselling for a career”

    Have done that. I found out that sometimes, with some people, the only way to get results, is to tell it as it is.

    I am afraid you are a case in point. One who feels free to insult and denigrate whenever things do not go your way.

    The problem is that you do not see yourself, this way, You have illusions of grandeur, when it comes to your own abilities, I am afraid.

    Noticed you ignore my assertions of lying and making things up when it suits your argument.

  214. “Noticed you ignore my assertions of lying and making things up when it suits your argument.”

    Not ignoring, just not dignifying it with a response!

    here’s a couple of telling quotes…

    “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” —Thomas Jefferson, former US president

    “We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature.” —New Zealand Climate Science Coalition web site, Nov. 25, 2009

    There’s a lot more where these came from…

  215. ‘just pissing in the wind’

    Not really, thought we might have a quiet conversation on weather and climate.

    Its clear you are not interested.

  216. For something which refuses to beleive in, or is unable to comprehend the existence of “tipping points”, the treetroll ably demonstrates its ignorance and is far removed from the

    intellectual giant compared to the rabble here.

    .
    as eg ludicrously claims.

    Like eg, the treetroll evidently suffers from the Dunning Kruger effect and CU pretty well nails it with

    The problem is that you do not see yourself, this way, You have illusions of grandeur, when it comes to your own abilities, I am afraid.

    .

    I too regard the denialists as cowards, attempting to hide from reality and somehow hoping that agw will somehow vanish, if only they could “ignore” a bit more successfully.

    Given that the far right apostles have decided to politicise the existence of AGW through denial, they have consigned themselves to irrelevance and an unwinnable war on reality.

  217. “I too regard the denialists as cowards, attempting to hide from reality and somehow hoping that agw will somehow vanish, if only they could “ignore” a bit more successfully.”

    Back at you dinosaur…Here’s a classic example of the bullshit you swallow as truth..

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/study-reveals-increasing-mildura-fire-risk/4362978?&section=news

    “It gets more extreme in Mildura, and I mean most people in Mildura know that yes it’s been getting hotter, it’s also been getting drier,” said serial alarmist David Karoly.

    Problem for Karoly is that ABC Watch have caught him guilding the lily again…

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/mildura-fire-risk-not-hot-off-press-

    Drier? From BOM:
    Mean Rainfall station 76077 1889-1949: 266.6mm
    Mean Rainfall station 76031 1946-2011: 293.1mm

    Hotter? From BOM
    Mean Max temp station 76077 1889-1949: 24.6 degrees C
    Mean Max temp station 76031 1946-2011: 23.8 degrees C

    Mean Min temp station 76077 1889-1949: 10.4 degrees C
    Mean Min temp station 76031 1946-2011: 10.3 degrees C

    So given the climate was hotter and drier earlier last century I guess with respect to bushfires it was also riskier! So the elevator report actually is: Risk of bushfires in Mildura may return to levels last seen early last century!

    When you mistakenly employ activists for reporters I guess it’s fair to expect propaganda for news.

  218. Latest Multivariate ENSO Index update from Klaus Wolter at NOAA;

    “While it is too early to write an obituary for the short-lived El Niño event of 2012, the odds for a rebound have dwindled since last month. Therefore, we are facing our first ENSO-neutral winter since 2003-04. Furthermore, every ‘double-dip’ La Niña of the last century has been followed by either one more La Niña winter or a switch to El Niño, so this is even more unusual. Meanwhile, we will have a few months before a return to La Niña becomes a possibility in 2013.”

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

  219. That is the most dishonest piece of dribble I’ve read from “ABC NEWS WATCH” :roll:

    A report, detailing seasonal increased fire risk is poo-pooed by misleading with “Max temp data” and “Mean Rainfall.”

    FFS – compare apples & apples drongoes. perhaps some research into what FDDI is may be a start :roll:

    There is even a clue in the report extract for the intellectually-challenged:

    The largest increases in seasonal FFDI occurred during spring and autumn, although with different spatial patterns, while summer recorded the fewest significant trends. These trends suggest increased fire weather conditions at many locations across Australia, due to both increased magnitude of FFDI and a lengthened fire season.

    Nothing to do with “Mean Max temp” or “Mean Rainfall.”

