Austerity of global warming*

This morning our resident aspirant global warming troll evcricket left this comment:

Anyway guys, it’s time to update your memes. There is no global warming pause. None.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2145.html

It is a link to an article in the the latest issue of Nature Climate Change.

Scanning the contents of the journal you’ll notice that there are several articles dealing with the “pause” or “hiatus”. Evcricket has selected one for our attention. So what is the story?

In summary, this analysis shows that not only is there no pause in the evolution of the warmest daily extremes over land but that they have continued unabated over the observational record. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that the most ‘extreme’ extremes show the greatest change. This is particularly relevant for climate change impacts, as changes in the warmest temperature extremes over land are of the most relevance to human health, agriculture, ecosystems and infrastructure.

Okay – the argument being that the pause isn’t really a pause, it is a measurement problem. If you slice and dice the data differently you can get a different answer. This is bread and butter work for academics and this sort of thing keeps the journals full of articles.

But the journal has other articles on the same topic and an editorial.

To complicate things even more, in the past decade the climate hasn’t warmed at the rate projected, and evidence of the slowdown in temperature rise has sparked a lively scientific and public debate, as highlighted this month by a collection of articles in our Focus ‘Recent slowdown in global warming’.

Now if the editors of the world’s leading environmental journal think that an issue should be highlighted it does seem a bit churlish of pseudonymous blog posters to simply dismiss those concerns.

Then there is this admission (emphasis added):

The media reporting of a ‘hiatus’ came as a surprise to the public. Prior to this, the message had been of continuous warming — to be suddenly told that this was not true led to confusion. Questions started to arise as to whether the previous message had been incorrect — was global warming not happening?

As the editors of Nature Climate Change recognise, this is not unreasonable.

The surprise of the slowdown in warming and the subsequent media engagement by scientists, with a focus on uncertainties, leaves the public questioning what is actually known.

To the extent that the public have been asked to pay higher taxes, higher fees, to restrict economic growth and prosperity it is not unreasonable to ask what is actually known. Indeed that very issue of Nature Climate Change contains a letter to the editors where the authors admit that climate scientists haven’t differentiated between variation and uncertainty in their analysis (emphasis added):

Uncertainty is a measure of unexplained variation, and can be partly caused by measurement errors, and partly by our lack of understanding about cause and effect. But predictions of climate change, and approaches to its mitigation, do not only carry uncertainties in the magnitude of responses, they also entail significant natural variability in time and space.

That is what the public have now recognised and that is what they are worried about – simply blaming the media coverage as some climate scientists do, isn’t going to help their cause.

To be clear – the editors of Nature Climate Change and all the authors in that issue are convinced that global warming is happening and is a serious problem. They also recognise that explaining the “hiatus” or “pause” is a scientific challenge. They are not simply denying its existence.

As an academic endeavour what we see in this issue of Nature Climate Change is fantastic. There are theories to test, large amounts of data, and empirical anomalies to resolve. Fruitful academic work. I find, however, that the public at large tend to get a bit impatient when being asked to make huge sacrifices on the basis of that sort of thing.

* The title is a bit of fun. The pause is being described as a slowdown in the increase in temperature. In some circles a slowdown in the increase in government spending has described as being austerity.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Austerity of global warming*

  1. Leo G

    So a slowdown in the increase in temperature can be viewed as climate change austerity?

  2. this analysis shows that not only is there no pause in the evolution of the warmest daily extremes over land but that they have continued unabated over the observational record

    Everybody knows that Global Warming was never about about some silly average temperature, it’s actually some measure of “extreme” temperatures in the evolution of a system. Why, if you go back to those old reports and articles and (peer-reviewed) scientific papers, I’m sure they’re full of the phrase “evolution of the warmest daily extremes over land”. Just running over with it.

  3. Ant

    They roooooooooooooooooooooooooolly wanna believe mankind is evil and little more than a parasitic organism sucking the planet dry.

    The only parasistic parts of mankind are the leftist parts. Nobody is as adept as they are when it comes to leeching off the efforts of others which prevents them from returning to a cavelike existence wiping their arses with their hands.

  4. Gab

    I now it’s only something you whipped up just now, but love your work, Sinclair.
    :)

  5. steve

    in general, my attitude is that I will not believe their predictions until they prove to me that they know what is happening and that means getting a model that works.

