Apart of some Australian politicians not realising that the summer tends to be hot, and is supposed to be hot, the whole global warming kerfuffle seems to be winding down.
Not that anyone has noticed, but the Kyoto Protocol expired on 31 December, with carbon emissions up by 58pc over 1990 levels – instead the 5pc cut the signatories envisaged. All that fuss for worse-than-nothing. Kyoto has not been replaced, because a new era of climate change rationalism is slowly taking root. As Nigel Lawson predicted, the hysteria of the last few years is cooling. There’s no point legislating for change that’s not going to happen. No point taxing the poor out of the sky (or off the roads) if it won’t make the blindest bit of difference to the trajectory of global warming. To be sure, countries responsible for 15pc of emissions have signed an extension of Kyoto. But the main players have drawn a veil over this rather hysterical chapter in the great energy debate.
There are good reasons to avoid waste and pollution – yet our warming friends were happy to throw all that away for their crusade.
And Bob Brown is now more interested in whales than climate.
stackja
8 Jan 13 at 9:58 pm
So I see. Table 3. Congratulations on your achievement
Peter Williams
8 Jan 13 at 10:08 pm
Even the Met Office has gone cold on warmening.
Gab
8 Jan 13 at 10:24 pm
The hyper-ventilating on the ABC and Fairfax today about a hot day has been ridiculous. Cherry picking extraordinaire about temp records. But their comrades like Slingo at UK BoM and NOAA have been doing the same thing.
These people are small-brained, ideological idiots..
Lazlo
8 Jan 13 at 10:31 pm
See http://www.voxeu.org/article/concern-environment-luxury-good-evidence-google-searches for data on Google searches for “unemployment” and “global warming”. Kahn and Kotchen’s key points are:
• Recessions increase concerns about unemployment at the expense of public interest in climate change.
• the decline in global-warming searches is larger in more Democratic leaning states.
• An increase in a state’s unemployment rate decreases in the probability that Americans think global warming is happening, and reduces the certainty of those who think it is.
Kahn has previously argued that income and price effects explain most variations in the green vote.
Jim Rose
8 Jan 13 at 10:56 pm
There are good reasons to avoid waste and pollution – yet our warming friends were happy to throw all that away for their crusade.
Yes, Julia threw everything away including a perfectly good economy just to get her bust in the Ballarat Botanical Gardens.
Crossie
8 Jan 13 at 10:58 pm
Sadly, it is now becoming morally and logically impossible to continue with the farce. Atmospheric temperatures are alarmingly rising, and have done since the 70′s.
You are in the potential firing line for losses and damages accruing from the climactic disaster that is unfolding before our very eyes, on a daily basis.
The sooner you can recognise and rectify your errors, the better off we will be, enabled to take conclusive action to stop climate change, once and for all.
Bryan
8 Jan 13 at 11:04 pm
I must put in a good word for people like Chris Gilham, Ken Stewart, Ian Hill, Ed Thurstan; Andrew Barnham; Warwick Hughes, Geoff Sherrington, Lance Pidgeon, who are doing fabulous behind the scenes research and analysis on Australia’s temperature record and revealing the dodgy basis of the recent alarmism coming from our premier scientific bodies, the CSIRO and BOM.
cohenite
8 Jan 13 at 11:04 pm
If I’d just arrived from outer space, I’d swear Australia had never had a hot day in its history. When I was a kid, our Atlas had Marble Bar and Cloncurry with the hottest temperatures on record, about 52-53 degrees. Now it’s a mere 50.7 degrees C at Oodnadatta. Ivanhoe NSW was reported to be 51C in early January 1980, but lo and behold, their record is officially about 47.8 C, set recently in about 1998, yet I remember it hitting 47C for days on end. Jo Nova reported a while back a report in a newspaper from about 100 years ago of a recorded temperature higher than our current “record”, as well as separate reports of millions of birds dropping out of the sky dead from the heat in the late 1800s. People flocked to the coast via trains and some dropped dead waiting on the platform. Early settlers had their thermometers explode, but not before recording 53C.
I spent the first few days of my life covered in wet towels to survive a heat wave, not to mention dust storms and floods. After playing cricket constantly in 47C heat as a kid, today was a complete non-event.
They didn’t blame it on global warming, but they implied it. Fauxfacts had an alarmist story today on the BOM having to add new colours to indicate “unprecedented” temperatures, FFS. I wanted to vomit, and it had nothing to do with the heat.
The Beer Whisperer
8 Jan 13 at 11:06 pm
Proposition 23 in the 2010 California election was defeated by a 23% margin. is that a lot? If passed, it would have suspended the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act 2006 until the unemployment rate was below 5.5%
Jim Rose
8 Jan 13 at 11:07 pm
Bryan. Back to the bong please
Tiny Dancer
8 Jan 13 at 11:07 pm
Bryan, fuck off.
cohenite
8 Jan 13 at 11:14 pm
Byran
Go get some psychiatric help as you seem mentally impaired. Are you one some form of psychiatric drug at the moment as it doesn’t seem to be working all that well? You appear delusional.
JC
8 Jan 13 at 11:18 pm
You do realise that Bryan probably teaches Year 9 Geography.
Better get your affairs in order sport – it is gonna drop to 19 degrees in Sydney tonight. Just catastrophic.
Rousie
8 Jan 13 at 11:20 pm
Seriously, hot days are the new full moon
Rousie
8 Jan 13 at 11:21 pm
And Bryan said unto them ….. “Repent, for the kingdom of Kevin is at hand. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy My sacred Carbon Tithe. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee. ”
…. or something like that.
With apologies to Tarantino and God, not necessarily in that order.
Leigh Lowe
8 Jan 13 at 11:26 pm
Rousie
According to his bio, Byran is a political economy major which is basically Clayton’s economics.
Seriously, WTF would he know about anything.
The moron is a screaming leftwinger and he thinks he’s a centrist. Go take a read of his blog and what he says about himself. He’s not a well person.
JC
8 Jan 13 at 11:27 pm
The lower troposphere temperature record measured by satellite since 1979 has not been doctored like the various “adjusted” land temperature records. It refuses to co-operate with the junk science invented by the activists aligned with the UN IPCC. The climate “crisis” is a political aspiration.
Tom
8 Jan 13 at 11:28 pm
“Kahn has previously argued that income and price effects explain most variations in the green vote.”
That makes intuitive sense – environmental concerns (as an aggregated national average) are a product of a certain level of wealth.
Jarrah
8 Jan 13 at 11:29 pm
Stack:
Now that’s just perverted: the only ones he has access to are dead ones on the beach.
He must be a mate of W.T. Snacks
(Not really SFW if work’s prudish)
Mk50 of Brisbane
8 Jan 13 at 11:29 pm
To be fair – that is a worthy cause.
Sinclair Davidson
8 Jan 13 at 11:31 pm
Oh. Live ones. My bad.
Mk50 of Brisbane
8 Jan 13 at 11:33 pm
The whaling industry would cease if Rudd or Gillard had been clever enough to negotiate a trade deal which saw the Japanese remove subsidies to whaling.
It was one of Rudd’s big boasts, that he could get it done.
Gillard will no doubt pontificate about how awful whaling is, despite having no policy success.
.
8 Jan 13 at 11:33 pm
Ok saw the blog. Was expecting a boilerplate beta but now the bong reference makes sense.
Rousie
8 Jan 13 at 11:35 pm
As much as I enjoy the annual sporting event Japs v Greenpeace, I would prefer to see the whales go unmolested.
Sinclair Davidson
8 Jan 13 at 11:35 pm
Bryan has to be another half arsed composta. Like Hammy but even more poorly planned, researched and executed.
.
8 Jan 13 at 11:36 pm
. – unfair comparison. Hammy is fantastic. You have to give him credit, the man is a genius. Bryan – not so much. What I don’y understand is why these lefties always try to pass themselves off as being centralist or non-partisan. Are they ashamed of themselves? There is nothing wrong with being a lefty, so why won’t they just admit to it?
Sinclair Davidson
8 Jan 13 at 11:39 pm
yeah, me too, Sinc. I do not mind the Islanders putting pilot whales in the curry or the Inuit sticking ‘em in the oven (must be a right bugger to baste), but there’s no reason for commercial deep sea whaling these days.
The worst abusers of the old whaling treaties (surprise surprise) were the Soviets. If the Blue’s go extinct, it’s mostly because of those bastards.
Just do not start me on Sea Sheepshaggers. They are an active danger to all those earnign a crust on deep water.
Mk50 of Brisbane
8 Jan 13 at 11:40 pm
Someone picked up on the fact that the pic of that dude who supposedly died of cig smoking and his pic splashed all over packs is the pic “our Bryan” uses at his blog.
Curious that dead Bryan and the commenter Bryan both share the same name and picture, hey?
http://whyquit.com/whyquit/bryanleecurtis.html
JC
8 Jan 13 at 11:42 pm
Come on guys, it is good to have a different troll on deck, I am sure we are all bored with the old lot. Ring out the old, ring in the new!
Happy New Year Bryan!
Bryan, What are your views on the deregulation of the labour market?
And bringing back the eight ball over?
Rafe
8 Jan 13 at 11:42 pm
Sinc, they think they are in the centre, not the left – I know of a former Fairfax employee who reckoned the UK Guardian was of the centre, for example. That’s why they pass themselves off as centrist, because that is what they believe they are.
Truly, really, really, cross my heart and hope to live forever!
Louis Hissink
8 Jan 13 at 11:43 pm
They’re trying to display their thoughtful individuality. It’s such a crock as you can see through it in a NY second.
JC
8 Jan 13 at 11:45 pm
Hey, we might have to live like hobbits to survive the onslaught of climate change! A report from Jo Nova.
Rafe
8 Jan 13 at 11:46 pm
For the same reason people won’t admit to mental illness.
Tom
8 Jan 13 at 11:47 pm
Tom – mental illness I can understand. The better analogy is deafness.
Sinclair Davidson
8 Jan 13 at 11:48 pm
My apologies to dead Bryan.
Pretty despicable stuff to use his picture like that.
Rousie
8 Jan 13 at 11:48 pm
“Sinc, they think they are in the centre, not the left”
A great many wingers of both stripes believe that. Some embrace extremism, but most think they represent a ‘silent majority’ or similar. It’s probably because they hang out with people who share their political outlook.
Jarrah
8 Jan 13 at 11:49 pm
“Curious that dead Bryan and the commenter Bryan both share the same name and picture, hey?”
I thought it was him. So now Bryan’s an imposter. He even added a big bottle of Bundy rum in lieu of a baby. So he uses a photo of a dead person, photoshops out the baby and replaces it with some Bundy, then passes it off as himself? Balanced and classy!!
The Beer Whisperer
8 Jan 13 at 11:52 pm
Yup. The warmening hoax is petering out.
Nobody cares.
C.L.
8 Jan 13 at 11:58 pm
Jarrah,
Go read Barry Goldberg’s two books about the American Media – Bias and Arrogance. Explains it all.
Louis Hissink
9 Jan 13 at 12:00 am
It’s quite simple. The religion of ‘Green’ is a high-end consumer good, a bit like an overpriced restaurant meal or branded consumer clothing. The Green vote closely follows higher incomes and is inversely proportional to the actual amount of environment the voter encounters during the day. Those that live in a concrete jungle form the theory that the environment must be in danger, because all they can see is city.
Mental Illness or Idiotic Personal Branding statement. You decide.
brc
9 Jan 13 at 12:56 am
Australia has been damaged by this incredible and extended piece of public mischief. I cannot forget or forgive.
Unless the harmful elements are rescinded and sense returns to energy policy, the damage will be ongoing. After the change of government we have to make sure not that that the tax is abolished, but that every last bit of wayward policy and wasteful expenditure is rubbed out. There’s bits of it everywhere.
Blogstrop
9 Jan 13 at 6:30 am
To give the ABC a bit of credit:
On ABC radio this morning: “…the hottest day since 1985.”
On Channel 9 news: “…the hottest day ever.”
Happymonkey
9 Jan 13 at 6:36 am
Also, why would it not state, “the hottest day on record“?