    Why do you need to be so blatantly dishonest? :twisted:

  220. Not just apples confused with oranges Bacchus:

    A thoroughly bogus regression line projected through from the old Mildura Post Office weather station (closed1949) onto a plot of different data from the Mildura Airport.

    A very clumsy cut and paste. Blind Freddie can see the rising trend line in the recent data.

    That’s twice Treeman has tricked me into looking at his graphs.

    Looks like bullshit is his only stock in trade.

  221. “A thoroughly bogus regression line projected through from the old Mildura Post Office weather station (closed1949) onto a plot of different data from the Mildura Airport.”

    Quoting myself here for the purpose of highlighting the rank hypocrisy of these apostles of “wattsupwiththat”. We all remember Watts obsession, subsequently debunked by one of his own, with imaginary weather station anomalies.

  222. Why do you need to be so blatantly dishonest?

    Because it’s all they have left in their kitty. They are so bereft of ideas, originality and credibility that resorting to being dishonest is the only thing they now know.

    Just look at the total lack of talent in the opposition to see this in action. If they have no integrity or honesty then their supporters are left falling back to being dishonest and deceptive to stick up for them.

  223. Bacchus…leading sheepies Mangrove and Moby by the nose with obfuscation.

    It was David Karoly who brought up the temperature and rainfall on ABC News….”It gets more extreme in Mildura, and I mean most people in Mildura know that yes it’s been getting hotter, it’s also been getting drier,” he said.

    What part of hotter and dryer don’t you understand?

  224. Karoly then went on to say”

    “While the study doesn’t identify what has caused that increasing risk, a number of other studies has indicated that this is exactly what we would expect from human-caused climate change.”

    Idoits!

  225. “A thoroughly bogus regression line projected through from the old Mildura Post Office weather station (closed1949) onto a plot of different data from the Mildura Airport.”

    In the absence of anything better you have nowhere to go. Karoly at least had the sense not to mention the names of the other papers indicating what he expected from climate change. His own after all having been rejected….

  226. “A thoroughly bogus regression line projected through from the old Mildura Post Office weather station (closed1949) onto a plot of different data from the Mildura Airport.”…Mangrove Jack

    “In the absence of anything better you have nowhere to go.”… Treeman

    I’m happy to have those two statements stand in juxtaposition.

  227. But mangrove that was you with nowhere to go!

    BTW This gives some perspective on alarmist claoms of temperature rise…http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/charles-sturts-time-so-hot-that-thermometers-exploded-was-australias-hottest-day-in-1828-53-9c/

    Charles Sturt at Buddah Lake near Trangie N.S.W.

    “We were sadly disappointed in the appearance of the lake, which the natives call the Buddah. It is a serpentine sheet of fresh water, of rather more than a mile in length, and from three to four hundred yards in breadth. Its depth was four fathoms; but it seemed as if it were now five or six feet below the ordinary level. No stream either runs into it or flows from it; yet it abounds in fish; from which circumstance I should imagine that it originally owed its supply to the river during some extensive inundation.”

    “At 2 p.m. the thermometer stood at 129 degrees of Fahrenheit, in the shade; and at 149 degrees in the sun; the difference being exactly 20 degrees.”

    Sturt seems to have been at Buddah lake early to mid Dec 1828 and in case you missed that temperature: that’s 129 degrees or 53.9 °C.

    Again right at the start of Sturt’s narrative in chapter one he notes how the Australian climate changes in a cyclic way through various extremes:

    “severe and long continued droughts”…”sudden and terrific floods, which subside, as the cause which gave rise to them ceases to operate; the consequence is, that their springs become gradually weaker and weaker..”

    The Australian climate was doing the same thing back then.

  228. More on Temperatures:

    The temperatures recorded by the explorers were for official government and nation building purposes. The explorers possibly had some fear of not being believed or even being accused of exaggeration. This could explain why the early reports of Sturt’s travels in the newspapers of the time carried even higher temperatures.

    “It may give His Excellency some idea of the heat to which we were exposed, when I assure you that I found the thermometer which I had lefl with Joseph, and which was fixed in the shade of a large tree, four feet from the ground, stationary 135 ° of Fahrenheit at half-past two p.m., and that in the direct rays of the sun it rose to 157 °. It had, on a former occasion, when Mr, Browne was with me, Stood at 132 ° in the shade, and 153 ° in the sun.”