  6. brc

    If we don’t know the full extent of cause and effect, then the precautionary principle says that we should stop paying climate taxes because we could make things worse. I’m only applying ‘their’ rules.

    No doubt Evcricket will be in raptures at having spawned an entire article. Canberra located pen pushers dream of such notoriety. The ultimate prize is invoking a riot and being despatched to London on all expenses paid gardening leave.

  7. Leo G

    “this analysis shows that not only is there no pause in the evolution of the warmest daily extremes over land but that they have continued unabated over the observational record”

    The author appears to be claiming that observed temperatures consistently show increasing variance as a long term trend, and not just an increasing mean daily temperature
    . Where is the evidence that supports that statement?

  8. brc

    in general, my attitude is that I will not believe their predictions until they prove to me that they know what is happening and that means getting a model that works.

    Steve – a better way of saying is – when the people who tell me it is a problem start acting like it is a proble, en I will stay to believe them. People who fervently push for restrictions on alcohol and tobacco are not usually found in the green room with a beer and a fag. But nothing excites a climate alarmist more than a round the world trip to an exotic locale, so they can talk about how emissions are killing the planet.

  9. Chris

    That’s the problem I have with the whole debate. The denial of uncertainty. The mathematical models that leave out the stuff we don’t know about yet.

    There are two main inputs: firstly, carbon dioxide reflects infrared radiation emitted by the earth and reduces cooling, same as water vapour (clouds), then when water is heated it releases carbon dioxide. Both are proven effects. Put them together in a model and increased CO2 emissions will result in a predicted catastrophe. Yes, they put other stuff in, but those are the main drivers.

    The problem is that I think they’re missing something important. Something that’s working the other way. Big time.

  10. nic

    It amazes me those who talk about the sanctity of science and of empirical data, who then, turn around and ignore data when it changes and refuse to acknowledge any other scientific explanations. You can’t pick and choose. Its either dogma or data- based folks.

  11. Bear Necessities

    We are all gunna die!!!!!!!

  12. brc

    The more I think about this, the funnier it is. First, there was no pause. Then there was a pause due to Chinese smog. Then there was no pause because the heat was simply in the deep oceans. Now it seems there is a pause again, or not, actually, what actually is their latest position?

    An uncharitable observer might be inclined to think that they have no idea and are just spitballing ideas at friendly press, hoping that something will stick.

    Meanwhile….the date for the terrible prognostications have long since passed, even the faithful admit among themselves that the gig is up, but faithful tax eaters with a hatred for freedom still insist we must do something!

    I was opining to someone yesterday that it is unlikely the power of electricity will double again in the next ten years. It is completely politically unpalatable to do so. The days where the abc could implore people to switch their tv off standby to save the planet are long, long gone.

  13. Myrddin Seren

    there no pause in the evolution of the warmest daily extremes over land but that they have continued unabated over the observational record.

    There is probably ( that IPCC word again – woo hoo – where’s my Nobel Peace Prize ?! ) no pause in big, concrete shelled, vehicle-transport enabled cities getting bigger and hotter at the recording points during the hottest parts of the day.

    Except Detroit, which is the poster child of environmental responsibility in having destroyed its industry, shrunk its population leaving a largely impoverished rump whose major energy use appears to be driving to the pawn shop.

    The bulk of the earth’s surface is of course covered in H2O. We still await the return of Trenberth’s hiddeney heat hiding at the bottom of the ocean. Oops – spoke too soon – there it is.

  14. Bruce of Newcastle

    Evcricket has selected one for our attention. So what is the story?

    Without the whole of the paywalled paper its hard to know exactly what they have done. But the figures in the abstract suggest they are working off HadCRUT 4.

    The reason why this is problematic is that HadCRUT 4 is a combination of records from terrestrial thermometers.

    The rising land only dataset in their Figure 2 is substantially contaminated with UHIE. This is because the proportion of land based thermometers which are at airports has risen over the last couple decades as meterological offices have economised. Airports must collect local weather data, and provide it free. But airports are large expanses of asphalt plus lots of hot exhaust gases from increasingly powerful jet engines.

    The way to disentangle this is to compare the land only satellite data to the land only thermometer data. Which I have done here. I’ve lined up the datasets so you can see a similar sized UHIE related divergence of trend. The graph is started in 1979 because that is when the satellite data commences.

    The difference you see is most of the difference they show in Fig 2 of the abstract.