Happymonkey
9 Jan 13 at 6:37 am
Donna Laframboise has a new scoop on what’s in the next IPCC fabrication. A huge amount of inside info has been leaked by what the left would usually call a whistleblower, but in this case they’ll probably prefer something more derogatory.
Blogstrop
9 Jan 13 at 6:50 am
In many ways that’s a fair conclusion, for the local environment. Cities are pretty crap all told, and at least in places people are doing something about that. I’d be really pissed off if they started selling off the small remaining handful of community park around Sydney.
I think the difference is that one group of people are willing to say, OK we have local warming caused by Urban Heat Island — too much asphalt and concrete, not enough trees. We have a shitty environment for people, and we can improve that for the people who live there by taking certain steps towards community improvement. So I have certain preferences, I talk to my neighbours, they have similar preferences, and we do something about that.
There’s another group of people who think they have a noble cause and they want to tell someone else far away how to life their life and how to manage their property. To escape their dead-end boxy life in a city apartment they fantasize about farming, or living in a jungle tribe. Pretty soon they have convinced themselves they must know a lot about farming and probably would be very good at it… if they ever tried.
Same root problem, two different responses to the problem.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 6:56 am
With the Japanese whaling, I’m not panicking about the small number of whales they pull out every year, but it is deeply annoying that they pretend to be doing research. I mean, we all recognize this as the most obvious lie, and apparently that’s how treaties are supposed to work or something.
Maybe everyone should start down that track? Run a red light… sorry officer, just research. Start printing your own money… purely for research purposes.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 7:06 am
Their ABC has a dire AGW agitprop emergency. Its supply of “catastrophic” for use as an adjective must be near exhausted. In NSW, we’ve had one 40 day some fires, one house destroyed, nil lives lost and the cunning hysterics can’t resist pretending it’s Dunelly.
Alfonso
9 Jan 13 at 7:09 am
You don’t record an average maximum, you record temperatures at particular places and you then munge that data together (somehow) to calculate what might be an average maximum. Of course there are many ways to calculate the average, and since no reference to this particular method is given, the value is pretty much meaningless.
I’m pretty sure no one was even bothering to do this in 1972.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/brutally-cold-russian-winter-kills-123-people-20121226-2bvlx.html
Strangely no mention of climate change in Russia, that’s because cold weather is just weather, but warm weather is climate.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 7:21 am
Look at this hysterical rubbish.
Happymonkey
9 Jan 13 at 7:28 am
Speaking of hysterical rubbish, their ABC is telling me this morning that we are no longer experience a heatwave. No, not for us a heatwave, what we have here is a
because we’ve had six days of continuous heat!!!!!!!!
Never before in this country, not even “recorded” in the Dreamtime, have we ever had such heat!!
Meanwhile, in Melbourne, the heat continues today with the thermometer melting at the current temperature of 14 deg., expected high of 20deg.
And as if reading my mind, the smamry little trollope on their ABC admonishes:
“And if you think the cooler temperatures give some relief, think again. The heat will continue!”
What? In summer? Noooooo, can’t be.
This.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 7:46 am
Severve cold snaps in Beijing China, India, Korea, Russia, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Must be Climate Change or Tony Abbotts fault.
Mic of TOLL
9 Jan 13 at 8:09 am
Quite so, Gab. Saw the same thing. Weatherman says it is minus 1 on Mr Wellington. Hobart will be 16 today, Melbourne 20. Then three minutes later their ABC says this is a super heatwave “with no relief in sight”
Sinc’s right. Leftism seems very much like deafness. They don’t even hear themselves speaking.
tylos
9 Jan 13 at 8:15 am
Indeed I had to sit through a conversation at work between my boss and another co-worker where they were proclaiming that the ABC is the only balanced media outlet, that if they coalition got in they might do something ‘nasty’ to aunty, like introducing ads (which apparently would kill the whole concept), that ‘no weight’ should be given to commentators with certain views in the name of ‘balance’, that Henry Ergas is an ‘idealogue’ (and presumably whose views should be given a zero weighting), that Q and A has drifted to the right and gives airtime to commentators whose views should have no weight, and on and on it went. Yet these two chumps think that their version of reality is centrist, balanced and ultimately unassailable. Meanwhile, I was sitting there nearly puking…
Skuter
9 Jan 13 at 8:21 am
lol. That phrase has become the “Shibboleth” of the Climate Scam Resistance Movement, Tylos.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 8:30 am
How did we ever survive as kids? Then living in the north of NSW we played all summer in the sun, walked to school, slept in the hallways as it was cooler, survived bushfires in the area….in fact had what was then a normal childhood.
To listen to the ABC and read Fairfax one would believe there never had been a hot summer in this country…. none of them must ever have read “I Love a Sunburnt Country”
Maybe our parents were just of a tougher generation.
Mother G
9 Jan 13 at 8:33 am
I was thinking the same thing Mother G
Tal
9 Jan 13 at 8:39 am
Yeah, the forecasting chart just started predicting huge values. But actually, it didn’t get over 50 so the forecast was just plain wrong.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 8:52 am
This is a pretty dumb post and I have no idea what the purpose of it is.
The “fuss” about Kyoto was getting people to sign up to it. They didn’t sign up, so the target wasn’t achieved. How is that surprising?
Or are you just gloating? You’re proud of doing nothing? Only the right would take pride in apathy.
So, there are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution and waste. Detail some of them for me please. Just one even will do. A concrete recommendation on how we can reduce waste and pollution.
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 8:52 am
Remember Cyclone Yasi?
It was going to be a record breaking Cat 5 with winds “well over 250 kmh”.
None of the actual recordings showed this but it is still being touted as a “rogue” storm which is somehow proof of climate change.
Leigh Lowe
9 Jan 13 at 9:05 am
Evcricket: Sure I’ll give you a concrete example — retail is moving away from “bricks and mortar” stores and toward online Internet shopping.
* Saves fuel, because it is much more efficient to run a delivery service than have each family drive to multiple stores, to inspect the items, and then drive one item back home with them. Also saves the double-handling between warehouse and retail store.
* Saves time, because it is quicker to inspect a larger range of merchandise.
* Saves land, because one warehouse stacked with pallets and high throughput is much more efficient than many retail stores with low throughput.
* Saves wages, because you can have fewer employees (probably each of them paid more than retail shop-floor staff).
* Less spoilage, from damaged items, opened boxes, etc.
So what is driving this amazing revolution of pollution and waste reduction? People flying to conventions and signing treaties I guess…
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 9:05 am
Poor dear, CO2 is not pollution, it’s plant food, without CO2 we starve. You’re not confusing those pictures of power plant cooling towers emitting similarly non pollution steam with carbon particulates from Soviet era steel mills, are you precious?
Alfonso
9 Jan 13 at 9:05 am
Well, Evcricket, you could just fuck off and stop polluting our blog if it costs you so much angst.
Too much to ask?
Winston SMITH
9 Jan 13 at 9:07 am
Evcricket – Doing nothing is the appropriate response when there is no problem. Doing something, when there is no problem, is either futile or insane. Lately its more than insane – completely bonkers, like the carbon tax and RET.
If you don’t know the reason why there is no problem I suggest you have a look at the climate data, including the stuff the IPCC keeps forgetting to put in their reports. Like this one I saw today.
The empirically measured climate sensitivity to CO2 is around 0.7 C/doubling. Work it out. The arithmetic is simple. There is no way humans can put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to get even 2 C of warming.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 9:09 am
It’s a chimley.
It’s got stuff coming out of it.
Looks bad.
It’s owned by a big corporate so that makes me suspicious.
Hey, don’t pressure me, dude!
I’m an Arts Graduate!
Leigh Lowe
9 Jan 13 at 9:09 am
” on how we can reduce waste and pollution”
Personal responsiblity is one way -all sorts of things at home you can do minimise waste.
A big problem though is public transport. In Brisbane it is cheaper to drive – a distance of say 18 kms costs around $12 on Go Card when you can drive a small car for around $4.00 the same distance. The carbon tax has probably infiltrated to rising prices in public transport, there’s a problem.
candy
9 Jan 13 at 9:17 am
Okay I can see I’m arguing with the best on the internet here.
Ah, Bruce, the IPCC hasn’t included that work because it was released last week. Should they have reviewed it before it was released?
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 9:22 am
Remember to catch the shot with the sun behind the steam, looks a lot blacker that way.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 9:23 am
I didn’t mention powerplants guys.
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 9:26 am
cricket says:
Stop production of solar panels.
And wind towers.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 9:29 am
Every stage of the ‘scientific process’ to do with AGW should be transparent. The IPCC has a habit of changing the received wisdom to fit the narrative; so the before and after is crucial.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 9:31 am
I don’t believe this Evcricket is here for discussion, just to rail and abuse. How do I know this? It’s opening salvo: “This is a pretty dumb post” “Only the right would take pride in apathy.”
So then we give it return fire and then the whining little imp will next complain about insults and abuse from the Cat.
*sigh*
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 9:31 am
If Kyoto expired on 31 December and wasn’t renewed does that mean we have gone over the …. Kyoto Cliff?
kingsley
9 Jan 13 at 9:33 am
Evcricket – I was giving an example of the solar effect on climate through changes in cloud cover. Which is in addition to TSI, through the influence of the solar magnetic field and/or the impact of UV (as the link is addressing).
The point is that half of temperature rise last century was due to such mechanisms, not CO2. Another third was due to the roughly 60 year ocean oscillations. The residual in a statistical sense is consistent with the 2XCO2 value I cited.
CAGW is not happening. Therefore we shouldn’t be doing anything about it.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 9:33 am
They ought to build more windfarms :
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 9:38 am
LOL.
C.L.
9 Jan 13 at 9:42 am
What blindness this all is! At least Ben Cubby in the SMH brings a degree of realism to this matter.
We ignore climate change at our peril, and to the even greater peril of our children and grandchildren. I look forward to the day when it becomes illegal in Australia to promulgate such delusion about established and settled science.
Yesterday was the hottest ever experienced in Australia. Many more to come.
hammygar
9 Jan 13 at 9:45 am
LOL. I’ve missed you, Hammitup.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 9:46 am
So far Labor’s pink batts have killed more people than ‘climate change.’
C.L.
9 Jan 13 at 9:49 am
hammy = composta
Tiny Dancer
9 Jan 13 at 9:50 am
I don’t believe so, Tiny. Although that latest offering is one of his better ones and is in the vicinity of a Composta. I give it a 4/5 Sparkles.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 9:54 am
I’m still puzzled. Australian lefties said Gillard’s carbon dioxide tax would make the heat stop. Now they say it isn’t working.
?
C.L.
9 Jan 13 at 9:54 am
Hammy – The map looks very like the Moscow heatwave map, which even the climate science fraternity all agreed was due to jet stream blocking. It causes colder winters and hotter summers.
And as Prof Lockwood (an IPCC contributer) notes jet stream blocking is more common in times of low solar activity, which is what we’re in right now. We haven’t seen such a solar minimum for a couple centuries.
No, Gareth, CO2 is not the reason why it was hot yesterday. Try again.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 9:54 am
Hey, how about some mood music?
This one is dedicated to the ABC.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 9:54 am
Hammygar sometimes science isn’t ‘settled’ – look at Thalidomide.
Best not rush into things, like with the carbon tax which is causing prices to creep up all over the place and the cost of living going up.
candy
9 Jan 13 at 9:55 am
I’ll believe its composta when Hammy has a rant about Moose Knuckles.
Token
9 Jan 13 at 9:56 am
“The hottest day ever”. Ever is a long time. The hottest day on Earth ever is estimated to be about +260 degrees Celsius about 4.6 billion years ago. Sorry, after so much alarmism I couldn’t help myself.
Mic of TOLL
9 Jan 13 at 10:00 am
Hey Bruce, cloud cover doesn’t affect anything; clouds don’t reflect light back into space, they diffuse it in all directions based on the angle of incidence with individual water molecules. SO mentioning clouds is a gigantic furphy.