    The Courier (Hobart, Tas.) Saturday 11 October 1845

    That is 57.2°C, four feet from the ground and in the shade!

  229. tree, please let us into the secret that you are trying to tell us. What has weather of a couple hundred years ago, got to do with anything.

    The only surprise is, that there was not a greater difference in the temperature in the shade, compare to that in the full sun. It would only have to be inches to get a similar result.

    Akerman put on the spot. Being asked what the allegations are that the PM has not addressed. Made the point of saying, they are just questions but allegations.

    Nothing in the article, according to all but Akerman. Akerman said there will be more. All agreed but stuck to the argument, most here agree, There is nothing new about what the PM did nearly two years ago.

  230. CU

    Hot northerly winds will create a temperature in the shade almost as hot as the temperature in the sun. In addition reflection, depending on where the thermometor was placed in the shade could have also have a bearing.

  231. Also the type of tree. If it was a gum, it would be much cooler under the tree. Up to 15 degrees Fahrenheit I believe.

    Still, it is only talking about the weather on a particular day and time. Does it describe climate? I believe not.

  232. “What has weather of a couple hundred years ago, got to do with anything?”

    CU what can I say, you obviously don’t read my posts so you haven’t a hope of understanding.

    “Yes but meanwhile in London the Thames was freezing over The plural of anecdote is not data.”

    Frivolous and irrelevant verbiage from a Greenpeace activist fresh from the maze…

  233. CU, it’s not just about climate…it’s about Karoly’s inference on ABCNews that increased fire risk at Mildura was related to increased temperature and decreased rainfall.

  234. “severe and long continued droughts”…”sudden and terrific floods’

    The natural cycle in Australia is drought followed by flood, so we didn’t have to build all those desal plants. I want flummery’s head on a platter.

  235. I stopped reading the post, when I realized many made no sense. Am happy to stick with the 97%. I do not feel that you have much better understanding of the science.

    By the way, that is just my opinion. Take it or leave it. I am happy either way. Just do not pretend what you say, settles all.

  236. “Also the type of tree. If it was a gum, it would be much cooler under the tree. Up to 15 degrees Fahrenheit I believe”

    You definitely don’t read what I posted. “At 2 p.m. the thermometer stood at 129 degrees of Fahrenheit, in the shade; and at 149 degrees in the sun; the difference being exactly 20 degrees.”

  237. el gordo

    The next time we have a drought and there is no water and we need to turn on a desal plant (because our population continues to grow) please turn off your own taps to ensure you do not use that which you have demonised.

  238. I really don’t know what Treeman’s point is. It’s not controversial that the inland of Australia can get bloody hot.

    And as Shane correctly observes:

    “Hot northerly winds will create a temperature in the shade almost as hot as the temperature in the sun. In addition reflection, depending on where the thermometor was placed in the shade could have also have a bearing.”

    To avoid such inconsistencies in the record we’ve had the standard Stevenson screen weather station now for a very long time.

    Treeman’s guru Anthony Watts launched a campaign to discredit temperature records based on supposedly badly sited Stevenson screens some time back (and failed) so Treeman would know all about the standards.

    That makes it even more weird why Treeman would be presenting Sturt’s temperatures, as interesting as they are, as some kind a benchmark.

    “The plural of anecdote is not data.” …is how snufkin correctly puts it.

    Finally, it’s cooler under trees for the obvious reason that shortwave radiation (visible spectrum) is blocked from the instrument or observer.

    But there’s are other less obvious reasons: leaves are like PV cells, converting sunlight into chemical energy for the tree, resulting in a temperature drop within the leaf. There’s also the uptake of latent heat as the leaves transpire.

    These effects result in a net radiative transfer upwards from the observer which is quite marked on a windless, hot, dry day, especially under trees with dense canopies (like mangos) .

    Not sure about eucalypt (gum) trees CU. They’ve got a habit of letting their leaves dangle down on a hot day, avoiding a lot of incident radiation.

