Climate change once again in the news

You don’t often find anything about Australia the headline item on Drudge, but so it is today:

Oz city hits coldest temperature in 103 years

And below the fold there was this as well:

JULY FREAK: CHICAGO BRACES FOR RECORD LOW TEMPS…

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded…

If the planet is cooling and not heating, and who’s to say it’s not, the consequences will be truly catastrophic.

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

613 Responses to Climate change once again in the news

  1. Combine_Dave

    Is this the same theory as Jo Nova and her husband came up with? I expect to see that submitted to a reputable journal, or at the very least large bets taken out – someone has to put their money where their mouth is on this.

    The problem with Carbon taxes/ETS is they are big bets with someone else’s money ;)

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Guys, I’m sure you are having fun playing verbal paintball, but ultimately its pretty futile doing the testosterone thing in public. Science should be a little more gentlemanly.

    If you qualify though I’m sure Jaquie Lambie would like to hear from you.

  3. Aristogeiton

    Demos, are you a libertarian? Are you a CAGW sceptic? This is not a prelude to an attack, just trying to understand were you are coming from.

  4. Gab

    As long as you’ve got a package between the legs and a wallet full of cash, Lambie thinks you’re a bit of alright. You don’t even need to speak. Any interested parties can contact Jacqui here.

  5. Driftforge

    Although now that you mention it, apparently some aspects of ideology are indeed heritable.

    Just about all behavioural traitseverything are heritable.

  6. Stephan

    Bruce, with respect, your line of fit is great but the prediction is entirely based on a guess (hope) that a hypothetical solar cycle turns out to be real.

  7. Driftforge

    Hmm. Try again.

    Just about all behavioural traits are heritable.

  8. Ms Dolittle

    Bruce, I am surprised that many of doc’s hard science colleagues have such limited knowledge. Maybe their jobs are so demanding they just take on board what is posited by MSM. I remember this one Canadian guy, sitting around my dinner table lamenting AGW. Whatever….you’d think he’d be happy if Toronto was a little less snowbound a little less often, no pleasing some people.

  9. Aristogeiton

    Stephan
    #1391232, posted on July 22, 2014 at 1:02 pm
    Bruce[Stephanie], with [no] respect, your line of f[sh]it is great but the prediction is entirely based on a guess (hope) that a hypothetical solar cycle [climate model] turns out to be real.

  10. Stephan

    Just about all behavioural traits are heritable.

    Good point.

  11. Ms Dolittle

    - just trying to understand were you are coming from.

    Good question Ari, in the past I’ve even gone back over Demo’s posts, but I still can’t work him/her out. C’mon Demo, help us out here.

  12. Bruce of Newcastle

    I have also demonstrated to you that the reason why the satellite temperature record is flat for almost 18 years is because we are drawing a straight line across a rising sinusoidal curve.

    Yes, just like I said – statistical artifact.

    Demosthenes – No, you have missed the point. By drawing a linear regression line over the last 18 years we are demonstrating to you that it is a cycle. And that Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 were drawing a linear regression line up the side of the cycle mendaciously to push their politics.

    Also you will no doubt be aware that the WTF site can’t do a non linear regression line. Its not easy. Excel can’t, despite the might of Microsoft. I used to use Statistica myself.

    The point is the IPCC ensemble modellers do not include the cycle. Nor do they include the overall effect of the sun as shown in BJ1996 that I linked for Stephan just now. There is much literature on that, if you take your blinkers off. Between the two omitted significant variables they explain about 5/6ths of the warming last century, and if included in the models they would drop the derived ECS to 1/6th of the IPCC number. The modellers are not stupid, since they know they will be out of a job if ECS is found to be low. People have mortgages and children, and scientists are very good at spinning data by ignoring the bits they don’t like. The public aren’t equipped to pull them up on this practice, which is why it works. They may even believe what they say is the truth, but as I demonstrate here, it ain’t.

    It leads right back to the debate about scientific consensus, which denialists lose anyway you slice it,

    That would be like the consensus that stress causes ulcers. And the consensus that continents don’t move. And the consensus that the Sun orbits the Earth.

    “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

    – Einstein, in answer to ’100 Authors Against Einstein’ opposing the theory of relativity.

  13. .

    Dunno, the lead author’s an engineer and computer scientist, seems to know his stuff.

    Of course. We can end all coal, petroleum, gas etc tomorrow because some chimp ran some punch cards through his macbook pro.

  14. Aristogeiton

    Ms Dolittle
    #1391248, posted on July 22, 2014 at 1:10 pm
    [...]
    Good question Ari, in the past I’ve even gone back over Demo’s posts, but I still can’t work him/her out. C’mon Demo, help us out here.

    He’s a pretty consistent libertarian in my experience. I doubt he could do anything to disappoint me :)

  15. Bruce of Newcastle

    Oops, I meant the WFT site. Wash my brain out with soap.

    I do it all the time, really annoying faux pas.