Also, ocean oscillations can not influence global temperature. Re-read the second law of thermodynamics. All ocean interactions occur within the system boundary; IE they can not influence temperature in the system.
Oh, maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about after all?
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 10:02 am
I kind of disagree on that one. Public transport costs have been going up faster than CPI for years.
http://www.cityrail.info/news/2011/111215-fares
That was before Carbon tax and typical increase is around 6% or there abouts (when official CPI was 2%).
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 10:02 am
Hammygar
Hottest since settlement when we started measuring temperatures.
What was the summer temperature of 1500 AD? Hotter? Cooler? Same?
Louis Hissink
9 Jan 13 at 10:02 am
evcricket – so albedo is a measure of what?
Louis Hissink
9 Jan 13 at 10:04 am
Did I miss something, or is this spurious statistic a brand new one? I can’t ever recall an Australia-wide average (which means God knows what) ever being publicised before…
mct
9 Jan 13 at 10:08 am
“I kind of disagree on that one. Public transport costs have been going up faster than CPI for years.”
Yes, well for whatever reasons, public transport has just gone up 7.5 percent Brisbane a few days ago.
If we’re to stop using cars, reduce pollution etc, this doesn’t encourage.
candy
9 Jan 13 at 10:16 am
So Mr Cubby is the gold standard for reliable reporting for you Hammy. What can I say but please keep talking lefty.
Ben Cubby goy a bit of coverage in Cut & Paste today:
Token
9 Jan 13 at 10:17 am
Candy, it is that disconnect between the message and the actions of the Left when it comes to AGW which makes it clear they actually do not believe in that shyte.
Look at Al Gore’s record.
Token
9 Jan 13 at 10:19 am
candy: I must admit the cost of public transport in Brisbane does seem to be getting high, but you do have to be careful to take into account the true costs of some trips – especially to the city, where paid parking can easily add $20 to $50 to the cost of a few hour visit.
I recently caught a suburban train in Brisbane for the first time in years, and I must admit I was pretty impressed with the quality of the stations. There are also new lines in the last couple of yearss out through Richlands and onto Springfield which make these far flung areas more easily accessible. So a fair bit of money has been spent on the infrastructure lately.
steve from brisbane
9 Jan 13 at 10:21 am
“CO2 is not pollution, it’s plant food, without CO2 we starve”
Please, you do sceptics no favours with your emotive argument. Everything is toxic in sufficient quantities. Humans need calcium, whoop-de-do. Too little and you suffer from hypocalcemia, but too much and you get hypercalcemia.
Stick to the real issue – that significant CO2 increases are showing a loose correlation with global warming, which has shown to be small.
Sorry, I have a bee in my bonnet about that. Emotive arguments are the domain of the enviro-fascists. Lets leave it that way.
The Beer Whisperer
9 Jan 13 at 10:22 am
It’s just a new hook to help persuade bulletin producers to push the annual “Who knew summer could be hot?” story further up the rundown.
lotocoti
9 Jan 13 at 10:25 am
That’s true about the better infrastructure Steve, but it is cheaper to drive to work from suburb to suburb anywhere in Brisbane.
In fact the minimum journey by bus is $4.50 – around 200 metres – non concession off peak. I do think that’s inappropriate, you know if it’s raining hard suddenly.
candy
9 Jan 13 at 10:32 am
Fair enough Beer….CO2 is toxic pollution like water is toxic pollution, drink too much water and you die….how’s that?
The meme from the primary school kids is ‘unmitigated evil CO2′, best that is given some perspective.
Alfonso
9 Jan 13 at 10:34 am
CO2 increases also show a loose correlation with improved farm productivity too, and this is supported by artificially boosted CO2 in closed growing environments.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 10:34 am
In order to directly poison humans, the atmospheric CO2 would have to be MUCH higher than present day.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 10:36 am
The Blight regime had plans for two 15% increases.
Fortunately for public transport users, those plans were dashed.
lotocoti
9 Jan 13 at 10:37 am
Tel, CO2 isn’t poisonous, it doesn’t kill you in a confined space, it’s the lack of oxygen does that.
Carbon monoxide is a different beast….
I was attempting a metaphor type thingy.
Alfonso
9 Jan 13 at 10:43 am
Louis, albedo is a measure of reflection. Clouds reflect a bit. Ice reflects a lot.
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 10:45 am
Evcricket – Clouds affect albedo by diffracting incident light, like paint pigment does. You are confusing H2O molecular absorption with water droplet/ice particle diffraction.
Here’s some papers I have in my randomly collected pile, all of which find the effect of clouds is ‘way higher than the IPCC suggests:
Sun et al 2012
Laken & Pallé 2012
Allan 2011
Miller et al 2012
Cho et al 2012
Caldwell et al 2012
Lauer & Hamilton 2012
I can provide links if you like, but above 3 links and you’ll have to wait for moderation.
As for ocean oscillations, because last century started in 1900 (bottom of the cycle) and ended in 2000 (at the top of the next cycle) there is about 0.28 C of the 0.74 C ‘rise’ which is due to this oscillation. And yes the GCM’s, which ascribe the whole ‘rise’ to CO2, are fitted to the 20th century record.
Well my chemistry PhD supervisor thought I did, since he let me have my PhD, also the people who paid me to do R&D as a scientist for the last 30 years seem to’ve thought so too.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 10:46 am
I see Bruce has replied to cricket’s idiocy and revealed him/her/it as a troll.
Clouds are arguably the major player in the climate. Ramanathan’s article is well worth reading.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 10:58 am
Alfonso:
http://www.universetoday.com/63673/13-things-that-saved-apollo-13-part-10-duct-tape/
Not that I’m worried here on Earth
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 11:05 am
I see how this works. Anyone who doesn’t swallow the whole right-wing denialogy is a troll? Okay guys. Way to foster open debate.
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 11:07 am
Nope, however your abuse and silly ill-informed statements do.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 11:10 am
Yes, Beer W. I agree. We should stick to the science. First principle of statistical science though is that correlation is not causation. You have to be certain of your data inputs, postulated and plausible causal pathways and all cover all variables and confounders before you can even begin to take a stab at causation. Thus we must conclude that there is tremendous room for scientific disagreement about what even such a loose correlation of such loose variables as these really means, when so many other factors have to be considered as well: some of them outside the boundaries of the modelling or poorly considered within it. All sorts of claims are made regarding the robustness of the modelling, and all sorts of other claims are made exactly against that.
Definitely not settled. This is science.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
9 Jan 13 at 11:12 am
It is because you use hystericisms like “denialogy”.
Time to lay down some truth bombs, Ev. You can swallow the red pill or you can swallow the blue pill.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_request_for_an_audit_of_our_temperature_figures
The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%.
Some questions that would be answered by the audit are:
• Why have raw temperature records from the middle of the last century been artificially reduced? Are we to believe that 50 years after the measurements were recorded BOM officials realized they were artificially too high?
• Why were so many thermometers believed to be overestimating temperatures in the first half of the 1900?s?
• Where are the records detailing the justification for altering the historical record for each station?
• Does the lowering of temperature records from the middle of last century result in an artificially exaggerated warming rate of the temperature record?
Independent checks also suggest:
• The BOM temperature record includes sites with 100 year long “records” which are based on just 12 years of actual data. An undisclosed method was used to construct an extraordinary 85% of the graph. (Appendix I)
• The BOM database appears ‘buggy’ with averages for an entire month across a large state suddenly changed upwards three months after the readings came in. The “bug” in this case produced a change comparable in size to the entire reported warming trend over the last hundred years. (Appendix I)
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/threat-of-anao-audit-means-australias-bom-throws-out-temperature-set-starts-again-gets-same-results/
This is actually a little grubby now
A team of independent auditors, bloggers and scientists went through the the BOM “High Quality” (HQ) dataset and found significant errors, omissions and inexplicable adjustments. The team and Senator Cory Bernardi put in a Parliamentary request to get our Australian National Audit Office to reassess the BOM records. In response, the BOM, clearly afraid of getting audited, and still not providing all the data, code and explanations that were needed, decided to toss out the old so called High Quality (HQ) record, and start again. The old HQ increased the trends by 40% nationally, and 70% in the cities.
So goodbye “HQ”, hello “ACORN”. End result? Much the same.
Care to “debate” the issues, chump?
.
9 Jan 13 at 11:12 am
When you have a clown sprouting forth that clouds and oceans play no part in weather/climate, there really is no point debating.
harrys on the boat
9 Jan 13 at 11:17 am
Please quote the abuse I used Gab. FTR here is the abuse I have received for having a different opinion:
“Well, Evcricket, you could just fuck off and stop polluting our blog if it costs you so much angst.”
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 11:17 am
Tel,
“Carbon Dioxide is classified as a simple asphyxiant. It can cause suffocation by displacing oxygen from the air we breathe. As it turns out, the range of oxygen in breathable air is pretty narrow- something like 28% to 21%. A gas doesn’t have to have any toxic effects to kill us. All it has to do is dilute oxygen to below 21% and we suffocate.”
That was Apollo 13s problem.
Same with tactical underwater rebreathing systems.
Alfonso
9 Jan 13 at 11:18 am
Please refer to my comment at 9.31am, Evcricket.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 11:20 am
You must admit, “this is so dumb” is probably not the best way to introduce yourself, if you are looking for honest and open debate on a sensitive topic.
But you won’t get much good natured benefit of the doubt around here, so you have to be a bit careful with statements like: “cloud cover doesn’t affect anything; clouds don’t reflect light back into space,” ‘cos people will pounce on that.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 11:24 am
Ev – There’s no ‘left’ and ‘right’ in science, there is what works and what doesn’t.
There are two candidate explanations for the temperature record and climate data: the low sensitivity hypothesis (ie the sceptics’ hypothesis) which works, and the high sensitivity hypothesis (ie the IPCC’s one) which doesn’t work.
Furthermore the low sensitivity hypothesis explains the falling world temperature and matters such as the jet stream issues causing blocking weather patterns, which the heat this week seems to be.
The problem for the left is they seem to have bought the IPCC hypothesis hook line and sinker, and now are having problems getting the hook out. It helps no one for one side of politics to be hooked into a wrong explanation of climate.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 11:36 am
When you realise that for the left CAGWarming has nothing to do with warming (that’s marketing for the foot soldier comrades) but instead is a wonderful, potentially worldwide, all purpose, societal manipulation and ideological control device …. then you’ve got it.
Alfonso
9 Jan 13 at 11:50 am
44 degrees C recorded in Australia, fires starting in dry bushland.
In Australia.
In January.
Shocked, I am; shocked, I tells ya.
Joolya has to do something about this.
James in Melbourne
9 Jan 13 at 11:51 am
James Joolya has, she’s thrown everything at it – lots of catastrophist words and phrases, hysterical settled science, and even a Carbon Tax to lower carbon dioxide emissions – and lo emissions have gone up 58% on 1990 levels.
What mo’ canna lassie do, Jim, what more I asks?
Tintarella di Luna
9 Jan 13 at 12:05 pm
Didn’t she put the Car-bin tax to stop these events? Why is she not being held accountable?
Token
9 Jan 13 at 12:17 pm
” ABNORMAL HEAT.
NEW SOUTH WALES AND QUEENSLAND.
SHADE TEMPERATURE, 123 DEGREES
Sydney, January 4.
The heat wave which set in early last week continues unabated in the country districts. Reports received from various points yesterday show that excessive heat is being experienced, the highest shade re- gistration being 122 deg. at Mount Drysdale. The northern rivers are also suffering se- verely, and according to telegrams received the exceptional heat is causing great damage to the maize crops and grass, which was started by the late rains. Kempsey registered 118 in the shade, Brushgrove 117,
Baradine 120, Bingara 113, Brewarinna 119, Grafton 117, and Mudgee 112.
Yesterday was the hottest day experi- enced at Bourke for many years, the shade register in the afternoon being 121.5 de- grees. Later on a cyclone passed over the town, when houses were unroofed and four or five were completely blown down. Others were more or less injured; trees were uprooted, and fences destroyed. Seve- ral persons had narrow escapes.
Goodooga registered 123 degrees, which is the highest recorded. A few thunderstorms have been reported from the country, but little or no rain fell.