  239. Karoly’s inference that a number of events came together to create the conditions for the fires. Same is being said fore the latest storms in the USA.

    Well where is the proof that he might just be wrong. Not that that there is any proof he is.right.

    He is not saying that there has not been similar weather. We all know there has been.

    I am not commenting on the fires, but those latest storms seem to have been created by many factors that have not come together before.

    At this time it is only a proposition, I assume much research will be done by all, to assess whether the hypotenuse might be correct.

    The same goes for those fires. We may not have the data to decide either way.

    I believe one cannot read any more into the statements than this.

    As that video that was put up the other day, the evidence does appear to support the proposition that carbon emissions add to global warming, while acknowledging there are what appears to be minor anomalies.

    Research has shown that many of the anomalies have other causes. The only constant in the research, that in any warming, the carbon emissions are always there.

    It is the deniers that take these anomalies and blow them up into proof that carbon is not to blame.

    Cherry picking is never a prudent method of proving one’s case.

    The solid facts are still there.

  240. ‘The next time we have a drought’ they will build more dams and relocate the frogs… then when the floods return it will be infrastructure money well spent.

    ENSO pretty much determines what happens in this part of the world and going on past records we probably won’t get much drought for at least a decade.

    It runs in cycles….

  241. el gordo, like all simple and what looks like easy answers, dams are not it.

    We do not have the mountain ranges. We do not have permanent snow lines.

    A long enough drought in a\our wide brown land would dry up any dams we could build.

    The dams would only keep more water out of our fragile river systems, finally destroying them forever.

    We have limited access to water, whether we dam it or not.

    No, we will be looking for other solution in the future. The one you have so much contempt for, will a believe be among the winners. At least along the coast line.

  242. “Treeman’s guru Anthony Watts launched a campaign to discredit temperature records based on supposedly badly sited Stevenson screens some time back (and failed) so Treeman would know all about the standards.

    That makes it even more weird why Treeman would be presenting Sturt’s temperatures, as interesting as they are, as some kind a benchmark”

    For starters Watts is a conduit for information and the assumption that I have any guru is flawed. As for using Sturt’s temps as a benchmark….

    Mangrove…c’mon now that’s a stretch by anyone’s standards.

    Not so sure about trees being like PV cells. Photosynthesis has nothing to do with photovoltaics, they are two completely different processes. When trees shade PV arrays however, their output reduces and and if only a part of the PV string is shaded the resulting hot spot has been known to cause fires….

    Agree about the gum leaves drooping on hot days. They start to drop leaves to compensate as the root zone dries out.

  243. ‘we will be looking for other solution in the future’

    Unlikely in this political climate.

    ‘A long enough drought in a\our wide brown land would dry up any dams we could build.’

    Traditionally the long droughts don’t last more than a decade before the rains return. There is overwhelming evidence that little has changed over millennia.

    The MDB Authority is a white elephant!

  244. I believe that gums are cooler because of the eucalyptus in their makeup.

    Maybe it is only a urban myth, but i believe not.

  245. I have come to the conclusion, Mr. Abbott believes he is a great orator, All he has to do is say so, and everyone will believe.

    He put much effort into todays effort, Must be taking lessons.

    Pity he did not change the message and added a little substance.

    Saying I can do it, is not very reassuring. One is more interested in how, not I can.

    ABC 24

  246. “those latest storms seem to have been created by many factors that have not come together before”

    CU, you have kept safe with the use of “seem” but you’re demonstrably out of your depth… claims that somehow Hurricane Sandy was a storm that broke all records were being debunked before it crossed the coast…Tabloid climatology claims that somehow it was the epitome of predicted extreme weather resulting from climate change had already been debunked well before Sandy formed.

  247. “like all simple and what looks like easy answers, dams are not it.”

    CU, Are you sure you weren’t advising Rudd when he killed off the Wolfdene dam? Your rationale for no more dams is utterly without substance.

  248. el gordo

    Like CU says dams are not the answer. In my small home country town a dam was built many years ago and they claimed it would hold enough water to last the town 20 years. As a result the council pulled up and sold the artesian water table pumps that were linked ot the local river.

    With population growth, tanks being removed from homes and greater demand the dam now only holds 6 months water for the town. The council had to backdown and purchase new pumps for the artesian water and underground river. Restrictions are severe each and every summer.