  16. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1391255, posted on July 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    [...]
    Of course. We can end all coal, petroleum, gas etc tomorrow because some chimp ran some punch cards through his macbook pro.

    Computer science describes the branch of mathematics which has to do with algorithms/set theory &c. I wouldn’t consider it any basis upon which to make general scientific or policy decisions.

  17. Stephan

    Ahh, Arispittle. Don’t know what I’m going to do with you.

    Anyway, I is out dis pussyole ‘blog’ innit, I iz got some bangin’ 10′s to blaze yeah? And dem shits ain’t gonna self-combust, no what I’m sayin’ blud? Youse all are wastemen, and I will see you the FUCK around, innit. Braaap. Peace

  18. Bruce of Newcastle

    Bruce, with respect, your line of fit is great but the prediction is entirely based on a guess (hope) that a hypothetical solar cycle turns out to be real.

    Stephan, as I said, wait ten years. If the temperature has fallen a degree then it’ll be obvious to everyone that a carbon tax or ETS is immoral.

    And meanwhile it’d help if you got rid of the ethanol mandates so poor Africans can afford to eat. Also dynamite all those ghastly bird munchers while your at it.

  19. Bruce of Newcastle

    And Stephan, just so you know what I’m on about, my model has already successfully predicted the last four years since the 2009 solar cycle minimum.

    end 2009
    end 2013
    That is 0.6 C of cooling in only four years in the HadCET dataset. Look at the actual data in the pink curves vs the model prediction in the blue curves.

  20. Aristogeiton

    Stephan
    #1391266, posted on July 22, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    You just keep covering yourself in glory.

  21. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Anyway, I is out dis pussyole ‘blog’ innit, I iz got some bangin’ 10′s to blaze yeah? And dem shits ain’t gonna self-combust, no what I’m sayin’ blud? Youse all are wastemen, and I will see you the FUCK around, innit. Braaap. Peace

    Hardly the language of the great masters of the English tongue.

    The one source of consolation as I head towards a peevish, cranky and irritable old age is that I can probably RETIRE on more than Stephan MAY ever earn in a year.

  22. Demosthenes

    Demos, are you a libertarian? Are you a CAGW sceptic?

    I’m a basically a liberal democrat with a high degree of confidence in the scientific mainstream. I think catastrophic consequences of the current warming trend are unlikely, nuclear power is safe, GMOs aren’t harmful (except in terms of encouraging monocultures, but that applies to ‘natural’ crops anyway), the carrying capacity of the planet hasn’t been exceeded and overpopulation isn’t a thing, more energy use is good, the way to a better environment is people getting richer rather than preventing economic development, etc etc.

    I still can’t work him/her out.

    If you’re looking for a pre-set category in which to put me, you’re not going to have much luck. The lazy take one view of mine, match it with some enemy of theirs or another, and henceforth damn me by association. How they deal with the cognitive dissonance when I agree with them on some other subject, I don’t know.

  23. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1391300, posted on July 22, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    I told you I wouldn’t be disappointed!

  24. James in Melbourne

    And Stephan, just so you know what I’m on about,

    Bruce, give up – you would have as much chance of teaching a bear to play the piano.

  25. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1391300, posted on July 22, 2014 at 1:44 pm
    [...]
    The lazy take one view of mine, match it with some enemy of theirs or another, and henceforth damn me by association

    Tribalism is rampant here.

  26. Demosthenes

    The modellers are not stupid, since they know they will be out of a job if ECS is found to be low.

    What possible reason could you have, apart from defensive projection, for thinking this unscientific rubbish is true? I’m disappointed that my prediction of tinfoil-hat thinking applies to you.

  27. Bruce of Newcastle

    Heh. I was looking at Google news just now, and they are running this:

    The Sun took a day off last week and made NO sunspots

    From the mouths of green babes. Google News usually makes SMH look like knuckle-dragging conservatives.

    For those poor climateers who can’t lean backwards, have no shades to wear and don’t keep up with the solar cycle we are supposed to be right at the second peak of the double-peak of this cycle. Its all downhill from here to 2022.

  28. Bruce of Newcastle

    What possible reason could you have, apart from defensive projection, for thinking this unscientific rubbish is true?

    Perhaps because I have done computer modelling of similar ilk for most of twenty years, that I have a published paper on it, and my work has been used for multibillion dollar projects?

    Does that count?

    GIGO. If you omit statistically significant variables your model output is only worthwhile for growing mushrooms in.

  29. Bruce of Newcastle

    Back in 1989 I used to have to reserve the only AT in our office for iterative modelling runs since it’d take 12 hours plus for the model on 1-2-3 to converge. Then the first modelling package came out commercially to Oz in about 1990 and I was in love. I cannot count how many hours were saved by that package.

    The paper I have isn’t iterative modelling, though, its in statistical linear and non-linear multiple regression modelling, which was then used in a JORC-approved kriging model. I also do thermodynamic modelling using HSC, which is a wonderful package.