Brisbane, January 4.
The temperature in Brisbane during the past few days has been abnormally high. Yesterday it was 96 deg. in the shade, and to-day 98 deg. Thargomindah reports 119 deg., and 104 deg. was recorded at Alice. ”
We’re all doomed by our CO2 sins. Never been hot in Australia before the ABC 9th January, 2012 news cycle.
Article above dated 1903.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 12:24 pm
The debate has been had, ad nauseum, for years. If it hasn’t penetrated your thick skull yet, give up. On top of all the other climategate documentation, we now have further IPCC politicisation in lieu of science, with Greenpeace and WWF being in the newthink-newspeak-tank.
Come in here in full antagonist mode, as you did, and you’ll be called a troll, which apparently is the only truly renewable resource the left has to offer.
blogstrop
9 Jan 13 at 12:29 pm
Thanks Bruce, renowned science institute the Mises Institute thinks the jury might be out.
That doesn’t really convince me. The stats on peer-reviewed papers released were pretty compelling.
Or are peer-reviewed papers part of the conspiracy?
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 12:30 pm
So you all seem pretty convinced that humans aren’t causing global warming, citing all sorts of evidence that proves they are not.
Now, given the vast knowledge you have, what would evidence that humans are causing climate change look like? What data would support the AGW hypothesis?
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 12:31 pm
Joolya did bring in the carbon (sic) tax, for which she will have a grateful globe’s eternal gratitude, but she has NOT stopped evil Coalition voters driving imported 4WDs. You should see them at Sorrento, banked up for kilometres, well past The Baths, all trying to inch up the hill toward the main street.
And these are people staying in beach houses and, I honestly suspect, using air conditioners when there is a perfectly nice sea breeze that comes for free.
Until Jools empowers the Carbon Police to arrest such people and ship them off for re-education, you will have to get used to 44 degree temperatures and bushfires, in Australia, in January.
Um, not sure what to do about the Chinese/Russian/European record cold temperatures…..but that’s not Joolya’s bailiwick.
James in Melbourne
9 Jan 13 at 12:32 pm
97% of emissions are from “Natural” sources (estimated as noone can measure the emissions from ocean bound sources).
So are you a believer in the “Blankets” theory whereby the increase in man’s 3% can effect the planet materially?
Also, do you accept the compelling data that the supposed correlation between increase in man-made emissions and actual temperature has not held over the past 16 years?
Feel free to discuss.
Token
9 Jan 13 at 12:40 pm
Thanks for dodging my question Token.
And to your questions; sure, natural emissions are 97%. What percentage in the change in emissions is coming from humans? This is a rate of change problem, not a gross assessment.
So, yes, the theory that keeping heat energy in a system will raise the temperature is quite compelling. Heat rate into the atmosphere hasn’t changed. The rate it is being reradiated has. Temperature goes up. Thermodynamics continues to work.
The 16 year meme is so incredibly stupid I am not going to mention it. The 15 year trend is compelling. So is the 17 year.
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 12:43 pm
cricket, what evidence do you have that the Earth is “keeping heat energy in a system”?
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 12:46 pm
” THE WEATHER IN THE COUNTRY.
GREAT CHANGE IN THE TEMPERATURE AT CUE.
FROM 125 TO 63 DEGREES.
CUE, January 14.
Steady rain has been falling since yesterday morning. The thermometer is down to 63 degrees, having rather suddenly dropped from 125 degrees on Saturday, 110 on Sun- day, and 115 on Monday. Everyone is muffled np in winter costumes. Tbe over- flow waters of the young river are running down the centre of the main street, and the roads are fearfully heavy.”
Article dated 1896.
Gab
9 Jan 13 at 12:48 pm
Surely not a new AGW troll?
You can tell us what evidence would disprove the AGW hypothesis. Science is about trying to disprove a theory. What would disprove the theory that increasing co2 will cause catastrophic warming?
Right now, everything from floods, storms, droughts, heatwaves, snow have all been quoted to prove the theory of catastrophic warming. If everything proves it, and nothing disproves it, ergo it isn’t a testable hypothesis. Which we already know.
FTFY
Seriously. It’s not 2007 anymore. Your religion is dying. Nobody here is remotely worried about AGW except for the immense damage the stupid and ineffective policies have already caused. Even Al Gore has lost interest. Go find someone else to annoy.
brc
9 Jan 13 at 12:51 pm
Bryan,
You said “climactic disaster”. Did you mean “climatic disaster”?
We don’t need to hear about your personal performance issues in this forum
golfman
9 Jan 13 at 12:54 pm
Cohenite, satellite measurements.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/MWR3119.1
The beauty here is that the measurement can be taken from outside the system. Then it’s a straight second-law calculation.
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 12:58 pm
Did you get arrested? Are the police looking for you? Have you hung out the washing?
Tiny Dancer
9 Jan 13 at 12:58 pm
Oh I see BRC; you don’t believe in AGW because it is unfashionable? Your test of scientific rigour is if everyone else is doing it?
What would disprove the AGW hypothesis? three steps.
Disprove that covalent bonds reflect infrared energy. Easy and can be done in a lab.
Disprove that CO2 and other covalent bonded molecules have increased in atmospheric concentration. Easy, direct atmospheric measurement.
Disprove that global temperatures have increased in the last 100 years. Easy, use any of the satellite records.
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 1:01 pm
Evcricket – You do know who Dr David Evans is? Did you read that far?
I only have two university degrees in science. I never worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I did once meet Dr Evans, he is formidable.
Perhaps you would like to read the contents not just the name of the website its hosted at. If it offends your sensibilities you can read it at Jonova’s instead if you like.
Who ever said that? I didn’t. What the low sensitivity hypothesis says is that humans are causing warming, just not enough to make any practical difference.
All the papers on clouds I cited are peer reviewed science, mostly in GRL if I recall. The solar cycle length paper I linked is peer reviewed science from 1996. I could provide many dozens of similar papers which effectively falsify CAGW.
Given the huge amount of money available through the likes of ARC for the CAGW side why should not there be many of those and few on the sceptic’s side? We know from the Climategate emails just how keen the CAGW people have been to keep sceptic’s papers out of the journals.
I have read a few CAGW people’s papers from time to time, and I’ve yet to find one I can’t falsify. Except the modelling ones as I don’t have a supercomputer in my basement.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 1:03 pm
“suddenly dropped from 125 degrees”
You do realise this was a full 1C higher than the BOMs official Australian temperature record? Of course, the idea of historical revisionism (via temperature “adjustments”) is so that when a temperature lower than recorded occurs, it can be claimed to be a record, hence “unprecedented” and thus proof of global warming.
Funny though, I would have thought that even modest global warming would produce the odd new record, but apparently not. That they are using weather as a proxy for climate proves that they are not interested in the truth, only their agenda.
The Beer Whisperer
9 Jan 13 at 1:04 pm
I don’t see how this is even a sentence:
“What the low sensitivity hypothesis says is that humans are causing warming, just not enough to make any practical difference.”
Difference to what? So humans are causing something that is not happening? This is a pretty serious logical fallacy.
Evcricket
9 Jan 13 at 1:08 pm
Ev – Let me translate it for you. There is no catastrophic anthropogenic global warming if 2XCO2 is low. Some gentle warming isn’t going to hurt. The policies which the CAGW people propose WILL hurt. Indeed they are already killing people in their thousands, possibly millions, through such policies as the US ethanol mandates.
It may well be that some warming, less than 2 C, will be beneficial. It won’t be noticeably harmful, even the IPCC admits to that.
At a 2XCO2 of 0.7 C you’d need pCO2 over 3000 ppmV to add another 2 C. We have added 115 ppmV since we were last in caves, and are already supposedly at ‘peak oil’. Work it out.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 1:15 pm
Evcricket
Please define the AGW Hypothesis.
Mine is the IPCC definition based on climate sensitivity, which is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause a 2-6 rise in global mean temperature.
Has this been observed and measured?
If not, the hypothesis has been falsified.
It’s as simple as that.
Louis Hissink
9 Jan 13 at 1:17 pm
“Who ever said that? I didn’t. What the low sensitivity hypothesis says is that humans are causing warming, just not enough to make any practical difference.”
And there’s the rub.
All the hypotheses in the world cannot falsify another hypothesis, only empirical evidence can do that. Climate modeling is like the most beautiful ship ever made, but doesn’t float. No matter how much on paper it shows to have sufficient displacement, if it doesn’t float, it ain’t worth shit.
The Beer Whisperer
9 Jan 13 at 1:17 pm
cricket; the Singh et al paper you link to is interesting but in your own words could you explain how you think it proves AGW?
I think a more appropriate paper which meaures the heat being retained in the ocean and atmosphere is by Knox and Douglass.
K&D discuss the connection between the ocean radiative rate of change [Fohc] and the radiative rate of change at the top of the atmosphere [Ftoa]. They show that not only is ocean heat content declining but that the Fohc is negative, which meant more radiative energy is leaving the ocean than is being stored.
K&D conclude that because “90% of the variable heat content resides in the upper ocean” the Fohc can accurately infer the Ftoa. Therefore if Fohc is negative then Ftoa is as well. A negative Ftoa is contrary to Trenberth’s claims of missing heat being stored most likely in the oceans. Without missing heat the models have greatly overestimated the effect of global warming.
K&D also use satellite measurements.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 1:18 pm
Evcricket
And please consider that until the Greenlanders start farming in the areas they used to 800 years ago, then any warming is simply the earth returning to a previous state. Bear in mind that the English and French are also unable to grow crops in areas they used to at the same time.
It’s basically complaining about someone recovering from falling into sub-freezing pond and being rescued. That person’s return to normal temperature is no different to the earth returning to it’s “normal” state after the interruption of an ice age, the one here being the LIA.
Louis Hissink
9 Jan 13 at 1:24 pm
I wouldn’t mind hearing also what Singh et al 2006 apparently means. I read the conclusion and I don’t see anything immediately different from Gleckler et al 2012, which found SST’s rose only about 0.125 C in the last 50 years, due to humans. Which, if you calculate it, corresponds to a 2XCO2 of just 0.4 C.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 1:25 pm
[...] on record set off the predictable (and predicted) bushfires, they keep on with the same old stuff. This Catallaxy thread has it all, if you can stomach it – bogus statistical claims from fools too ignorant to estimate a trend line and too lazy to [...]
John Quiggin » Wouldn’t even know …
9 Jan 13 at 1:42 pm
I didn’t dodge. With 97% of emissions from natural sources the premise of your question is that the 3% of emissions humans enit are responsible for 100% of the change in temperature.
You need to put some impressive science to prove this is true. As Beerwhisperer notes, even with all the evidence provided by warmies so far is it not possible to falsify other theories. Thus your viewpoint is just one alternative.
Now if your natural prejudices lead you to put “faith” into one theory over others, that is fine, but it is a statement of how your prejudices dictate your decision making process.
Ok, let’s do a time series of 50 year or 500 years. What will be the result when we leave the warmy cherry picked data sets?
Token
9 Jan 13 at 1:45 pm
None of your 3 steps prove what is the exact absorbion rate of CO2 in the atmosphere and what is the exact leakage factors.
What is the effect of solar radiation on that absorbion rate?
Token
9 Jan 13 at 1:48 pm
What a complete crock.
100 years ago you couldn’t fly above 10,000 feet, yet you want us to go to the 100 year satellite record?
But you completely misunderstand the question, which is not surprising for a pseudo-science warrior. For a start, you discuss laboratory experiments on a single element of a chaotic system, and then proudly declare ‘job done’. As if modelling human reaction time in a lab can prove an entire model of traffic flow.
To disprove a hypothesis you don’t line up your evidence and then ask someone to disprove it.
Your three answers are so ridiculous it’s actually amusing in the way it shines your ignorance out.
To disprove a hypothesis you have to come up with conditions where the theory would be disproven.
I’ll help you. I have a hypothesis that water boils when heated to 100 degrees at sea level. To disprove this, I need to show that water can reach 110 degrees without boiling.