    And if I change the start date to 1997 you get this graph. You can see the land only satellite dataset trendline is as flat as a bad joke for the last 17 years…but the thermometer record is rising.

    So yes, in the analysis they did the hiatus doesn’t exist in that isolated dataset. But the reason is UHIE, asphalt and jet exhausts, not CO2. If it was the satellite land only trend would have been rising too. It hasn’t.

    (I am not using UAH in this analysis as they have been having some documented data analysis problems which has caused the dataset to ‘run hot’ recently. There have been no such problems with the RSS dataset. But even with UAH you can see about the same divergence between it and CRUTEM4 Land as you see in RSS, if you take the whole of the available UAH data. I can give a link, but the 3 per comment limit prevents me here.)

  15. Alfonso

    Austerity indeed.
    The only interesting question is will GM or Ford do a production run of 6.5 L turbod RHD pick up trucks to fill the ute void? Will their tiny US price be cranked to the sky when the govt puts on taxes that the secret “how much will they really pay” Dept gives them a figure?

  16. blogstrop

    That “lack of understanding about cause and effect” will get you every time. Or, to put it more bluntly, as our esteemed JC has done, and I quote, “the models are fucked”.

    And a troll has been amply rewarded.

  17. Giuseppe De Simone

    Having spent two hours reading about current issues of public importance, this is the best article I have read so far today.

  18. .

    this analysis shows that not only is there no pause in the evolution of the warmest daily extremes over land but that they have continued unabated over the observational record

    No shit. Variance will increase as the sample size of a time series increases.

  19. brc

    This new focus on ‘extremes’ is scraping the barrel. Extremes don’t render land uninhabitable or spread disease or cause untold migrations or vaporize the himalayan glaciers or any of the other scary stories we have been fed.

    Extremes are the most adaptable thing around. Extreme heat? Easy, a few more airconditioners and job done. Notice that it is not extreme highs being singled out, but also extreme lows. A few more heaters amd job done. Extreme floods? A few more dams and job done. Extreme storms? Slightly stronger rooves and job done.

    Extremes : Otherwise known as incrementally small new width of measurement bands on the woefully short temperature records. And nothing to be worried about, or even linked to co2 concentrations.

    The models are useless; ergo all climate related policies should be scrapped before 2014 is out.

  20. Biota

    The reasonableness test: my 70 years have been in the same region of Oz and mostly outside in rural areas. There is nothing that I can point to to say that the climate now is any different to that 60 or so years ago; there have always been extremes. And of course my time starts before CO2 induced warming was meant to have commenced.

  21. Robert Crew

    I know Adelaide’s Mediterranean climate is not a common one around the world, but this is the third summer in a row which has been cool and mild, with a very limited number of hot days. It is true that there has been 1-2 days of near record temperature in those brief heatwaves, but that “near-record” only qualifies because all historic temperature records have been normalised down (if you compare contemporary newspaper reports from the Bureau, with their current datasets, the difference is 2-3 degrees celsius). The last three summers have been the coolest and wettest I can remember since at least as far back as the 80′s, and nothing like the intense heat of 2001.

    There also seems to have been a redefinition of what counts as a heatwave. in the 80s’ / 90′s five days over the old 100 degree mark was the standard, now it is three days over 35 degrees (a 35 degree day used to be considered a cool break in the middle of a heatwave).

  22. ProEng

    Some one mentioned climate models. Most of these are black box models because the modellers and the so-called climate scientists have no understanding of the processes (such as heat transfer) involved. One black box is filled with something called the sun, another is filled with something called volcanoes, third filled with moisture, there is a box called natural variation and finally because of political decisions there is one called CO2. They give these boxes a weighting. Then they try to relate this to past data. When it does not work too well and fit their wished for predictions they fiddle with the weightings and relationships (eg they relate moisture to CO2 saying more CO2 will give more moisture ie a positive feedback). Some models have added a box for aerosols which can also be blamed on combustion leading to increased CO2. When this has not worked too well they blame the accuracy of past measurements -past CO2 has to be decreased, past temperatures are too high (reduce those 1930′s temperaturec get rid of MWP (vikings did not colonise Greenland , anyway it was a local condition etc). Then to confound non-technical people (including most climate scientists) they acquire super computers and add more black boxes but these have tiny weightings so the that past predictions are not radically changed. One box may have Schrodinger’s black cat. No one knows if it is dead so it will not change the smell of the model. Clouds are too difficult. There is not enough past data. So clouds are left out or if there is a box named clouds it has no weighting or is given a direct relation with CO2 so the effect is cancelled.