    I would not criticise my modelling colleagues in the IPCC ensemble unless (a) their results were crap and (b) I knew what I wuz talking about.

  30. Demosthenes

    Perhaps because I have done computer modelling of similar ilk for most of twenty years, that I have a published paper on it, and my work has been used for multibillion dollar projects?

    Did you not read what I quoted? You made a frankly astonishing claim, and I’m wondering how you could possibly believe it was true, given your supposedly data-driven approach.

    In other news:

    The globe is on a hot streak, setting a heat record in June. That’s after the world broke a record in May.
    ……………………..
    And that’s only part of it. The world’s oceans not only broke a monthly heat record at 62.7 degrees, but it was the hottest the oceans have been on record no matter what the month, Arndt said.
    …………………….
    All 12 of the world’s monthly heat records have been set after 1997, more than half in the last decade. All the global cold monthly records were set before 1917.

  31. Leo G

    “Although now that you mention it, apparently some aspects of ideology are indeed heritable.” – Stephan

    “Dream and shoot higher than you know you can do. Do not bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.” ― William Faulkner

  32. egg_

    Computer science describes the branch of mathematics which has to do with algorithms/set theory &c. I wouldn’t consider it any basis upon which to make general scientific or policy decisions.

    Precisely – GIGO – garbage in, garbage out.

  33. Bruce of Newcastle

    Demosthenes – That is laughable stuff from Arndt.

    And as for the other thing, well you haven’t been following the climate ins and outs the way I have the last 5 years. Like Mike Mann’s recent AMO paper vs Mike Mann’s 2005 AMO paper.

    They know. Like the UK Met Office. Who put the AMO and PDO in their model quietly and found that hey, it wipes out a third or so of the supposed CO2 effect. Suddenly their model was showing a plateau out to 2017. And released the press release Christmas Eve just when it wasn’t going to be picked up by the press.

    You will notice how they have been excitedly trumpeting ever since that catastrophic global warming isn’t going to happen. Not.

    Or like NASA, who noted the large indirect effect the Sun has, and even had a classic Svensmark-style graphic to explain how. But Obama keeps on going on about CO2.

    Any time they put 2+2 together the scam ends.

    They. Know.

  34. BilB

    BoN, I really don’t think that your AMO theory holds up. Most definitely what happens in the Atlantic affects the Arctic, but I suspect not in the way you are thinking. For AMO to drive Arctic ice loss in sync, you would havd to be able to demonstrate a sympathetic pattern over time. That is not what I am seeing here

    http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/…/Ice2013/…/Walsh_Wed.pdf

    Nor further back. I’d call theory unlikely.

  35. Leo G

    “The globe is on a hot streak, setting a heat record in June. That’s after the world broke a record in May.
    And that’s only part of it. The world’s oceans not only broke a monthly heat record at 62.7 degrees, but it was the hottest the oceans have been on record no matter what the month, Arndt said.
    All 12 of the world’s monthly heat records have been set after 1997, more than half in the last decade. All the global cold monthly records were set before 1917.” – Demosthenes quoting NOAA climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt”

    The record events result from high sea surface temperature measurements, which have to be tempered by some understanding of the ENSO cycles, measurement bias errors associated with variable sea ice extent, and the modulated gradual long term sea temperature increase through the interglacial.
    This year between May and June the global sea ice extent was about 1 million sq kilometre above the 1979-2008 average. This means that the heat loss from the oceans to the atmosphere occurs across an ocean area that is reduced by about 0.3% from the average and that consequently there is a virtual sea surface temperature increase associated with that increased average heat transfer per unit area of ocean.
    Moreover the change in ice extent masks for SST measurement of the Arctic and the Antarctic increases the area (from the average) of Arctic areas that are presently warmer than the average, and reduces the areas of the Antarctic that are presently cooler that the average.

  36. Bruce of Newcastle

    For AMO to drive Arctic ice loss in sync, you would havd to be able to demonstrate a sympathetic pattern over time.

    BilB – we only have sea ice data since about 1973. In fact you usually don’t see the sea ice area from 1973-1979 since the standard datasets start in 1979.

    Which is interesting. I wonder why they chose 1979 when we have data from 1973?

    There is a graph from 1973, its in the IPCC AR2 report from way back when. There’s a copy of the graph here. If you look at it you’ll see that Arctic sea ice area peaked in 1979, just the year all our usual graphs start from. Curious.

    Now look at the shape of the graph from 1973 to 1979. The sea ice area is rising. Now go look at my graph again and mentally factor in that sea ice was rising from 1973 to 1979 – and that the sea ice area axis is inverted.

    So yes, the Arctic sea ice area has been following the AMO since 1973. And it went through a peak exactly when the AMO went through its last trough.

    Which is not at all surprising when you know that the AMO is detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. In other words, when the sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic is hot, like now, there is less sea ice.

    Cold = more ice. Warm sea water = less ice.

    Logical. Once you look at the details. And according to Knight et al 2005 in GRL the AMO has been cyclical in the historical data for at least 1000 years. Mikey Mann is a co-author of the paper so it must be true too.