You have a hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide, caused mainly by human activities, will lead to catastrophic warming of the planet.
How can you disprove that theory? What conditions would arise in which the theory would be discarded?
Try answering again : what observed conditions would cause the catastrophic warming hypothesis to be disproven. We’re already at 58% higher co2 than 1990 – no dangerous warming, tipping points, no tropical hotspot, no catastrophic sea level rises. Not even an increse in dead polar bears. Tell us under what conditions your pet theory would be disproven. But you never will, because you and your ilk always adapt the theory to whatever current conditions are observed – everything confirms the theory.
brc
9 Jan 13 at 2:43 pm
I don’t ‘believe’ in anything, because I don’t treat any particular branch of science as a religion, by the way. I just look at the prediction and measure against the results.
The models said the temperatures would be higher on lower concentrations than we have now. Ergo, the models are wrong.
Even if the models were right, the policies adopted have created far more harm and deaths than they could possibly prevent. That’s where the rubber meets the road. That’s what I don’t agree with.
brc
9 Jan 13 at 2:48 pm
Careful brc. Human “emissions” of co2 are 58% higher, not co2 levels as a whole.
eb
9 Jan 13 at 2:51 pm
I wonder what would happen to that Moylan idiot if he had tried a similar stunt in China? (This is NOT a death threat!)
eb
9 Jan 13 at 2:53 pm
Sorry, I stand corrected. The point stands. Humans increased their production of co2 by 58% and it made absolutely no discernible difference to the quality of life of humans on the planet, except it was probably mildly beneficial for those in Greenland where the ice sheet has gone back a bit.
brc
9 Jan 13 at 3:01 pm
For people who like empirical stuff, note that after 1980, the US oil consumption dipped for a few years, then picked back up again (caused by price pressure). Japan and China dipped slightly at the same time, the USSR stayed flat because they were largely decoupled from the market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2008.png
Now get a graph of atmospheric CO2 from Mauna Loa Observatory and look for a matching dip around 1980… there isn’t one. There was a larger dip in oil consumption when the USSR collapsed around 1992, and at that time the USA was approximately stable, and we do see a very slight ripple on the Mauna Loa results (let’s presume these things are closely linked).
What this implies is that either world oil consumption does not much effect atmospheric CO2 (and the ripple we see is just coincidence), or else it takes an incident of the approximate order of the entire USSR breaking up, to have a noticeable effect, and even that effect wouldn’t be enough to turn it around.
I admit, I have not correlated with coal, index mundi has the figures for that — a small dip in 1983 and a small peak in 1990 but nothing overly spectacular (probably someone should graph all the big users, do it properly).
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 3:44 pm
Evcricket, you didn’t get that abuse for having a different opinion, you got it for rank stupidity.
Now piss off.
Winston SMITH
9 Jan 13 at 3:49 pm
Here’s a graph:
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-decreased-recently
Yeah, but if your contributions get smaller the rate of increase should be equivalently smaller, and since the graph shows seasonal life/death of vegetation we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere stirs around reasonably quickly.
No noticeable change in rate around 1980 (oil price shock), and if you get a more recent graph you would be very hard pressed to pick out 2009 as an unusual year (GFC) so basically it goes up irrespective of what the economy is doing.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 3:54 pm
Louis Hissink, I’m curious to know what you thought of Ed Krug’s book. You must have read it by now.
Worth the four bucks?
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 3:57 pm
I guess my response to that is that the developed nations are no longer the major emitters, and the downturn in production during 08/09 was probably more than offset by increased production in other places.
It would be interesting to map estimated (they are never actually known) human emissions growth against atmospheric co2 growth. I personally have no problem with the theory that human emissions must contribute *something* to the atmospheric co2 – but knowing exactly how much that is is the very tricky question.
brc
9 Jan 13 at 4:16 pm
Personally I think looking at polar sea ice is pretty interesting, and looking for a “hot spot” or warm, moist air over the tropics.
The IPCC models predicted declining Arctic sea ice and also declining Antarctic sea ice. What we have seen is the North side is losing sea ice, but the South side is gaining sea ice. That’s not what the models predicted but it does represent a change… so something is happening.
A particularly notable thing about sea ice is that mid September 2012 we had a unique event of amazingly low Arctic sea ice and simultaneously we saw a uniquely large Antarctic sea ice event. I don’t believe such a thing could possibly be a coincidence, so what it means is that the two poles are tightly inversely coupled to one another and the time constant for the coupling is short (like less than a month). In a nutshell: the poles are the heat-sinks of the world, and at the equator a given parcel of heat either goes North or it goes South, and what doesn’t go North goes South and vice-versa.
As for a buildup of warm, moist air over the tropics, we have never observed that, so something is wrong with the IPCC models there too. Basically, as far as I understand it, warm, moist air always rises and causes convection so it cannot build up in the one place unless there is an obstruction to convection (i.e. a real greenhouse). I don’t believe the IPCC models really simulate convection properly because that is very difficult to do. I believe the “hot spot” is a model artefact.
Besides that, there’s a number of statistical matrics demonstrating that some sort of “brick wall” exists when you try to heat the ocean surface beyond 300K. The IPCC didn’t predict that either, but the ARGO data shows it, and the satellite data also shows it, so if someone can model from first principles and demonstrate where that comes from I’d say that would be a strong sign they are on the right track. Also, if that 300K “brick wall” is moving, maybe 10 to 20 years of data should be enough to show the trend in that (not enough ARGO data yet).
In terms of the effect on humans, BTW, who cares about polar sea ice? No one lives on that. It’s just an indicator and nothing else. The 300K “brick wall” is more than an indicator, it is very directly related to human habitation.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 4:21 pm
That hardly explains 1980 though, and the graph I linked to does show that the USA is still the major consumer worldwide (although the EU as a whole is not on the chart, probably a similar size, but probably also hit by the same oil shock in 1980).
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 4:25 pm
Token, forgive me for stating the obvious, but you truly are a gibbering idiot.
“the premise of your question is that the 3% of emissions humans enit [sic] are responsible for 100% of the change in temperature.
You need to put some impressive science to prove this is true.”
Over the past 150 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to almost 400ppm. This increase is almost entirely caused by human emissions. This isn’t “impressive science” it is “basic” science. Of which, you truly are, ignorant.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/
ig11
9 Jan 13 at 4:38 pm
Bruce, I wouldn’t mind links; I’m having trouble locating a couple of them since the authors have done more than one paper:
Sun et al 2012
Laken & Pallé 2012
Allan 2011
Miller et al 2012
Cho et al 2012
Caldwell et al 2012
Lauer & Hamilton 2012
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 5:03 pm
Tel,
Yes I finished reading it a couple of weeks ago – thanks for the heads up. Well worth the $4 – and I can’t remember it either, oh yes now I do. Brave guy and he’s only chipped the top of the ice-berg that is rotten science.
Louis Hissink
9 Jan 13 at 5:14 pm
This gibbering idiot reads it as 400-250= 150 ppm, of which 3% is attributable to humans. Carbon isotopes can’t differentiate human from natural, by the way.
Louis Hissink
9 Jan 13 at 5:17 pm
Yes, brc. Scientific method is not well known in some ‘climate science’. Thanks Tal too for your interesting contributions. Don’t ice caps also get influenced by subtle movements in the earth’s axis (ice ages and all that)? I have never done any geophysics but I know some of the sites critical of the IPCC line deal with this.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
9 Jan 13 at 5:20 pm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/fire-emissions-worse-than-power-plants/story-fn3dxiwe-1226550399944
The ‘experts’ slam Truss’ comments on the bushfires. Here’s this notable quote from the article above:
The question for me is, what are electricity emissions over the period of a few days and how do the bushfires compare to that? That seems the proper comparison to me. Does anyone know the answer? Serious question.
Skuter
9 Jan 13 at 5:26 pm
Skute
on a tangential point. 7% of CO2 emissions around the world come from perpetual fires in open cut mines.
JC
9 Jan 13 at 5:34 pm
Tel, it would be useful if you could stop posting misinformation.
“The IPCC models predicted declining Arctic sea ice and also declining Antarctic sea ice. What we have seen is the North side is losing sea ice, but the South side is gaining sea ice.”
This is not correct, and is not based on any up to date science. This appears to be a consistent problem with your postings?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/weighing-change-in-antarctica/
ig11
9 Jan 13 at 5:39 pm
and 7% trumps 3%
Louis Hissink
9 Jan 13 at 5:55 pm
Knorr, W., 2009. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
The paper’s basic answer to the question in the title is: no.
Reviewed here for those interested.
Lazlo
9 Jan 13 at 5:56 pm
Lazlo, do you understand what the paper is about that you reference? Have you read it? What does it prove,do you think?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/unforced-variations-2/
ig11
9 Jan 13 at 5:59 pm
Just demonstrating that at least one peer-reviewed paper exists that does not support your beliefs or the opinions of the realclimate clique.
Lazlo
9 Jan 13 at 6:02 pm
Igi
Could you please cease and desist referencing realclimate as the go to site for climate information and a voice of authority.
It’s an extremely untrustworthy site populated by sex starved angry at the world beta males who think scaring the shit out of people with half baked sciency sounding propaganda will make them appear more alpha like.
Go elsewhere but certainly not the least respected site in the entire world.
Please.
These people need posture lessons and exercise particularly the mid section of their appalling body posture rather than incessantly blogging about climate. Look at them. These aren’t the group that will save the world. In fact they appear sex starved men looking for female attention thinking they’ll get it by posting crap on a blog.
JC
9 Jan 13 at 6:08 pm
No response from the alarmists of smart arsed linking with hit and run comments from people too cowardly to debate.
The stats have been duked by the BOM. The Uni of East Anglia was aiding and abbetting fraud and academic intimidation.
We won.
Scratch these guys, get them drunk enough, global warming morphs into “I hate rich people and they ought to pay more tax”.
Every fucking time.
They don’t give a crap about the ‘nvironment. They’re pissed that they are on the same side as us, and we won the cold war.
.
9 Jan 13 at 6:13 pm
JC, do you think the below statement is correct or not? If not, please give me your “intelligent” view. You telling me where to go for scientific information is laughable, btw.
Over the past 150 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to almost 400ppm. This increase is almost entirely caused by human emissions.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
ig11
9 Jan 13 at 6:13 pm
Bugger!
My M.O. has been busted.
Leigh Lowe
9 Jan 13 at 6:15 pm
And find it hard to attract females by all appearances.
When i first saw the pic, I thought to myself… these people don’t appear the group that saves humanity from destruction. They appear to be a group needing serious amounts of coaching lessons on how to get a gal.
I actually felt a little sorry for them.
I’m not kidding Dot.
JC
9 Jan 13 at 6:17 pm
No.
The BOM duked the warming trend up by about 40%.
Appropriate time serries analysis shows the CO2 forcing drops by about half of IPCC estimates.
No.
.
9 Jan 13 at 6:18 pm
JC, I feel sorry for people who judge others by a photo, and are incapable of making informed comment. What do you think?
ig11
9 Jan 13 at 6:20 pm
Bullshit. You’ve been given the Knorr paper numbnuts, read it.
Knorr found the airborne fraction [AF] of ACO2 has not changed in 150 years. The AF is the % of ACO2 emissions which remain in the atmosphere contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. If the ACO2 AF is constant that must mean non-ACO2 or natural emissions of CO2 are contributing to the increase in the bulk CO2 concentration.
The reason for this is the principle of a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of all CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20 and natural CO2 is 80; when all CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so natural CO2 will be 160, an increase of 80; at 300, ACO2 is 60, natural CO2 is 240 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2.
Knoor has been supported by the Gloor et al paper.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 6:20 pm
“Just demonstrating that at least one peer-reviewed paper exists that does not support your beliefs or the opinions of the realclimate clique.”
More than one paper disputes the consensus. Still, all together they amount to roughly SFA. Not a whole lot to hang your hat on.
Jarrah
9 Jan 13 at 6:21 pm
Cohenite, and you have been given the correct interpretation of the paper. Numbnuts, read it.
ig11
9 Jan 13 at 6:21 pm
My informed comment is that unless you answer my Knorr post you are a waste of space.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 6:22 pm
cohenite
Maybe you or bruce or brc can help.