  23. cynical1

    It’s so confusing.

    So, now there has been no pause.

    On Tuesday, some peer reviewed article said that volcanoes caused an “hiatus”.

    Arse, meet elbow. Just what the fuck keeps this cult alive?

    It’s ridiculous.

    By the late 1990s, scientists had observed more than two decades of rapid global warming, and expected the warming trend to continue. Instead, despite continuing increases in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth’s surface temperatures have remained nearly flat for the last 15 years. The International Panel on Climate Change verified this recent warming “hiatus” in its latest report.

  24. what actually is their latest position excuse?

    There, fixed.

  25. Demosthenes

    Does the IPCC have a position on the hiatus?

  26. Ed

    This new focus on ‘extremes’ is scraping the barrel.

    It smacks of post hoc analysis.

  27. Andrew

    Troll is right. Strong and sustained cooling according to RSS satellite.

    But yes, UHI (ie urbanisation) continues – an order of magnitude faster than rural temps ever moved. I know how much ecotrolls hatepoor people having opportunities for urban incomes, health and education.

  28. incoherent rambler

    Conjecture, hearsay do not count in courts or in science.

    Just as companies in the 90s did not want to hear that they were being scammed by the y2k brigade, nor do they want to hear that they are being scammed by the sustainability troops.

    Both are wonderful examples of where you end up when corporate management is incapable of digesting anything of a mildly technical nature. The RET and the carbon tax, although implemented by our pollies, only came into being because corporate Australia acquiesced. One would hope they are more resistant to the next scam.

  29. caveman

    The universe is no bigger than the size of a shoe box so fuk yeah we can change the climate, I might just drop a fart and wipe out Andromeda Nebula. So over this shite.

  30. .

    ProEng
    #1207406, posted on February 28, 2014 at 12:52 pm
    Some one mentioned climate models. Most of these are black box models because the modellers and the so-called climate scientists have no understanding of the processes (such as heat transfer) involved. One black box is filled with something called the sun, another is filled with something called volcanoes, third filled with moisture, there is a box called natural variation and finally because of political decisions there is one called CO2. They give these boxes a weighting. Then they try to relate this to past data. When it does not work too well and fit their wished for predictions they fiddle with the weightings and relationships (eg they relate moisture to CO2 saying more CO2 will give more moisture ie a positive feedback). Some models have added a box for aerosols which can also be blamed on combustion leading to increased CO2. When this has not worked too well they blame the accuracy of past measurements -past CO2 has to be decreased, past temperatures are too high (reduce those 1930′s temperaturec get rid of MWP (vikings did not colonise Greenland , anyway it was a local condition etc). Then to confound non-technical people (including most climate scientists) they acquire super computers and add more black boxes but these have tiny weightings so the that past predictions are not radically changed. One box may have Schrodinger’s black cat. No one knows if it is dead so it will not change the smell of the model. Clouds are too difficult. There is not enough past data. So clouds are left out or if there is a box named clouds it has no weighting or is given a direct relation with CO2 so the effect is cancelled.

    Ah, I see…”the models are fucked”…

  31. johanna

    The list of “dog ate my homework” excuses trotted out recently includes:

    – the heat is hiding in the deep oceans, where we can’t measure it

    – volcanic activity/aerosols are to blame

    – we have to wait for 30 years before we should stop panicking

    – ENSO is “distorting” the results

    and the latest beauty (h/t Bishop Hill)

    – it’s just a coincidence of factors, which made the models look bad. The money quote is:

    “Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.”

    And they call this settled science!

  32. Adam d

    Does anyone remember its debate 10 years ago. The “deniers” as we are known were happy to concede the temp and co2 rises. We argued that correlation does not equal causation and that unprecedented was an incorrect term. Oh did the arrows fly, numbers and figures were used to refute our reasonable positions a seemingly unanimous scientific opinion was launched at us and our simple conservative statements were mocked incessantly with claims of big oil influence or low Iqs.

    Now that the data, scientific integrity, public opinion, and regional drought have all changed there is no condistency or logic left for the warmists. Now the shoe is on the other foot they have gone complete retard coming up with completely untested and in most cases illogical hypotheticals, if the damage being caused wasn’t do tragic I would enjoy the slow slide into insanity for these bastards.