    BTW the PDF you linked to is no longer there. I found it by Googling the filename but at 20 megabytes I really can’t be bothered. The international internets are creaking tonight for some reason and its giving my modem fits. But I do think I can take whatever argument they are making apart since they are NOAA apparently, who are clueless, and I am using and interpreting the official data.

  37. BilB

    BoN, This is the report of a study that pulls together data from a broad number of scientific resources to build a longer term ice extent and volume picture. It is well worth the 20meg of download time. It is still on line I just downloaded the pdf again to verify my understanding of it. Whereas there is a clear cycling visible in the data, it shows ice declining steadily from the 1800′s with a cyclic variation witin that decline continuing down to 2012′s record minimum.

  38. BilB

    Here is another part of the total picture that will require explanation

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg

  39. Senile Old Guy

    BilB still posting from the totally biased and unreliable Skeptical Science. Unbelievable. Ocean heat.

    The deep layers contain twice as much heat as the upper 100 meters, and overall exhibit a clear cooling trend for the past 2 decades… The detected cooling of the deepest oceans is quite remarkable given geothermal warming from the ocean floor….

    Given those uncertainties, they concluded that much less heat is being added to the oceans compared to claims in previous studies.

  40. Bruce of Newcastle

    BilB – There you go linking to Dana again.

    Why not go to the source, like NOAA.

    Upper Ocean Heat Content Anomaly

    Hey look at that! Even NOAA, who are in the van of the climateer army say that ocean heat content has plateaued. The plateau is only since 2009 but even you, BilB, should know that ocean heat content lags TLT atmospheric temperatures.

    And as to sea ice declining since the 1800′s sure, I have no problem with that because temperature has been rising since the 1800′s. Also the Sun hit its highest peak in activity for 9,400 years in 2004.

    It is not the data in question, it is the interpretation. Every single clean dataset (and I don’t regard anything coming out of SkS as clean, most especially not from Dana) shows that the Sun does most of the temperature changes, the oceans some, and CO2 a small harmless amount.

  41. BilB

    BoN, both of those sources correlate acceptably. One is registering system energy content and the other is showing temperature. Both related but not the same. More important is the energy content ratio between ocean energy and atmospheric energy. Both data analyses show a levelling in the same time frame. Important to note that while reducing gradient for a time there is no indication of a decline in energy uptake. It is also important to take into consideration the energy that is transferred into melt ice from the poles.The denialosphere places huge focus on the air temperature alone leading to extensive misunderstanding of the biosphere energy dynamics.

    I’m sorry, BoN, but only the most wishfull of thinking could see evidence of the oceans not warming in that evidence.

    Here is another variable

    http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com/tag/oceans/

    that affects the way energy transports between the suface and the deeper ocean more rapidly.

    A simple air temperature study is relatively meaningless in terms of climate change. Climate change is about how the air circulates on the macro scale to cool the earth driven by the energy at the surface. That energy is present in a variety of forms. Apart from static air emperature there is moisture content, land temperature, ocean temperature, kinetic energy of water movement, kinetic energy of air movement and chemical energy in various forms.

    A study on a single element of the total system is a pixel in the image, not the whole picture itself.

  42. .

    I’m sorry, BoN, but only the most wishfull of thinking could see evidence of the oceans not warming in that evidence.

    Nonsense.

    You’re innumerate.

  43. BilB

    I don’t whether you looked at any of those papers senile old guy, but looking at Wunsch’s 2014 paper on page 55 he shows conclusions that by my reading show a steady increase in the total ocean energy content. I don’t know how you drew the conclusions that you state, what I read from the studies is the complete opposite.

  44. BilB

    Bluff and bluster “.” Do not a scientific theory make or break.

    Have you ever presented a supported agument, ever???

  45. Bruce of Newcastle

    huge focus on the air temperature alone

    BilB – What don’t you understand?

    I linked you to ocean heat content, not temperature. I linked to official NOAA data.

    The top 0-700m heat content has plateaued because the sea surface and atmosphere above it are no longer warming. As expected from the laws of thermodynamics.

    The link you give to the whirlpools is an interesting recent finding. It also supports exactly my case, which is that ocean heat content lag is only about 10 years. The plateau in temperature commenced after the 1998 el Nino, and the plateau in ocean heat content commenced in 2009. So the climateers’ view of global warming being ‘locked in for centuries’ is clearly erroneous – those whirlpools are producing much better mixing than they expected or modelled.

    Now that you accept that lag is only a decade you can see why my estimate of ECS from the HadCET data might come out at 0.7 C/doubling, which is very close to Lindzen’s CERES estimate of TCR.

    And of course an ECS of 0.7 C/doubling is ‘way to low to be harmful…although, yes, it is anthropogenic global warming by CO2. Just not much of it.

    If you want the acronyms defined look them up, ask me or ask Dana. I’m sure he will explain them to you.