Is there a paper that shows there is an upper limit to warming, where the excess heat is radiated away? I think one of you has hinted at such a result, and why GW, even AGW is a non issue, amongst a lot of other factors.
.
9 Jan 13 at 6:22 pm
Give it again fuckwit.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 6:24 pm
Cohenite, There is nothing in the Knorr paper that refutes the quotes given to you. You are a gibbering fool for thinking otherwise.
ig11
9 Jan 13 at 6:25 pm
ig11… from your quoted text above:
how likely is “very likely?”
also, Australia recently introduced a carbon tax. What effect do you think this action had on stopping or slowing global warming? What is the total economic cost of the carbon tax, in your opinion?
dd
9 Jan 13 at 6:30 pm
The issue is what is doing the warming?
CO2 is constrained by Beers Law, Hottel’s principles and limits on fossil fuel sources. CO2 warming has just about been exhausted.
Water, such as a decline in cloud cover as may have occured in geologic history about an extra 10C.
Solar, all bets are off.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 6:33 pm
I find that logic less than compelling. It raises the question of what would, in fact, constitute a magic bullet… the predictions are locked in now and we are dealing with very slow-moving phenomena.
dd
9 Jan 13 at 6:35 pm
The thing is though that there are not 13,950 articles that independently demonstrate the existence of global warming. Most of those papers would be what’s known as “normal science” – the buzzing hive of work inside the paradigm that proceeds on the assumption that it’s true.
dd
9 Jan 13 at 6:37 pm
ig11; I have given you my understanding of why Knorr proves, at the very least, not all the increase in the CO2 atmospheric bulk is due to human emissions.
Explain why you think Knorr does not do that.
I mean I used a basic statistical principle that even a fuckwit like you could understand; if you think it is wrong explain why.
This is your big chance, don’t blow it.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 6:38 pm
“What I don’y understand is why these lefties always try to pass themselves off as being centralist or non-partisan. Are they ashamed of themselves? There is nothing wrong with being a lefty, so why won’t they just admit to it?”
This! It irritates me no end the way people I know are happy to label me as as a righty and The Australian etc as right leaning. I don’t have a problem with either of those claims but when I point out that they are left leaning as is the ABC, Fairfax and all the other media they consume all I get is denial. No the ABC is balanced! So is SMH! I am neither left or right but an objective free thinker who evaluates each argument independently and pragmatically (while holding left leaning positions on almost every issue).
It’s the lofty I’m-above-it-all attitude combined with the pseudo objectivity that gets me.
What is the cause of this baffling phenomenon? Is it the media and the schools at fault or is there something more to it, perhaps something innate about modern Leftism?
Why? Why? Why?
JNR
9 Jan 13 at 7:31 pm
A reasonable interpretation of what you are saying is that the human proportion of atmospheric CO2 has increased from close to zero in pre-industrial times to (400-280)/400 = 30% now.
The Knorr paper (and others) obviously disagree with what you are saying.
Lazlo
9 Jan 13 at 7:53 pm
Jarrah: the new Oreskes. Ho hum..
JC: love your new year resolution..
Lazlo
9 Jan 13 at 7:55 pm
cohenite wrote:
Oh dear.
From Skeptical Science – my emphasis – (ooh, no, can’t read that; it’s verboten, even if it will help give me a clue!):
You’ve confused and embarrassed yourself by thinking that ‘airborne fraction’ is referring to the percent of all CO2 in the atmosphere which has been emitted by humans.
The relatively steady rate of the airborne fraction (when you understand its definition) simply means that absorption via natural sinks has (so far) been increasing along with human emissions. But (say) 43% of 200 gigatonnes of human made CO2 one year is still double 43% of 100 gigatonnes emitted the previous year. It is this increasing amount of non absorbed CO2 from fossil burning which has been driving up the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Subject to some possible additional CO2 contributions from things like melting permafrost and some warmer seas.)
Seriously: this is a major misunderstanding on your part that any sensible reader would realise shows your complete unreliability on the topic.
steve from brisbane
9 Jan 13 at 8:01 pm
“To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false”
Bullshit. Anyone who takes time to read primary scientific studies knows that scientists carefully qualify everything they say, and do not talk in absolutes unless something is 100% falsifiable. In the real world, this is rare. Scientists do not talk like political commentators of politicians, who speak with disregard for the truth.
The onus of proof is on the alarmists.
No number of models can create truth from prediction. All science is testable against such predictions, and on this basis THEY FAIL. if empirical evidence doesn’t support it, they are falsified. End of story. As i said before, the worlds most beautiful theory is worth jack shit if it doesn’t deliver the predicted outcomes. Another 0.7C this century doesn’t cut it, but that’s precisely where it’s headed. No one’s going to ruin their economy for 0.7C, except us. I guess it’s the only way for Australia to catch up to the shit the rest of the world is in.
The Beer Whisperer
9 Jan 13 at 8:03 pm
As the ship goes down you guys are supposed to be playing “Nearer My God To Thee”, Iggy and assorted others. Denial is your last stand, but the water is in fact chilly.
blogstrop
9 Jan 13 at 8:07 pm
Stepford, in the the years of your incessant trolling I’ve never seen you ever display even a modicum of evidence of numeracy skills. And you’re now implying that you read primary scientific research laden with math. Wtf are you kidding stepford?
Here’s your assignment if you choose to accept it. Give us the economics of the need to act.
Go!
That applies to you too Iggi.
Numbers and bullet points are fine.
JC
9 Jan 13 at 8:09 pm
Cohenite, I have the links saved, its easier:
Sun et al 2012
Laken & Pallé 2012
Allan 2011
Miller et al 2012
Cho et al 2012
Caldwell et al 2012
Lauer & Hamilton 2012
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 8:16 pm
The golden age of global warming is now just an iggy stardust memory.
blogstrop
9 Jan 13 at 8:18 pm
More links:
Sun et al 2012
Laken & Pallé 2012
Allan 2011 (this guys seems to be in Lockwood’s department…which is interesting)
Miller et al 2012
Cho et al 2012
Caldwell et al 2012
Lauer & Hamilton 2012
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 8:20 pm
I never said that; I repeat what I said:
How is that confusing ACO2 with all CO2?
Seriously steve, I have been discussing Knorr since it was published; I’m quite open to how I’m wrong but what you’ve said is dumb.
Let’s look at another way; and that is the issue of whether ACO2 is contributing to all of the increase in CO2 levels is based on the annual fluxes. The annual fluxes are shown by Figure 7.3 of AR4.
This shows that of the annual CO2 flux, ACO2 is 8Gt out of the total of 218.2Gt or 3.67%. US Department of Energy [DOE] figures put this % at 2.91% but for argument’s sake it does not matter.
DOE, Table 3, shows that approximately 98.5% of the total flux is reabsorbed in sinks, predominantly natural although cropping would add a miniscule amount.
If one assumes that the same proportion of ACO2 of the total flux into the atmosphere is NOT reabsorbed but adds to the bulk atmospheric concentration the simple formula of how much ACO2 adds to the atmospheric increase would be annually:
3.67/100 X 1.5/100 = 0.000552
That is one ACO2 molecule has a 1 in 1811.594203 of still being in the atmosphere after 1 year.
After 2 years the probability would be 1 in 120772.9469 chance of remaining.
Clearly on this basis ACO2 would not be contributing to the increase in CO2.
The connection with Knorr is this; when the flux goes into the atmospheric bulk 3.67% is ACO2; how do we know the same % of ACO2 will be returned from the atmosphere to the sinks so that only 3.67% of 1.5% is the contribution of ACO2? Because the AF of ACO2 is constant; therefore the same % of ACO2 returning in the flux is the same as the % of ACO2 entering the atmosphere.
Now steve, do try and give a sensible response without linking to one of your supports like fucking Sks.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 8:24 pm
Thanks Bruce.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 8:24 pm
And finally:
Sun et al 2012
Laken & Pallé 2012
Allan 2011
Miller et al 2012
Cho et al 2012
Caldwell et al 2012
Lauer & Hamilton 2012
Poptech’s 1,100+ papers on his site may have these plus others. I have them only because I saved the links when I scanned the abstracts. I haven’t read the papers except Allan’s.
Here’s a couple others I have links for:
Probst et al 2012
Achtert et al 2012
I don’t have any others as the hard disk with them on died a year ago.
Given today was nearly 20 C cooler than yesterday here, due to the cloud cover, I’m not surprised that clouds have a quite large effect – which adds support for Svensmark’s proposed mechanism.
Bruce of Newcastle
9 Jan 13 at 8:30 pm
SfB is speed-reading all that as we wait.
blogstrop
9 Jan 13 at 8:34 pm
Wow.
JQ wasn’t wrong – nuttier than a sack of squirrels here.
What fun!
Michael
9 Jan 13 at 9:37 pm
Bruce and Cohenite, well played, gentlemen.
As fine a cluebatting of steamingly illiterate church of AGW and Green Gaia-goddess pagan fundamentalist holy-rollers as I have seen in a while.
If I may taunt them just a smidgen….
Hey church of AGW suckers, your Goreacle sold out to the Gulf oil industry ticks for a hundred million bucks!
Aaah, that’s better.
Mk50 of Brisbane
9 Jan 13 at 9:42 pm
To analyze cohenite’s initial claim further:
Correct. Yes, you appear to have the definition right.
A proposition that apparently is about to be justified in the next paragraph which starts:
This partial sentence has nothing to do with airborne fraction.
When “all CO2 is 200″ the ACO2 will no longer be 20% of the total. It will have gotten to 200 because human emissions have increased and the 43% of it that stayed airborne has contributed to the increased human sourced proportion of “all CO2″.
I can only assume that you made this mistake because in this paragraph you started assuming, contrary to the earlier definition, that Knorr’s finding of a steady AF (of what is emitted by humans) also applies to the proportion of total CO2.
You got confused.
It appears you have been for years. Huh.
As for your later explanation: hard to follow, but I may come back to it.
I have no reason to suspect it’s right in light of your previous mistake.
steve from brisbane
9 Jan 13 at 9:48 pm
So, you’ve gone from the ACO2 AF remaining constant to all the increase in the atmospheric bulk being due to ACO2; is that what you are saying?
If it is you are misunderstanding Figure 1 from Knorr.
If what steve is saying were true the AF would be 40% of the ACO2 and be the same as the increase in CO2. But from figure 1 we can see that the divergence between the ACO2 increase and the CO2 increase is increasing in absolute terms even though the 60/40 split is being maintained. That is, the gap between the CO2 increase curve and 0 on the Y axis is ~ 40% of the quantity between 0 and the ACO2 increase curve. Where steve is fooled is that he confuses the maintainence of the 60/40 ratio with real amounts. Even if the AF is constant in % terms sinks must be increasing to accommodate the 60% of ACO2 which is not part of the AF; that is the amount between the CO2 curve and the ACO2 curve.
The underlying assumption which is wrong and which defeats steve is that prior to the increase in ACO2 both natural emissions of CO2 and sinks were in equilibrium; that is what CO2 nature emitted was taken up by natural sinks; when ACO2 started increasing the AGW story is the sinks increase to take up some of the ACO2 but not all and therefore ACO2 is responsible for all the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is easily rebutted and has been done so by Tom Quirk. Figure 1A from Quirk shows the ACO2 emissions with the increase in atmospheric CO2.
If AGW were correct about the equilibrium between natural emissions of CO2 and sinks the atmospheric increase would mirror the ACO2 emissions; it doesn’t. That means that sinks and natural CO2 emissions vary and are not in equilibrium.
In fact Quirk shows the natural CO2 emissions and sinks are strongly correlated with changes in ENSO, the pattern of El Nino and La Nina episodes This confirms and possibly explains the past history of stomata based CO2 levels, and most importantly, in connection with Knoor and his finding that the airborne fraction of ACO2 has not changed in 150 years, shows that ACO2 is not the major contributor to rising CO2 levels.