    What dams are currently under construction in Australia to cope with the next drought ? The only one I can find is the Cotter Dam increase in size. Wyaralong was completed 1 month prior to Jan floods in SEQ.

    The following is interesting comments in 2010.

    According to a recent report in The Australian, Wyaralong Dam is destined to be one of the nation’s last dams. National water commissioner Stuart Bunn, who heads the Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith University, is quoted as saying dams are a Roman-era technology that is being replaced with water recycling, desalination and water-saving technologies.
    Rainfall dependency not on
    He states: “You can’t just keep putting up dams … one of the things that becomes increasingly obvious in Australia is you can’t have all your water sources dependent on rainfall.”
    The National Water Commission website tells us that Australians live in the direst inhabited continent in the world. On average, 90% of rainfall is directly evaporated back into the atmosphere or used by plants; only 10% becomes runoff into rivers or recharged into groundwater aquifers.
    There are 501 large dams in Australia in addition to more than two million farm dams, the website notes. And only in southwest Western Australia and northern New South Wales is rainfall at or above the long-term average.
    Wyaralong Dam then, will be Australia’s 502nd major dam. Queensland built 20 dams in the 1980s and 15 in the 1990s, but only two – on Palm Island in the Torres Strait and Paradise Dam southwest of Bundaberg – in the past decade.
    Victoria, which has 97 dams, has not built a new one since 1986, while in Western Australia the most recent major dam was built in 2002, according to data compiled by the Australian National Committee on Large Dams.

    Regarding not much drought for a decade. I wish I had the confidence you have. My water tank is almost empty, the trees are stressed, the elkhorns are dying on the trees.

  249. Funny, tree, I seemed to read that there were many things that came together but it was far too early to establish if carbon emissions contributed to the disaster.

    I am sure the deniers were quick to debunk the theory. They do not seem to need evidence or research to establish fact.

    But at the end of the day, it is much more than about the weather.

    I might be game enough to put forward the proposition that is how the weather came about, which is of interest to the scientist.

    One thing I do know, if one comes up with a quick, simple answer, it is sure to be wrong.

    Why the shaking of the head. We so know that gums do emit gases that lead to the blue haze they have around them.

    Why would that statement be so unbelievable. I am of the impression you have no idea whether it is an urban myth or not. .

    It is something I have believed for decades. Cannot recall where I picked it up. I believe it is cooler under a gum, than any other tree on a hot day. If I am wrong, surely it is not the end of the world.

  250. No tree, it is just common sense when one looks at the landform of the continent we live on. Dams are not the answer.

  251. I should change that answer. More dams are not the answer. All the easy places have been dammed.

    You claim, I believe to be of the land, and know the country well. I am surprised that you see benefit in more dams.

    Especially when both parties are interested in getting more water into the rivers, not keeping more out.

  252. PS, as a young person from the country, I also believed we could dam the north. After living there for a while and becoming interested in geography and what we have learnt over the last few years, I have come to the belief, more dams are not sustainable.

    Should have listened to my baker grandpa, born 1888 and spending his life along our rivers, when he voiced the opinion that damming, even with weirs, would lead to disaster for our rivers.

    His proposition was that the weirs made flooding worse. He believed that nature might have had it right.

    By the way, the man was far from an idiot. Just observations over a lifetime.

    Something that we seem to have lost.

  253. tree, I have suspicions about someone who disagrees with everything said on this site. Even things that have little to do with your pet hate, climate change.

    There must be something we say, that you can agree with.

  254. “One thing I do know, if one comes up with a quick, simple answer, it is sure to be wrong”

    Then you really should stop now!

    “More dams are not the answer. All the easy places have been dammed.”

    If you’d said that the least difficult sites have had dams built on them, I’d agree. There are plenty of other sites with varying degrees of difficulty and associated engineering challenges. On recent rip over eastern Qld coastline I saw hundreds of small dams. Some farms had several, each overflowing into the lower. The streams below were well vegetated and the flooding rains had not damaged them.