  46. egg_

    It also supports exactly my case, which is that ocean heat content lag is only about 10 years.

    Largely a factor of the specific heat of water, one would imagine?
    H2O being the main (energy) circulatory system, even in the atmosphere, c/- Hansen?

  47. Bruce of Newcastle

    Largely a factor of the specific heat of water, one would imagine?

    Yes, and the amount. There’s a lot of water in the top 700m of ocean.

    The other thing which is important is the heat flux reaching the water and being absorbed. The climateers like to say that due to CO2 the amount of heat flux to the oceans is 5 or 6 times that commensurate with the observed upper ocean heat content and SST temperature changes. That led to the phrases ‘the missing heat’ and ‘the heat is hidden in the oceans’ ready to come out and fry us all.

    But in reality the extra heat was never there (except of course what you can see in the NOAA graph data) because rather than being captured by CO2 and reradiated into the sea, it was lost to space instead. And the recent cooling is because cloud cover has increased and more incident solar energy is being diffracted back to space without ever seeing a molecule of CO2.

    It all fits together very well. Which is why the climateers keep on having to invent new excuses (like aerosols and whatnot – and yes I can demolish those arguments from the primary data too).

    Eventually though the cooling trend will become so bleeding obvious to everyone they will be discredited. But the economic harm caused while we are waiting, and the deaths from people starved by high food prices due to Green policies, will be terrible.

  48. Demosthenes

    the sea surface and atmosphere above it are no longer warming.

    Really? Looks like warming to me. Or did you pick 2001 carefully, so as not to crush the fruit? ;-)

  49. BilB

    No longer warming, wrong, BoN. That is not what that information says at all. Warming declined, yes, and that is evident on both sources, but no longer heating, false. Looking at solar cycles we are at the end of one and heading into an8th3r and that might partially line up with the decline but I suspect that it is more to do with polar ice melt dilution, perhaps coincident with the 11 year solar cycle transition.

    The wood for trees extraction is a false conclusion based on its duration, and you can see it at the fringes of the graph where there is the upper node of one heating cycle at the beginning and the up slope to another at the end. That is extremely selective data analysis, and based on that I am suspicious as to the scope of the data upon which the graph reports.

    You are attempting to mount the argument that the ONLY force causing Global Warming is solar variance by showing some correlation over an extremely short period then drawing conclusions over the longer term. Whereas that is an important starting point, you eventually have to reconcile your conclusions with the long term. I believe that I have shown that you cannot achieve that from a number of different perspectives.

    So the only thing to do here is continue with your study and as you suggested up thread, check back on the progress in a decade.

    From my perspective your argument is too weak, when tested against the greater body of evidence, to justify the halting of climate action, considering the consequences of being wrong. So in the interests of public safety, climate action should continue with urgency.

  50. BilB

    The other argument

    “But the economic harm caused while we are waiting, and the deaths from people starved by high food prices due to Green policies, will be terrible.”

    I take extreme issue with this statement which is demonstrably false on so many levels. But that will have to wait until I have finished a chunk of design work building up here.

  51. .

    BilB
    #1392218, posted on July 23, 2014 at 9:56 am
    Bluff and bluster “.” Do not a scientific theory make or break.

    When you deny simple arithmetic BilB, it makes a hell of a difference.

    Not that you’d noticed, because you are a brainwashed fruit loop.

  52. Bruce of Newcastle

    Demosthenes – I will spell it out to you. The solar cycle commenced in late 2009. The latter part of the previous solar cycle had a tail. Solar cycles always do that. So what you are seeing with 2006-2014 is most of the temperature rise which happens in every solar cycle. We are at the peak of the current one. The next few years the 0.1 C roughly that that represents will come out of the temperatures just as the AMO cooling really kicks in.

    As I said before the flatness since 1997 is drawing a line across the hump of a 60 year period sine curve. You are drawing a line up the side of an 11 year perioidic curve to its peak. Gah. Why are you being such an imbecile about this? Its not complicated. As soon as you realise the Sun does most of it all these things are the logical result of that forcing.

  53. Bruce of Newcastle

    You are attempting to mount the argument that the ONLY force causing Global Warming is solar variance

    BilB – Are you not reading what I wrote? I never said that. I never ever say that.

    What I say is this, based on the empirical data. The 20thC warming of 0.74 C in the IPCC period 1906-2005 is comprised:

    the Sun: 0.33 C
    the ocean cycles: 0.28 C
    everything else including CO2: 0.13 C

    If you accept the everything else is CO2 then that is a 2XCO2 well under 1 C/doubling. I maintain from my HadCET analysis that it is about 0.7 C/doubling.

    Heating is occurring. Global warming due to human emitted CO2 is occurring. But so small it is immaterial.

    The temperatures now, though, are starting to fall because both the Sun and the ocean cycles have commenced a retraction of their previous effect on temperature. Because between them they caused about 5/6ths of warming last century, but have reversed course now, they overwhelm the rising CO2 effect in the last decade.