  33. Docket62

    I’ve just checked my stocks… Enough red wine in there to cover me till doomsday, which apparently may be 300 years sooner than the expected 4 trillion years whereupon well be vaporized by a supernova.

    At a personal level, I’m afraid I don’t actually give a shit. Unless you believe in reincarnation, then no one on this blog will live long enough to see these ‘changes’ … Or their children, or their grandchildren.

  34. Rafe

    Nice work from Don Aitkin, not one of your case-hardened right wingnuts!

    h/t Barry Williams, ex-Grand Vizier of The Australian Skeptics.

  35. Docket62

    Dot: “Ah, I see…”the models are fucked”…”
    +++++. Gold son, gold

  36. brc

    Adam, I would enjoy it too, except they don’t do anymore than drive by argumenting these days. When was the last time you saw an alarmist even answer a single question about the validity of climate models? The most you’ll get these days is a quick insult, followed by a statement about consensus, and they shoot through. Gone are the days of post and counter post, arguing the merits. They are like a phantom rmy of defenders, spreading themselves thin and taking the occasional shot to give the presence of more people actually still being there. The realists have crushingly won the blog war, while the surviving alarmists congregate in ever smaller groups on captive websites, furiously deleting comments and avoiding debate while self-congratulating that at least they aren’t condemning their great grandchildren to a mildly warmer winter.

    The victory is almost complete, pendignthe scrapping of legislation and the final collapse of the ipcc fiasco, but the toll in misdirected wealth and wasted time is staggering. Australia could have launched its own ISS just on our wasted money alone, then throw in all the other countries.

    I’m totally correct on these points and yet no troll will even pop up to try and say soemthing to the contrary. If one reads this, they will wearily nod their head in agreement and lack the energy to even produce a feeble link to sks pretending to prove anything but that the models are well and truly useless.

  37. Cold-Hands

    So a global warming nazi (cf Dr Roy Spencer) cherry picks just one paper that supports his erroneous view. Colour me surprised!

  38. Bill

    The “Pause” is due to:-

    Chinese aerosol emissions scattering incoming shortwave.
    Dust from volcanic eruptions scattering incoming shortwave
    Increasing cloud cover due to lower solar activity, reflecting incoming shortwave.
    Increasing cloud cover, for some other reason, reflecting incoming shortwave.
    Water vapour amplification is weak, ie no “hotspot”.
    Missing heat is hiding in deep oceans.
    Some or all of the above.
    Something else.

    The Science is settled, so move on!

  39. cynical1

    Wow, I wasn’t expecting that.

    Another excuse.

    At least they are their own worst enemy…

    and the latest beauty (h/t Bishop Hill)

    – it’s just a coincidence of factors, which made the models look bad. The money quote is:

    “Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.”

  40. cynical1

    The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.”

    Yes, many a model along those lines has fucked up.

    Ask Alistair Cook…

  41. johanna

    Yeah, cynical1, the dog has well and truly vomited up the homework, and it’s not a pretty sight.

  42. .

    Increasing cloud cover due to lower solar activity, reflecting incoming shortwave.
    Increasing cloud cover, for some other reason, reflecting incoming shortwave.

    Weren’t we told by RealClimate et. al., that Svensmark’s cloud theory was crackpot rubbish he’d never be able to prove and it would never be modelled?

  43. manalive

    The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories …

    The models confirm the truth of what should have happened, how very post-structuralist.
    Alarmists will be immensely comforted that catastrophe has not been cancelled.

  44. johanna

    Who can forget the rise of “post structural science” in climatology? This is where, in the absence of data, you just make stuff up because you deem the issue to be important. Oh, wait …

    It is rather reminiscent of “alternative medicine”, properly defined as stuff which hasn’t been proved to work, otherwise it would be actual medicine.

  45. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    [glances about the room]

    Love what you’ve done with the walls. And ceiling.

    Little splattered gobbets of evcricket everywhere.

  46. johanna

    It’s a collage. Lots of texture. We thought we’d do something in keeping with the 60′s and 70s zeitgeist.

  47. jumpnmcar

    One of the founders of GREENPEACE Patrick Moore ( pdf )
    February 25, 2014.

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.

    The first 3 pages are all you need.
    ( oh, and for SfB, he says the models are fucked. )

  48. jupes

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.