The ramifications for AGW are profound; if human CO2 is not the main cause of the increase of atmospheric CO2 then AGW is wrong.
cohenite
9 Jan 13 at 10:11 pm
Looks like SfBs ringin is a dud.
jumpnmcar
9 Jan 13 at 10:21 pm
Again.
jumpnmcar
9 Jan 13 at 10:22 pm
Here is the IPCC prediction from AR4:
The sea ice page on WUWT covers both poles.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Should be reasonably easy to see in the “Cryosphere Today” charts (the pale blue lines), also here is the comment from JAXA:
By the way, pointing me to a silly RealClimate page about an unrelated topic won’t fool to many people. Sea ice is ice that floats on the sea (many people could have guessed that).
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 10:41 pm
ig11:
Learn to read for yourself, then go about criticizing other people.
Tel
9 Jan 13 at 10:43 pm
cohenite, don’t think for a moment that I don’t know that you’re using a flood of words in an attempt to not admit your initial mistake. Bullshit baffles brains, as they say, and for good reason I’ve called you out as a prime bullshit artist before.
Your last comment is another jumble mess: to correct you -
* yes, of course, climate science has been saying that the increased CO2 has come from humans.
* no, Knorr’s figure one does not disprove that – it shows in rough approximation that the same percentage of ACO2 has been remaining in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. It does not mean that AF will not change in future.
* yes, this means that natural sinks have been absorbing increasing amounts of ACO2. Knorr thinks this is rather puzzling and suggests it is not well understood where the extra ACO2 is going, and that it is important to know whether this process will continue or not. All fair enough – working out the full details of the carbon cycle is complicated and is affected in part by ENSO as well as other matters.
* Knorr himself says his study does not mean that there is no need to reduce ACO2.
* Your apparent claim (although it’s actually a bit hard to tell now whether you are still trying to justify it) that Knorr’s figure 1 supports your claim that a “basic statistical principle” shows that additional natural CO2 must be increasing remains wrong; completely wrong. It assumes that if you have doubled the amount of CO2 in the air, proportionately the same percent of it must have come from ACO2. This is not what climate science, or Knorr, says.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 8:23 am
By the way, your 8.34 pm comment presents an argument that is opaque.
You put up a clearly wrong argument in this section:
But then don’t make it clear whether you think it is wrong or not.
[As to why it is wrong: human contributions to total emissions are in addition to what the "natural" cycle alone was previously fully recycling.
There is therefore no justification for saying that you can apply the 1.5% of the new "total emissions not recycled" just to the additional emissions to argue that only 1.5% of them are remaining in the atmosphere.
No - Knorr (and others) are saying that about 40 - to 50% is staying in the air.]
As for what this paragraph is trying to say – who knows?:
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 8:42 am
Brains can be inherently baffled steve without the baffling effect of bullshit.
You have not understood my point. And your reference to Knorr, which I am aware of, taking a pro-AGW line and advocating reduction of ACO2 is also beside the point.
The point is has the increase in atmospherc CO2 since about 1850, when things started to warm after the LIA, all come from human emissions of CO2, ACO2, or has the increase been from natural sources as well?
The argument in favour of the increase in CO2 coming from ACO2 is based initially and primarily on the assumption that natural emissions and sinks were in equilibrium and this explains the unchanging quality of CO2 levels before ACO2 came on the scene.
I have given you Quirk’s graph which shows conclusively that natural CO2 and sinks are not in equilibrium and I have explained how a constant AF in a rising CO2 scenario also proves the lack of equilibrium between natural CO2 and sinks.
I can’t help it if you can’t or don’t want to understand that, or that poor old Knoor is puzzled by it and finds his AGW belief threatened by it.
Knorr is verified by Gloor et al. Gloor defines the AF as:
That’s why I gave you the flux figures earlier; those flux figures show the proportion of ACO2 compared to natural CO2 as 3.67%; that’s 3.67%.
Gloor also says that:
That makes sense; if there are more emissions of ACO2 then the AF would presumably rise; but it hasn’t, as Gloor conclude. Gloor assumes that sinks are increasing in pace with the increase in ACO2.
But an equally likely scenario is that natural CO2 has increased. Quirk’s proof that natural emissions and sinks of CO2 are not in equilibrium has been vindicated historically here.
Typically the past record of CO2 has been based on ice core records. These show a flat CO2 record for centuries. However, when plant stomata and chemical analysis of past CO2 records is done a much more fluctuating record presents with, at times levels of CO2 equal to today’s levels.
The stomata and chemical record is strong evidence that the assumptive basis for current levels of increased CO2 being due to ACO2 is wrong.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 9:07 am
Small note for Steve – The UK Met Office has apparently just noticed the ocean has cycles, and they now expect these will cause no world temperature rise for at least the next 4 years.
As I noted before, these cycles correspond to about 1/3rd of the temperature ‘rise’ last century, not CO2.
Eventually they will also notice that most of the rest of the temperature rise was due to the solar dynamo and its knock-on effect on cloud cover, like NASA has just admitted.
At which point all these people will suffer their predicted fate.
I hope Steve you and your family do not work in that particular field?
Bruce
10 Jan 13 at 9:21 am
I see you have bravely put up another post steve; this is the salient point:
And this is the basis of saying that the increase in CO2 MUST be from human CO2, ACO2.
As I say it is based on an assumption that natural CO2 and sinks were in equilibrium; I have shown this to be wrong; therefore there is no reason in a warming world why natural CO2 is also increasing.
To illustrate how ridiculous that assumption is here are the possible variations with natural CO2, nCO2, human CO2, ACO2 and sinks, S:
1.nCO2 and S remain constant and ACO2 increases;
2. ACO2 and S remain constant and nCO2 increases;
3. nCO2 and ACO2 remain constant and S decreases;
4. nCO2 and ACO2 both increase while S remains constant;
5. nCO2 and ACO2 both increase while S decreases.
6. ACO2 increases more than nCO2 decreases while S remains constant;
7. nCO2 increases more than ACO2 decreases while S remains constant;
8. ACO2 increases more than S increases while nCO2 remains constant;
9. nCO2 increases more than S increases while ACO2 remains constant;
10. ACO2 increases more than nCO2 decreases and S increases together;
11. nCO2 increases more than ACO2 decreases and S increases together;
12. ACO2 and nCO2 increase together more than S increases.
AGW has choosen number 1 and ignored the rest; whether Knorr likes it or not his paper suggests that 1 is the only one which is wrong.
I agree this is a complex matter but I can’t help it if you approach it with a closed mind; you obviously believe in AGW. That makes you a chump; you’re also a rude chump; but that’s ok, at least this time you’re made an effort. Just try harder will you.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 9:21 am
Of course they are not perfectly in equilibrium over the long, long term – CO2 levels have risen and fallen.
You have given no justification for that, and there are strong reasons relating to the isotope changes of carbon in the atmosphere to prove that increasing CO2 is indeed from burning carbon.
Apparently, you believe that you can add billions of tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere, and the earth will know to absorb all of it, then burp out a bit of purely natural CO2 of the right isotope mix to confuse the scientists into thinking that it is actually part of the original human emissions.
Good luck with that argument – it’s one borne of desperation to just come up with anything as long as it can used to say “we don’t need to do anything.”
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 9:39 am
cohenite, are you seriously suggesting in your last comment that we don’t know that humans have been burning a “shitload” of carbon over the last 150 years??
Of course ACO2 has increased.
That alone wipes out about half of your possible variations in one hit.
Do try to be serious.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 9:45 am
Possibly a little bit off topic, but wholesale electricity prices are here:
http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Data/Price-and-Demand/Average-Price-Tables
As for that incredibly hot January we have been having, notice that there was still substantial profit margin on every day and in every state, except for one single day in two states. I’m presuming they sell for 25c per kWh (which is $250 per MWh because the wholesale prices are for no particular reason listed in different units). You don’t need to wring hands with a broken heart over those electricity distributors, they are doing OK.
Tel
10 Jan 13 at 10:06 am
Now steve, you have just degenerated to a position of faith; “shitload” is not a scientific term. I gave you the flux amounts; ACO2 is 3.67% of the flux so if humans are producing a shitload what then is nature doing?
The isotope argument is problematic and usually expressed as per the Ghosh and Brand paper noting particularly figure 9.
The argument is that ACO2 is predominatly C12 isotope variety and can be distinguished from natural sources of CO2 such that the ratio of C13 to C12 CO2 will decline as Ghosh and Brand show.
However Tom Segelstad looks at the only reliable study of CO2 isotopes from the atomic blasts and C14 isotope production and concludes:
Professor Segelstad is tough going though so this primer on the C12/C13 ratio may be of more help.
At the end of the day the argument for human CO2 being the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is that we are emitting a “shitload” of it.
Thanks for that steve; don’t forget to turn of the tellie and aircon when you leave. That’ll help reduce that “shitload”.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 10:20 am
Keep on swallowing the camel Steve. If you don’t know what it means look it up.
Bruce
10 Jan 13 at 10:49 am
Eli Rabbett noted 2 1/2 years ago how Segalstad was wrong and had made a fundamental mistake in what he was talking about.
Of course, the scattergun denialists like those who reside at this blog live never truly give up a flawed argument. They just ignore the corrections and circle back to it again when they think enough people have forgotten the previous correction.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 11:49 am
If you study the diagrams showing the carbon cycle you will notice that there is a complete absence of any volcanic or crustal input into the cycle, apart from some recycling inferred from plate tectonics.
As for the unreliability of carbon isotope ratios, a diamond dated at 2000Ma (archaen) produced a Pee Dee value of -35% – very very biological but hey, there was no biosphere at the time, so C12/13 isotopes are unreliable indicators of abiotic/biotic discrimination.
Louis Hissink
10 Jan 13 at 11:53 am
steve; you are a nong; Halpern is what, a chemist? Segelstad is a geologist and geophysicist. Halpern ridicules anyone he disagrees with: Kramm, Miskolczi, McKitrick, Essex, Andresen etc.
What was the fundamental mistake Segelstad made? According to eli?
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 12:02 pm
The scattergun alarmists just keep on with it regardless. Never mind what the real world is doing.
blogstrop
10 Jan 13 at 12:16 pm
No, cohenite: Rabbett quoted at length the EPA detailed summary of how Segelstad was wrong. (Not that they were the ones who worked it themselves – have a look at the comments on this thread at Curry’s blog which set her right on her “gee, I dunno what the answer is, but it sure is complext” post.)
You, of course, will not admit what is obvious – that someone who you quoted as an authority to doubt AGW made a fundamental mistake.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 1:20 pm
I can read steve; I’m asking you what the fundamental mistake Segelstad was alleged to have made.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 1:32 pm
To the one or two “skeptic” readers who have an open mind: we don’t just know what CO2 levels have been doing for the last 150 years – we know what they have been doing with pretty good accuracy for hundreds of thousands of years.
cohenite would have you believe that it is “just as likely” that the first major increase beyond 280ppm of CO2 in 800,000 years is co-incidental with humans starting to burn a huge amount of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.
I guess that, by co-incidence, the world started getting a bit warmer (how, is not explained – given that in the last 100 years or so we have a pretty accurate idea of what the sun has been doing too) at the same time and so some of the Earth starting burping “natural” CO2 and this has confused scientists.
Strangely enough, the cohenites of the world would also have you believe that the medieval warm period was just as hot as today and for quite a while – yet where is the sudden “natural” 100 ppm rise in CO2 for that warm period? And for that matter, why didn’t it happen in the Roman war period too?
Why does only the post industrial warm periods lead to a sudden rise in CO2 concentration?
If you don’t realise you’re being baffled by a bullshit artist, you’re not trying hard.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 1:41 pm
Hahahahaa.
All I want to say is this; Bruce way up the page declares that “science is not left and right” and I wish he were right.
This is a centre-right blog; hands up any regular readers who accept the IPCCs statements on climate change?
hands up anyone on the right of politics who does?
Evcricket
10 Jan 13 at 1:41 pm
I’m not going to bother regurgitating what you’ve already read, cohenite.
You refuse to acknowledge mistakes; it’s one of your BA debating techniques.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 1:42 pm
Which ones? Which report?