    On the bigger scale, Baroon Pocket dam (the resumption of which saw me in the Land Court) was almost full and has been for a while now. Ditto most others in SEQ. Ewan Maddock on which I worked has always been a challenge to fill with such a small catchment. http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels

  255. Taking bets at ten to one that no new dams will be built. I can tell you the name of the next dam…Hells Gate that will feed into the Burdekin, mainly as a hydro electricity project.

    Then we have several dams that have proposals to have the walls heightened. First would be the Borumba Super Dam at the head of the Mary River to produce hydro electricity and to gravity feed into the Stanley to top up the Brisbane supply dams, if required. Also partly as flood mitigation and to ensure steady flows to the Mary.

    Did you know that 90% of the water that flows from Qld into NSW is lost between Cunnamulla and Broken Hill? Some embankments with flood mitigation gates would increase the annual flows by more than buying water licences that restrict primary production.

    I tell you what are the best dams. Our aquifers that could store over 20,000 Gigs annually. But where would the water come from?

    http://www.sunwater.com.au/__data/waterstorage/water_store.htm

    The big wet commences soon and the water storages are near 100%. That is where the water will come from!

  256. Hells Gate Dam will be the next constructed. I would say that the Borumba Super Dam upgrade will also get the nod.

    Terry Bowrings Water Transfer Project will get a run in the near future, the CBA is being completed and what I’ve seen thus far will deliver a very good economic and social dividend.

  257. “Not so sure about trees being like PV cells. Photosynthesis has nothing to do with photovoltaics, they are two completely different processes”

    Up to a point T. They both rely on capture of photons of energy and subsequent conversion to other forms of energy, electric and chemical.

    The process is certainly different, and the end products are different but I think there’s value in the analogy.

    I once did some work on the conversion efficiencies of tree canopy and energy content of hydrocarbon products and came up with conversion factors around 1%. I was just curious, nothing more, but I was stunned at how high the efficiciency actually was.

    I didn’t know about the hot spot issue with shaded panels. Thanks for that. I’ve been putting off getting PVs until I’ve done some roof mods. I hope the price is still falling faster than grid power is rising.

  258. Scaper

    Are these what you hope will happen or what are actually happening now as I cannot find anything showing those you mention being actually in the course of construction.

  259. “On the bigger scale, Baroon Pocket dam (the resumption of which saw me in the Land Court) was almost full and has been for a while now.”

    I wish you’d been successful. The spillway keeps me awake at night.

  260. CU

    I’ve agreed with more than a few points here and you’re right I’m interested in the climate but climate change is not my pet hate at all, it’s the promulgation of the myth that CO2 is driving it. My position stems from my career in horticulture and two generations of foresters on both sides of my family and I’ve long argued against the practice of replacing native forests with monoculture coniferous forests.

    One of my relations was a founder of Greening Australia, we’re diametrically opposed when it comes to climate change and it has far more to do with ideological differences than science.

    I’ve designed systems for water recycling from nursery runoff with vegetated swales with bio filtration. One dam filled within a month of completion from heavy rain and local farmers were in awe that the water was so clear…

    One reason i’ve stuck around is that this blog (with certain exceptions) appears to be open to and does not moderate out other views.

  261. I google tree and their use for cooling, Big thing in the USA. Pages of examples.

    This might help to enable us to have a better understanding.

    http://copyplease.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/organic-cooling-naturally-tree-shaped.html

    How cool what it be to have an air conditioner designed to be as much art as appliance? By necessity, air conditioning units must cool large spaces and series of rooms – what better form
    could they take than a tree, organically winding their way through your entire home?

    Like a hidden whole-home air conditioning system this overt cooling complex by Ryuichi Tabu is composed of a central unit that branches out as it moves around the house. Instead of hiding the process behind walls, the structure of the system is exposed and celebrated.

    The parallels between air conditioning and trees go deep into the roots of this design, with air cycling up from under the floor (ground), through thick trunks and dispersed at various points along the twisting elements above. The air is taken in, cleaned and cooled at the core and the cool-air recycling process starts again.

  262. “I wish you’d been successful. The spillway keeps me awake at night.”

    You must live in or near The Narrows?

    I wasn’t opposing the dam, just helping friends to get a fair price for their land.

  263. Hells Gate Dam is in advanced planning, Borumba is suffering somewhat because of the shell shocked Newman government and Terry’s project has the backing of several on the opposition front bench.