    I know many here have been banging on about this for years now, however seeing as though the sentence above comes from a founder of Greenpeace, I nominate it for Liberty Quote status.

  49. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    I think this encapsulates the holy-rollers in the glowball warmenating religious cult:

    Sagan enters this topic with a clear animus against the profit motive and a pre-established belief that industrial civilization is “ravaging the earth.” These are the obvious cultural biases of a late-20th-century modern liberal. So he considers two alternative theories—that we are destroying the planet by cooling it down, or we are destroying the planet by heating it up—and calls for more government funding to figure out which is correct. But his bias prevents him from seriously considering the obvious third option: that our effect on the Earth’s climate is negligible, any heating or cooling is within the normal range of natural variation, and the benefits of industrial civilization far outweigh any negative effects. But if we don’t treat this as an option, much less as an equally likely option, no government funding is likely to be devoted to pursuing that theory.
    This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion—we’re “ravaging the planet”—and we’re only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion.
    That brings us to where we are today. The establishment’s approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists—and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one.
    That’s how we get the Los Angeles Times loftily declaring that it won’t even publish letters to the editor that question global warming. That’s how we get Michael Mann’s lawsuit attempting to make it a legally punishable offense to “question his intellect and reasoning.”
    That’s how we get the appalling petition to spike Charles Krauthammer’s Washington Post‘s column for expressing mere agnosticism about global warming.
    It’s how we get the New York Times casually suggesting that global warming “deniers” should be stabbed.
    And then there is this doozy, from my own backyard: at the University of Virginia, Thomas Forman II declares in the student newspaper that global warming skeptics shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on campus, because “we should keep our debates out of our science classes.”

  50. johanna

    But, where is evcricket? A whole post devoted to his/her thoughts, but … crickets. And, doesn’t ev have any friends?

    Look, we’ve been kind. Bruce from Newcastle and cohenite, two of our heaviest science hitters, are on the bench having a rest (beers with shots). So, come out, come out, wherever you are!

  51. jumpnmcar

    Johanna

    Australia in South Africa, 3 Test Series, 2014
    Tomorrow, 6:30 pm
    Newlands, Cape Town

    This is the only cricket worth taking note of eva.

  52. jupes

    Don Aitkin’s list of AGW sites from Rafe’s link (orthodox are the warmists):

    My 14 are slightly tilted towards the dissident side, but those are more fun, and less constipated about The Truth. And I learn much more from them than I do from the orthodox, who, on the whole, are only interested in my learning if I accept what they say without demur.

    Absolutely damning.

  53. jupes

    This is the only cricket worth taking note of eva.

    Last test before the footy season.

    Good times. Go Aussies.

  54. johanna

    Aitkin is a valuable ally – an ex VC of Canberra University, and a chap with many valuable contacts. Nobody could credibly accuse him of being a right-wing lunatic or in the pay of Big Oil or whatever. What’s more he got into trouble by challenging a local opportunist who decided late in life that he was Aboriginal and started muscling in on the local “welcome to country” and “smoking ceremony” gravy trains. To his credit, Don told this guy (who threatened to sue him) to go away and do his worst. Nothing transpired.

    I don’t entirely agree with his list, but that’s the whole point of lists, especially for boys, as Nick Hornby hilariously demonstrated.

  55. Beef

    Those bastions of scientific integrity, University of East Anglia. New research by astrophsycists suggests:-

    Habitable conditions on Earth will be possible for at least another 1.75 billion years.

    That is of course unless you know what!

  56. egg_

    Some one mentioned climate models. Most of these are black box models because the modellers and the so-called climate scientists have no understanding of the processes (such as heat transfer) involved.

    It’s called ‘making sh!t up’ (as you go along).

  57. Bruce of Newcastle

    on the bench having a rest (beers with shots).

    Ah…no.

    Since the powers decided the only beer worth drinking (Bluetongue) was unworthy of their attention I patriotically refuel. Shiraz cabernet as I type.

    I’ve mentioned before a story, forgive me for repeating it. Was on a flight back from Brisbane on Qantaslink. The flight up was fun, since it was the milkrun: Newcastle to Kempsey to Coffs Harbour to Coolangatta to Brisbane. Dash 8. Like riding an excited camel on a rough road. We got to Coolie and the guy in the seat in front of me threw up from all the upping and downing. I helped the poor stewardess (she was a young thing, no seniority to speak of and most definitely stuck on the route from hell) who had to do the clean up. So we get to Brisbane and on the way out she thanks me by name. Must be an unforgiving job for the lower class Qantas plebs.