    This is not new stuff, as I said above the UK Met Office acknowledged the ocean component when they reran their models. Then announced their findings on Christmas Eve very quietly so no one would notice.

  54. Bruce of Newcastle

    I take extreme issue with this statement which is demonstrably false on so many levels. But that will have to wait until I have finished a chunk of design work building up here.

    Good, I’ll look forward to the case you can make because I can fully back up what I just wrote.

    Environmentalists are misanthropes of the first order. And economic vandals that put to shame the original Vandals. And epic hypocrites.

    And before you invoke Stern, keep in mind that I have done dozens of large scale financial analyses of big projects for my work and I can do NPV’s in my sleep.

  55. Demosthenes

    Bruce, you have not explained why 2001 was your starting date. Please do so.

  56. Bruce of Newcastle

    Demosthenes – 2001 is the peak of the last solar cycle. Now is the peak of the current solar cycle. Drawing from one to the other removes the artefact of the solar cycle variation which is about 0.1 C across a full cycle.

    You drew from 2006 to 2014 which if you look at the solar cycle history is from near the bottom of one cycle (because the tail effect) to the top of the current one.

    There is a different between the two peaks because solar cycle 23 was the most active for millennia (I can give you several paper links, including the one upthread). This solar cycle is a lot weaker. The next one is expected to be weaker still.

  57. Bruce of Newcastle

    Also 2001 was the start of the millennium. In the satellite record (RSS) we’ve been cooling for the whole of the millennium so far.

    See I can write climateer-like press releases too. :)

    Of course UAH is warming over that period and RSS is cooling. UAH we know runs hot for certain technical reasons and RSS runs cold for certain other technical reasons. I won’t trouble you with the details, you can look it up if you want. The average of the two is probably flat as a billiard table.

  58. BilB

    You can start off , BoN, by specifying which particular people are starving because of which food they cannot afford.

  59. Leo G

    You can start off , BoN, by specifying which particular people are starving because of which food they cannot afford.

    Famine in the Horn of Africa caused by biofuels?

  60. Bruce of Newcastle

    BilB – OK. I’ll bat first then.

    Starving The Poor To Feed Green Illusions

    The Planet Wrecking Greens

    Both Obama’s ethanol mandates and the EU biodiesel policies are starving people. The US has nearly half of its maize crop burnt in car petrol tanks each year and the EU is subsidising biodiesel production using edible oils which raise their prices too. And they are both stimulating clearing of environmentally sensitive land in the tropics, like Indonesia and PNG, for the growing of oil palm for biodiesel.

    And I haven’t talked about the extermination of wild life by such policies and ‘environmentally sustainable’ (/sarc) wind turbines and solar thermal plants. Look up-thread for those.

    The Greens are so caring of the environment and people it makes ISIS look civilized. Millions have died from diseases caused by malnutrition because the Greens are forcing up food prices.

    And an economic one:

    “100 Billion Euros For Nothing! Germany’s CO2 Emissions Haven’t Dropped In 10 Years!”

    Trillions have been wasted on this stuff. And the scams…my scams folder has dozens of examples of rorts and actual theft because of Green policies. Like the REDD scheme where poor people were evicted from their homes in Uganda and some killed when they resisted. Just to earn carbon credits. Monstrous.

    I can only do 3 links a comment before moderation, or you’d be getting plenty more. I mean plenty more examples.

  61. Bruce of Newcastle

    Your turn sir.

  62. .

    BilB is getting beaten harder than a gimp at the Mardi Gras.

  63. Mother Hubbard's Dog

    BilB
    #1392280, posted on July 23, 2014 at 11:49 am

    From my perspective your argument is too weak, when tested against the greater body of evidence, to justify the halting of climate action, considering the consequences of being wrong. So in the interests of public safety, climate action should continue with urgency.

    The problem with the urgency argument is that all emissions are equal in their effect on the temperature say, fifty or a hundred years from now. That is, a tonne of CO2 emitted now has the same effect on atmospheric CO2 levels fifty years hence as a tonne of CO2 emitted twenty years hence. There is no reason not to delay action until (a) it is obvious to all that it is needed and (b) the technologies required are mature (and degrees of magnitude cheaper than now). The other great advantage of waiting is that any action required will then also be so obviously needed that it will be truly global. So far there is no evidence that any country, let alone a lot of them, is taking emission reductions all that seriously. Those that have taken it half seriously have seriously damaged their economies as a result of their foolishness.

  64. Demosthenes

    Drawing from one to the other removes the artefact of the solar cycle variation

    So why did you stop at one cycle? Is it because going to two shows warming, despite the cycles weakening?

  65. Bruce of Newcastle

    So why did you stop at one cycle?

    Demos – Because the top of the ~60 year cycle was reached just after the 1998 el Nino.

    We have the ~11 year solar cycle, which gives a swing around 0.1 C over the period. We have a ~60 year ocean cycle linked to the thermohaline cycle which causes about a 0.3 C swing.