    Gina’s people are doing the CBA. Should know more in ten days or so as attending a function that Gina will be addressing and will discuss the project with her.

    One fact that you might find interesting. Ninety per cent of the water that flows from Qld via the Warrego into the Darling is lost between Cunnamulla and Broken Hill.

  264. ‘…climate change is not my pet hate at all, it’s the promulgation of the myth that CO2 is driving it.’

    Well said.

  265. ” Ninety per cent of the water that flows from Qld via the Warrego into the Darling is lost between Cunnamulla and Broken Hill.”

    Very interesting indeed. It looks like the water fans out into a huge infiltration basin…

  266. “This might help to enable us to have a better understanding.”

    Maybe a better understanding of art. The design of the water cooler is a doozie!

    There are heaps of more practical passive air conditioning systems and Cardiffair have excellent designs. Quite frankly, living plants do more for me than non organic pipes and funnels intruding into my living spaces!

  267. Was surprised at the effort those in the states put on trees as a method of cooling. Both homes and environment.

    The process is called transpiration. It appears the trees expire water through the leaves, cooling the area around them.

    Cannot find that information on the gums. Maybe it is an urban myth.

    I like trees around my home. Always amaze, that people when they move into homes in the hotter suburbs of Sydney, begin by cutting trees down. Often say to the to hold off until summer, they may change their minds.

    Still that is only my choice. Everybody is entitled to their own

  268. You must live in or near The Narrows?

    Pretty close. My place looks down on the wall.

    I often wonder what the valley looked like before it was dammed.

    If it was anything like the Obi downstream of the wall it must have been quite stunning.

    Or was it already mainly cleared ?

  269. MJ, that is one of the problems with dams. They are generally built on some of the best, scarce,arable agriculture land we have.

    There has to be a better way.

  270. The valley was mainly cleared for cattle and I worried about residues from the old dips. There were patches of trees and open grassland pretty much all the way down from the top of the hill.

    The dam site was owned by my friends and was pretty much wet sclerophyll forest with a huge colony of Xanthorrhoea australis right where the wall is now. Aspleniun nidus 2-3M across sometimes fell from the trees and Drynaria rigidula covered massive rocks.

    Mary River cod would nibble at you in still pools and I still have some prints of the Obi upstream from The Narrows. It was a mass of huge boulders with one spot where water spilled out of a hole in the rock where one could have a massage from the weight of the water.

  271. ” one of the problems with dams. They are generally built on some of the best, scarce,arable agriculture land we have.”

    Agree to a point, CU but the Sunshine Coast was overwhelmingly in favour of Baroon Pocket dam and has had a reliable supply of water since it was built. For the most part those with land resumed were given a fair price on the day, through valuation of their asset from comparable sales.

    Wyvenhoe was built on more marginal country aside from the flood prone area closer to the river with deeper and more arable soils. Wyvenhoe resumptions saw most landholders well compensated and Brisbane has had reliable water supply since. There was a short time when we all connected the grey water to bins so we could water our gardens but in the last two years over half the capacity of Wyvenhoe went into Moreton bay through emergency or controlled releases. In that context it could be argued that more dams in the Brisbane and Stanley river catchments have merit.

  272. Ah, transpiration…as a boy my grandfather taught me to transplant. “Cut the foliage back to ease the transpiration” stuck in my mind. It’s more a process involved with moving nutrients through the plant’s vascular system than with cooling which is a by product since the water carries nutrients up from the soil and has to go somewhere or the process stops. Having said that it does stop when deciduous trees loose their leaves and they become dormant.

    Watched a program recently where the architect resisted cutting down deciduous trees which cooled a house in summer and allowed it to warm in winter. The client wanted to install a solar PV array and the trees would have shaded the panels. An energy audit showed that the house did better with the trees than with the panels….

  273. “Mary River cod would nibble at you in still pools and I still have some prints of the Obi upstream from The Narrows. It was a mass of huge boulders with one spot where water spilled out of a hole in the rock where one could have a massage from the weight of the water.”

    Thanks very much for that word picture Treeman, no photo could capture that.

    The dip residues might explain the behaviour of some of the denizens of the Sunshine Coast.