    Anyway, on the way back it went like this. I was seated next to a guy from the US. We talk and he says he’s a retired USN captain (I think he was being polite). So says I, have you ever been to Newcastle? No, never, first time. Oh, says I then you haven’t seen our fleet. Fleet?? Yes says I, look out the window on the other side of the plane…

    He does. Best thing. Its a bright sunny day and the vista is of coal ships, dozens and dozens waiting to get into the port of Newcastle spread over the sea like toys. Something approaching 5% of world bulk cargo capacity sitting there. Very nice body language!

    Anyway, we land in Newcastle and he collects his two assistants, and we all traipse into the terminal. I was ahead, and noticed the three of them stop and excitedly talk about an advertising sign on the way in which said “Welcome to the Hunter Wine Region”. He never knew that Newcastle was the biggest coal export port in the world but clearly knew about the Hunter!

    And that is the explanation of the shiraz cabernet.

    eva

    Close enough for government work. One all, Steyn has recovered his mojo and the pitch will be rolled mud and antelope dung especially designed to knobble a Mr Johnston. It will be epic.

  58. Tel

    The title is a bit of fun. The pause is being described as a slowdown in the increase in temperature. In some circles a slowdown in the increase in government spending has described as being austerity.

    You had me guessing right to the very end.

  59. egg_

    This new focus on ‘extremes’ is scraping the barrel. Extremes don’t render land uninhabitable or spread disease or cause untold migrations or vaporize the himalayan glaciers or any of the other scary stories we have been fed.

    The earliest predictions were that the most Norther* climes would experience the most warming – during Winter minima – how the worm turns.

    *It is a Northern Hemisphere centric industry, after all.

  60. johanna

    Great story, Bruce. As a descendant of the Dutch mercantile empire, I think that your point is very potent.

    The Steyn case has just kept giving and giving – presumably you’ve seen Steve McIntyre’s forensic dissection of several of the elements of Mann’s case?

    And yes, I knew that you mainly drink good red. I was just winding them up. :)

  61. Bruce of Newcastle

    The Steyn case

    Other Steyn. Dale. South African strike bowler who went through Aussie like a Cat 5 cyclone last test. The reverse swing was deadly. Warner got fined today for opining that they rubbed up one side of the ball on purpose. The physics of reverse swing are yummy.

  62. johanna

    Whoa, I’m way out of my depth on that stuff!

    But if you haven’t already read about it, McIntyre has taken apart most of Mann’s claims about how he was defamed, as Mann claimed (untruthfully) that numerous independent inquiries cleared him.

    (Mark) Steyn is delivering a masterclass in strategy, with Steve Mac and others providing tactical support.

  63. sdfc

    Warner got fined today for opining that they rubbed up one side of the ball on purpose.

    You’re kidding. What a whinger.

  64. oldmiseryguts

    Rafe

    I’m surprised by your mention of Barry Williams, I haven’t heard of him however you say he was the head of the Australian Skeptics. The reason I’m surprsed is that all the mainstrean skeptics (SGU, Phil Plait, many others) are well and truly adhered to the church of AGW. I have often tried to discuss this on their forums however the response is to refer me to to Skeptical Science and say that the ICCP can’t be wrong. I still don’t understand why these people who are extremely skeptical on every little thing swallow the AGW meme without a moments reflection.

    I could be wrong but I think I recall that James Randi (great at what he does) expressed some doubt about AGW and was then thoroughly stood on by the AGW skeptics and adopted the party line. Either I’m really naive questioning the scientific integrity of the IPPC and the AGW hypothesis or I’m on the right track and all these incredibly smart people are wrong.

  65. Michel Lasouris

    Y’kmow. he’s right….he just can’t type; quote
    “Anyway guys, it’s time to update your memes. There is no global warming pause. None.”
    But what he meant to type was”
    “Anyway guys, it’s time to update your memes. There is no global warming (pause). None.”

  66. evcricket

    I haven’t read any of these comments, I probably won’t.

    I love that you call me a troll Sincs. Very clear attempt to stifle my contribution, which is interesting. So a troll now is someone who posts scientific articles? Got it.