    You saw the ~60 year cycle in this graph. You can see it also in the PDO, the AMO, rainfall figures, ENSO, and as I maintained above, Arctic sea ice extent, although we only have a bit over half a cycle of data for that.

    Multivariate analysis requires you to know all the statistically significant variables.

    Top of the last solar cycle was in 2001. Top of the previous solar cycle was in 1990, and that was well down the up-slope of 60 year cycle.

    We are doing apples with apples comparisons. The end dates I choose are not random.

  66. Leo G

    The problem with the urgency argument is that all emissions are equal in their effect on the temperature say, fifty or a hundred years from now. That is, a tonne of CO2 emitted now has the same effect on atmospheric CO2 levels fifty years hence as a tonne of CO2 emitted twenty years hence.

    Remember that natural sequestration increases as atmospheric concentration increases, other influences being equal. Accordingly, a tonne of CO2 emitted now has the same effect as a lesser quantity at any time in the future.
    The virtual half-life of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric CO2 is about 24 years, which in itself should discount the future value of present emission reductions by 1.25% pa.

  67. Leo G

    Correction:
    The virtual half-life of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric CO2 is about 24 years, which in itself should discount the future value of present emission reductions by 1.25% pa 2.8% pa

  68. BilB

    Corn ethanol, is that it?

    I have commented extensively on this subject. For starters corn ethanol is not depriving the starving as they cannot afford US corn no matter what the base price is in the US context. Secondly US ethanol is produced in the least efficient manner using regular tilled production techniques, and then using gas rather than biomass in the brewing and distilling process. Global food production is more than sufficient to feed everyone, the problem is sharing, distribution and corruption.

    The issues in Africa and other parts of the world where people are driven off their land by corrupt officials and others are a matter of criminality not the nature of the crop. It would not matter what the crop was the same illegal actions would occur if their was money in it. This is core of Russia’s action the Ukranian at present.

    Your argument is ignorant of the facts, totally false, and offensive for its intent to denegrate others. I suggest that you do some research from Robert Rapier’s writings to upgrade your knowledge. I don’t agree with everything that he says, but he is the most knowledgable commentator on these subjects.

  69. Bruce of Newcastle

    Oh good grief. If you did not read those links then I am wasting my time discussing it with you. Turn off the US corn ethanol and EU biodiesel programs and just watch the price of food fall.

    “Environmentalists” are mass murderers and propagandists that Vladimir Putin could learn from.

    Un fucking believable.

  70. BilB

    BoN that 60 year cycle thing is a total fudge, and to attempt to say that it is the underlying “cause” or even the primary driver of global warming is, in my opinion, complete nonsense. I can see that you have a lot invested in this idea, to the point that you have lost your objectivity.

    You have one new problem in that David Evans has a new theory that threatens to overwrite yours with his 11 climate rut theory which involves a mysterious cosmic delay.

    Which one to believe? I’ve chosen neither. I’m giving this the 10 year wait and see test with precautionay action, which it turns out is both more satisfying and profitable.

  71. Mother Hubbard's Dog

    LeoG

    Remember that natural sequestration increases as atmospheric concentration increases, other influences being equal. Accordingly, a tonne of CO2 emitted now has the same effect as a lesser quantity at any time in the future.

    You need to make clearer how you think your conclusion follows from your premise.

  72. Bruce of Newcastle

    No wonder the public aren’t listening to you people. You’re death cultists. You want to kill the village to save it.

    What a pile of crap. If you cannot argue a technical argument and instead regurgitate superior nose-in-the-air rhetoric like that last comment then you are going the way of the dinosaurs. The public will forget you the same way they woke up from the ideologies of last century.

    I am astounded by the arrogance and the misanthropy. BilB that effort is pure fascist brown-shirt stuff. People in Africa and Asia are dying through malnutrition because they cannot afford enough food. People in Haiti eat mud to give themselves an illusion of fullness because of the high prices of food. Vendors even sell mud cakes flavoured with a little canola oil to the poor in that country!

    What breathtaking ignorance and arrogance! I am ashamed that I share the same species as you.

  73. Bruce of Newcastle

    BoN that 60 year cycle thing is a total fudge

    Tell it to Michael E. Mann. Its his paper I’m working from.

    You, sir, are a poor excuse for a human being. Approving of the starvation of poor people, the massacring of wild life and the impoverishment of the citizens of our country. Move to North Korea, I’m sure Kim will find a job suitable for your talents.

    Idiot.

  74. BilB

    Here is some unfucking believeable reading for you from the US federal reserve.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2009/967/ifdp967.pdf

    The take away quote is that 90% of food price increases came from factors other than biofuel production. Biofuels affected specific crops in specific markets name corn, soy and cane, 27, 21 and 12.

  75. Leo G

    You need to make clearer how you think your conclusion follows from your premise.

    The annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is less than annual anthropogenic emissions. The average difference represents the virtual sequestration rate of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric CO2 to which I referred and is the basis of the discount rate for the future value of present emission reductions (of about 2.8% pa).