Token
10 Jan 13 at 1:43 pm
Evcricket – I meant what I said. I recommend to the ALP that they ditch the carbon tax and the RET as soon as they can because their greenhouse policies will be dead weights around their necks.
The climate data shows that CAGW cannot happen because of CO2. Empirical data shows 2XCO2 is about 0.5 C or so by several methods, including my own independent crosscheck. Being stuck with a couple of policies which are wrong in science and also higly unpopular will not serve the party well. You thought Work Choices was bad for the Libs? Well its going to be worse for the ALP. As I said a few posts ago, the UK Met Office is coming around, as is NASA GSFC. Doesn’t take much futurology to see where this is all going.
And the Greens, well they can do what they like. As a religious cult there is no talking sense into them anyway.
Bruce
10 Jan 13 at 2:30 pm
Luthi’s graph, which steve links to, is from this paper.
It’s not bad and shows evidence of past sudden movements in CO2 levels and CO2 ranges from 172 to 300ppm.
Luthi is based on ice cores. Before I explain some of the issues with the ice cores I should point out that the ice cores do show the Holocene being much warmer than today, and the MWP, but when the ice cores do something which is contrary to AGW like show the Holocene and the MWP were warmer than today the alarmists go batshit indignant and claim the ice cores are merely local and not global.
The major problem with ice cores is that the integrity of the preservation of the CO2 in the frozen atmospheric gas is compromised. Jawarowski did some preliminary work on this subject but has come into, naturally, some criticism particularly from Etheridge, allegedly.
None of the criticism however, deals with Jawarowski’s main point: which is close-off fractionation, or leakage of gases from the gas trapped in the ice, because of ice pressure; this process is related to the kinetic diameter of the gas molecules not the collision diameter; something which confuses even experts such as Ideka-Fukusawa who gave ice cores a clean bill of health as a proxy for past CO2 levels.
Arguably the most reliable history of past CO2 levels is from plant stomata records as Figure 12 shows. Figure 12 indicates past levels of CO2 were almost at today’s levels as recently as 1550. In addition chemical analyses of CO2 levels in Figure 13 show CO2 levels higher than today in the early 1800’s.
Finally, and slightly OT, as it goes to the benefits of CO2, a major increase in CO2 occurred about 15000 years ago, from 200 to 270ppm, which enabled modern agriculture to begin.
I appreciate it when steve makes a bit of an effort to put forward his pro-AGW views as it makes a change from the usual nonsense; it is unfortunate that when the errors of his beloved AGW are pointed out to him that he relapses to his default dickhead mode.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 2:35 pm
Bugger, exceeded the link limit. Try again without some links.
Luthi’s graph, which steve links to, is from this paper.
It’s not bad and shows evidence of past sudden movements in CO2 levels and CO2 ranges from 172 to 300ppm.
Luthi is based on ice cores. Before I explain some of the issues with the ice cores I should point out that the ice cores do show the Holocene being much warmer than today, and the MWP, but when the ice cores do something which is contrary to AGW like show the Holocene and the MWP were warmer than today the alarmists go batshit indignant and claim the ice cores are merely local and not global.
The major problem with ice cores is that the integrity of the preservation of the CO2 in the frozen atmospheric gas is compromised. Jawarowski did some preliminary work on this subject but has come into, naturally, some criticism particularly from Etheridge, allegedly.
None of the criticism however, deals with Jawarowski’s main point: which is close-off fractionation, or leakage of gases from the gas trapped in the ice, because of ice pressure; this process is related to the kinetic diameter of the gas molecules not the collision diameter; something which confuses even experts such as Ideka-Fukusawa who gave ice cores a clean bill of health as a proxy for past CO2 levels.
Arguably the most reliable history of past CO2 levels is from plant stomata records as Figure 12 shows. Figure 12 indicates past levels of CO2 were almost at today’s levels as recently as 1550. In addition chemical analyses of CO2 levels in Figure 13 show CO2 levels higher than today in the early 1800’s.
Finally, and slightly OT, as it goes to the benefits of CO2, a major increase in CO2 occurred about 15000 years ago, from 200 to 270ppm, which enabled modern agriculture to begin.
I appreciate it when steve makes a bit of an effort to put forward his pro-AGW views as it makes a change from the usual nonsense; it is unfortunate that when the errors of his beloved AGW are pointed out to him that he relapses to his default dickhead mode.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 2:37 pm
Which ones; I accept this one.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 2:39 pm
What do you think we are, idiots?
jupes
10 Jan 13 at 2:46 pm
You dodged a series of questions about the BOM data.
Suck it up, Princess.
.
10 Jan 13 at 2:55 pm
Good point jupes.
Have any of the Cats lefties read that book, and explain why not.
jumpnmcar
10 Jan 13 at 2:55 pm
( sound of lefties looking up what RealClimate has to say tap,tap,tapity tap….lol)
jumpnmcar
10 Jan 13 at 2:58 pm
Hilarious to see cohenite try to sell that selective ACO2 uptake claim.
Where is the scepticism??
Michael
10 Jan 13 at 3:29 pm
Assuming your one of the numpties who thinks Malcolum Turnbull would be a better leader of the Libs, then there’s him and Greg whathisname. They’re both global warming patsies. They both got on the bandwagon because they thought there was votes in it, just like the majority of the Labor party. The only true believers are in the Greens party, plus a few scattered nutcases.
You wait. After the next election try and find a global warming warrior in parliament. It will disappear from Hansard like the white Australia policy.
Campbell Newman went through and stripped QLD of global warmening policies, and nobody said squat. He sacked a pile of seat-warmers, and people got into a frenzy. Use those powers of deduction and work out how important global warming policies are to the voting population.
Remember that in the 2010 election Labor went around telling everyone that Tony Abbott was a denier who thought climate change was crap, and the Liberals vote went up, way up. Julia Gillard denied putting on a carbon tax – got up and protested that there would be no carbon tax – and she squeaked in. In other words, the hot ticket in 2010 was avoiding global warmening policies.
Does anyone seriously think that in 2013 people are going to vote for more electricity taxes? For more fuel taxes? To increase participation in a stupid, failed treaty that just ended?
brc
10 Jan 13 at 3:32 pm
cohenite starts with a throwaway bit of confusion:
Yes: icecores when used for temperature reconstructions are local. Are you arguing that you can reconstruct the entire global temperature from one spot on top of Greenland?
What a dishonest suggestion.
We have in fact been talking about ice cores for measuring CO2.
And because it suits fake skeptics to try to find a way (anyway at all) to overcome the obvious relationship between burning heaps of fossil fuel and the increase in atmospheric CO2, they run away from direct measurements of air from ice cores to the secondary effect of CO2 on stomata.
Funny – when it comes to tree rings, there are supposed to be all unreliable for temperature reconstruction, but you’ll run to another biological secondary method if you think it suits your “baffle with bullshit” arguments.
The reason why no one with common sense would rely on stomata has showing a more reliable record of CO2 changes than ice cores are set out in this Skeptical Science post.
Don’t crap on that you won’t read that site – David Middleton, who has championed stomata (in fact, almost certainly this is where cohenite is getting his guff) participates in comments to the post and his counterclaims are dealt with.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 3:38 pm
By the way, even when Middleton took his “stomata are more reliable than air measurements” story for a run around the block at WUWT, there were plenty of people in comments who urged caution about thinking that stomata would be a reliable proxy for CO2 levels.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 3:54 pm
Tell that to Hansen.
I did get the stomata stuff from from Middleton; nice guy; by “dealt with” do you mean they banned him?
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 4:11 pm
Actually steve I think the only reliable information about temperature is from the satellites which began in 1979; OHC from 2003 when ARGO began.
Ice loss has still not been perfected due to GIA and sea level rise is a joke.
But if you are going to discredit stomata because of the ice cores or tree rings then I’m afraid you’re pulling yourself.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 4:14 pm
SfB – pffft!
Middle Ages Warming Period.
Little Ice Age.
Goodbye.
blogstrop
10 Jan 13 at 4:31 pm
blogstrop, you dimwit: just because nature has inbuilt variability does not mean that humans can’t change climate, and to their detriment.
You may as well argue that because lightning can start bushfires, what does it matter if you flick a cigarette out of the car while driving through a forest during a heat wave.
To make the analogy better (to cover an imperfect amount of knowledge as to the exact forcings in play during a past, relatively brief, hotter or cooler period): even if you don’t know exactly what caused the last few bushfires that came over the hill and threatened your property, that doesn’t make it any safer to set up the camp fire in your back yard on a high fire risk day.
steve from brisbane
10 Jan 13 at 8:01 pm
Yep, change is never an improvement, for the awarmists. A little warmth, for much of the world, would be a good thing; more coolth, for much of the world, would be bad. Awarmists, I notice, ever want to “tackle climate change” by raising taxes but never want to provide real ameliorative measures for the supposedly detrimental changes.
Deadman
10 Jan 13 at 8:10 pm
“A little warmth, for much of the world, would be a good thing”
I agree. However, too much warming would be a bad thing. Furthermore, the pace of change is highly relevant.
Jarrah
10 Jan 13 at 8:22 pm
Steve, you have to realise that by your ardent embrace of two things – climate alarmism, and the present government – you mark yourself as being of diminished responsibility, and not to be taken seriously, let alone argued with. You are just sprinkling litter across every bit of intellectual backdrop you appear on, including this one.
blogstrop
10 Jan 13 at 8:25 pm
I concur.
Yes; thankfully, the current rate of warming—none—is not particularly dangerous.
Deadman
10 Jan 13 at 8:45 pm
The pace of change.
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 9:24 pm
Great quote from Gandalph in the Hobbit movie – as the group slogs complaining through pouring rain he remarks.
“If you want to change the weather find another wizard.”
A nice swipe from Peter Jackson I think.
viva
10 Jan 13 at 10:26 pm
“The pace of change.”
How sceptics see global warming.
“A nice swipe from Peter Jackson I think.”
You’ve obviously never read the book.
Jarrah
10 Jan 13 at 10:51 pm
Jacksons Radagast could also be a swipe.
jumpnmcar
10 Jan 13 at 10:58 pm
That’s not true jarrah; this is how I see AGW; and I’m a sceptic.
What is your point jarrah, I don’t get it; are you trying to be sarcastic?
cohenite
10 Jan 13 at 11:43 pm
“What is your point jarrah, I don’t get it”
Jarrah
10 Jan 13 at 11:48 pm
See James Delingpole, “The crazy climate change obsession that’s made the Met Office a menace”:
Deadman
11 Jan 13 at 7:51 am
You forgot 2010 onwards.
So, I showed a decadal graph. I seem to remember one of the alarmist organisations sometime saying every decade will be getting hotter so I threw that one in to show it is not the case.
Again, what is YOUR point?
cohenite
11 Jan 13 at 8:46 am
Sinclair’s post boldly claims that Global Warming support is on the wane.
Actual facts disagree with Sinclair:
http://www.nccarf.edu.au/publications/public-risk-perceptions-second-survey
The Right continue on blindly.
Also looks like the LNP trail Labor in the latest Morgan? Interesting isn’t it.
Evcricket
14 Jan 13 at 9:02 am
I think even The Met Office are giving it away.
Sinclair Davidson
14 Jan 13 at 9:05 am
Crossie
Oh really? I suspect her arse would have been too big…
Anyway, with this bust, is her face planted in the ground?
kae
14 Jan 13 at 9:13 am
Which sceptic published that chart Jarrah?
Keith
14 Jan 13 at 9:16 am
It’s a joke, Keith, highlighting how silly short-term views on climate can be.
Jarrah
14 Jan 13 at 9:35 am
oh I see, it’s a joke when you lie.
Keith
14 Jan 13 at 9:40 am
Evcricket, if you take the leftie line that scientists and public opinion are driven by money then the billions invested in alarmism would certainly trump the millions raised by skeptics.
Do you want to run with the money or the truth?
Poor Old Rafe
14 Jan 13 at 9:52 am
Rafe, I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means.
Evcricket
14 Jan 13 at 10:54 am