    And more anti-intellectual nonsense
    “Okay – the argument being that the pause isn’t really a pause, it is a measurement problem. If you slice and dice the data differently you can get a different answer. This is bread and butter work for academics and this sort of thing keeps the journals full of articles. ”

    Using different analysis techniques is a waste of time? Only done to generate articles and not real analysis? What nonsense. More than anything this speaks to the stupidity of debate around global warming. Average global temperature takes a whole year of data, in thousands of points across the world, and reduces it to a single data point, which everyone argues about. As everyone who knows averages realises it hides a lot of information. If the maximum goes up 5 and the minimum down 5, the average stays the same. Does that mean the climate is changing or not. Reducing the debate about climate change to argument about a single metric is a strawman perpetuated by the deniers to reframe the debate in their terms. It is a hell of a lot more complicated than that and anyone arguing about average global temperatures needs to do more reading.

  67. evcricket

    And you go on and on about the cost of addressing global warming.

    The ACT is committed to sourcing 90% of their electricity from renewables by 2020. This costs AT MOST an extra $4 per week, per household, tailing off after the first year. That’s less than the variance in petrol prices for most people.

    Try some perspective, it feels great.

  68. Bruce of Newcastle

    So a troll now is someone who posts scientific articles? Got it.

    Ev – A troll is some who drops a link to a scientific paper or SkS blog post and says ‘TA DAH!!!” then refuses to defend it when other people politely challenge it.

    Not all papers you see in journals are correct – the writers are only human (well most of them).

    For instance, I have analysed the paper which you raised, and which Sinc mentions above. That is to say I did my best because you only provided a link to the abstract. If you stand by your comments you should address what I wrote. I find that most if not all of their findings can be explained by measurement problems due especially to UHIE. And I gave links. I can provide many more which quantify the issue in detail.

    So, mate, defend your statements. If you feel you don’t have sufficient background, why not invite the UNSW authors of the paper to come by the Cat and debate it? Their work email addresses should be available.

  69. brc

    And you go on and on about the cost of addressing global warming.

    The ACT is committed to sourcing 90% of their electricity from renewables by 2020. This costs AT MOST an extra $4 per week, per household, tailing off after the first year. That’s less than the variance in petrol prices for most people

    What, utter, utter tripe. First tax conventional energy to the hilt. Give the proceeds to the renewables as subsidies. Force people to buy their spotty production whenever it is available. Then crow that, after all that market intervention, it only costs them $200 a year more. When, if reality was allowed to intervene, the difference would be more like several thousand per year.

    Its the same argument as saying ‘a Holden is only $1500 more, so you should buy one’. That is, after putting import duties,adrs,import restrictions and handing over 30 billion of taxpayer money first in direct subsidies. So after constantly injuring the consumer to pay for renewables, we should be delighted to just pay an extra 200 bucks or so?
    And for what purppose? To achieve nothing in the fight against a climate which isn’t getting warmer anyway? How can anyone defend this idiocy, let alone suggest me should descend further into the madness?

  70. johanna

    Don’t forget the army of bureaucrats at every level of government who we are paying for, to badger us into complying with “green” policies to Save the Planet. Don’t forget the mining and development projects they have scuppered, impoverishing us all. Don’t forget the millions (in Australia alone) wasted on shonky research to bolster their dodgy policies. I could go on …

    Billions have been wasted or foregone.

  71. The ACT is committed to sourcing 90% of their electricity from renewables by 2020. This costs AT MOST an extra $4 per week, per household, tailing off after the first year. That’s less than the variance in petrol prices for most people.

    Well now that just CANNOT possibly be correct can it? With the exception of hydro (which econuts won’t let us build), for every watt of so called renewable energy, there has to be a watt of fossill fueled or nuclear powered base load energy.
    Irregardless of how many wind farms and solar farms are put into service, having coal or gas or nuclear powered stations idling on stand-by means literally every dollar spent on renewables (directly and indeirectly) is an ADDITIONAL surplass cost, EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR.

    In the case of the ACT, even if they could acquire ‘renewable’ energy at the exact same cost of coal or gas powered energy, 90% renewable means the cost of that energy will be 1.9 times the cost of coal or gas alone.
    I suspect if the ACT were to achieve their goal, renewables being costlier than coal or gas, means ACT consumers will be paying well in excess of DOUBLE what consumers in other states are paying.

Comments are closed.