  274. “Cannot find that information on the gums. Maybe it is an urban myth.”

    It’s more like a bush myth CU. It’s believed that gum trees transpire huge amounts of water, more than other trees. It doesn’t seem to make sense for a species that evolved to exploit drier conditions.

    I once had a cocky neighbour (NQ) who believed his trees sucked up all the moisture and made his creeks run dry.

    He cleared all his trees, including stuff on steep ground, and the following wet season my downstream creek flats got a generous top-dressing, about 1000 cubic metres.

    It’s an ill-wind…

  275. My pleasure Mangrove…Thanks for the inspiration which brought the memories flooding back.

    Soon after the dam came on line i smelt something in the water at Mooloolaba (sensitised as I am to agrochemicals) that was evocative of organochlorine. Driving beside the OBi below Baroon in full flow around that time, there was something in the air…

  276. ‘Frivolous and irrelevant verbiage from a Greenpeace activist fresh from the maze…’

    I know this is Australia Rules, but you’d still be advised to play the ball and not the man, after all if we’re to do science by anecdote the melting of the arctic is a pretty telling tale.

    p.s. glad you read the blog!

  277. This graph shows sea surface temperature along the route that Sandy took and we can all agree that SST drops after a hurricane.

  278. el gordo did you bother to read the source of the last link you posted and the links to sources within it?

    No need to answer, it’s self evident.

    Wow and yet another graph with no context or accompanying information, you really are going for the record of the most irrelevant and meaningless posts on climate change.

  279. Still being talked about as a way of saving the USA economy???

    Is a US carbon tax coming?

    Barack Obama, carbon pricing, carbon tax, US politics, Enviro-Markets, Policy & Science, United States
    Login or register to post comments

    Gerard Wynn
    Academics and lawmakers have proposed a US carbon tax to curb carbon emissions and trim the debt pile, but the idea depends on prominent Republican support, so far absent.
    Without a deal on cutting the fiscal deficit the United States faces a $600 billion package of automatic tax increases and spending cuts which could tip the country back into recession.
    While that is clearly a step too far, the consensus is that a more gradual combination of spending cuts and/or tax hikes is required to avoid a borrowing crisis.
    Many economists have argued for a carbon tax: it would lead to net welfare benefits compared with for example hikes in income tax, even before allowing for avoided climate change………………

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/us-carbon-tax-coming?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily

  280. Hurricane Sandy produced a dramatic drop in SST and Antarctic sea ice increases with stronger winds.

    This is no random coincidence.

  281. Antarctica land surface temperatures increased from the 1950s through to the 1970s, but over the past 40 years there has been little change in temperatures overall.

  282. The rapid warming of the Antarctic Peninsula may partly be due to a long-term trend that began long before the Industrial Revolution, according to a team of Australian, British and French researchers.

    But, they say, warming in the past 100 years has been unusual and, if it continues, more ice shelves on the peninsula could collapse.

  283. “The Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so, on average, the Earth is losing sea ice very quickly. There is no inconsistency between our results and global warming.”

  284. The circumpolar winds circling Antarctica over the past four decades appear to have strengthened and some scientists believe this has come about because of ozone depletion, which ‘has made the lower stratosphere cooler and generated stronger winds beneath.’

    Sounds like a reasonable assumption.

  285. Data from NASA’s Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

  286. “Temperature extremes in the United States and globally indicate possible effects from global warming and the greenhouse effect.”

    Sounds like a reasonable assumption.

  287. Hansen vs Watts.

    One is a scientist who worked for NASA and produces Peer Reviewed papers and computer models that have stood the test of time.

    The other is a weatherman with a blog.

  288. thesnufkin. I came across a piece on Watts’s deliberate distortions, selective cherry picking and falsification of data sets when throwing up pieces of disjointed non-sourced paragraphs and graphs to throw up here to mimic the way el gordo posts.

    Says a lot that the mindless right wing ideological driven deniers like el gordo fall for scams so easily and believe Watts is a credible source.

  289. Nice post thesnufkin, amazing isn’t it, the deniers scream the loudest about alleged restriction on information, yet they are the worst. watts has become an even bigger joke

    btw, there is another thread

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s