  76. .

    Pushed up corn prices by 27% – “90% of food price increases”

    It pushed up a staple price by 27% during a global financial crisis (also a feedstock for meats).

    It is a bad policy you refuse to let go of.

  77. Bruce of Newcastle

    The moral position is to minimise food prices so that poor people can afford to eat. Turning edible food into car fuel so the rich progressives can drive their hybrids around and feel superior is appalling. Same goes for “fuel efficient environmentally friendly diesels” (/sarc) which take food out of the mouths of children.

    Any other policy is immoral to the extreme.

    If you cannot see that I recommend psychiatric help.

  78. BilB

    BoN, You’ ve got the whole future thing arse about. It is the fossil fuel until we drop brigade who are to be the death of us all. Without the rapid transition to renewable energy the end will come very suddenly in the form of global recession and starvation as the oil runs out.

    Go on, now say that there is enough oil for a million years. I can say with absolute certainty that there is enough solar energy for a million years, even a hundred million years.

    OK if there is not enough oil to support our civilisation for a million years, then how many years is it. And then what happens after that?

  79. Bruce of Newcastle

    Let me say this in very small words BilB.

    CO2 has a low empirical equilibrium climate sensitivity. Around 0.7 C/doubling.

    Therefore it is immaterial how much fossil fuel we burn. Not enough to make much difference. Absolute maximum would be 2 C of anthropogenic warming (except in cities, due to UHIE).

    Even if there was any dangerous warming it would be completely and totally immoral to starve poor people so that Green Progressives can enjoy their biodiesel fuelled SUV’s. If you want biodiesel and bioethanol you must legislate that it (a) does not use food and (b) does not displace food producing agriculture.

    In the Vietnam era the left went manic about the ‘destroy the village to save it’ meme. Now in the climate change(TM) age they are doing it themselves. The deaths of millions are on your conscience BilB. I hope their ghosts haunt you at midnight with cries of hunger.

  80. BilB

    Biofuels, the ones that you are obsessed with involve three crops,mall of which have substitutes, all of which are grown in many countries, but more specifically do not feature in the diets of most people in the world. The biofuels argument is a desparate attempt to denegrate climate action by any means possible with any lie that might stick.

    BoN you’ve bought into a huge falacy, and it does you no credit at all. Do the research, you will see that the worlds issues have nothing to do with renewables technologies, but renewables are their solution.

    Take a look at Barefoot College and you will understand more about what works to solve poverty and what does not.

  81. Bruce of Newcastle

    Biofuels, the ones that you are obsessed with involve three crops,mall of which have substitutes

    Great so substitute them. Now.

    Nuclear electricity and nuclear produced methanol fuel (from electrolysed water based H2 plus CO2 plus heat) would be a good start.

    Stop starving the poor. Don’t you realise what damage this is doing to your cause? No one will buy what inhuman monsters are selling.

  82. Bruce of Newcastle

    I will say this. In all my years on this Earth I have never encountered someone so heartless, so evil, so misanthropic and so clueless as BilB. I have known people who are Trots, Leninists, Ayn Rand acolytes and Muslims. Even the Muslims are not so cold and scary.

    It is an eye-opener that a climate warrior like BilB should exist on our green planet, cheerfully willing to sacrifice billions of wild creatures and millions of poor human beings for the sake of an ideology which is not even supported by his own science.

    That really takes the cake. I’m going to go crack a bottle to wash the taste out of my mouth.

  83. BilB

    You are away with the fairies with this BoN. Clearly you have forgotten Howard paying farmers to rip out cane crops, orchards, and grape vines, all to hold UP the market price. In the Ord cane has been replaced with essential oil crops because cane was not commercial. Your food for the starving argument is total bull shit, there is no other way of describing it.

  84. Bruce of Newcastle

    Read the links I gave you BilB. One is on a NYT article the other is about an AP article. Both those organisations are lefty. Very lefty.

    If people on your own side of politics are saying that you climateers are starving the poor with horrible policies then you should be able to believe it. Not many people think NYT and Associated Press are dens of right wing knuckle-dragging neanderthals.

    You are the most blinkered, most clueless, and the most callous person I have communicated with on the climate topic. That is saying something. Nothing will penetrate your ideolohgy, not data, not peer reviewed science, not morality, not empathy. That is something. Stalin would be less atavistic than you.

    Wow, I didn’t know such people existed outside of gaols and mental hospitals.

  85. Bruce of Newcastle

    And I can add maybe a couple dozen other cases from my bookmarked files. It is not an isolated problem. It is a heart sickness which affects the environmental movement that people like Patrick Moore and James Lovelock have both commented upon.

    Fix yourself, then we may listen to you.

  86. Ms Dolittle

    going to go crack a bottle

    God knows deserve! I directed DrDo to your lovely work and just as I thought, he reckons it’s fab and really made his day. In fact, every time I go into his office, I catch him not working but pouring over your work. We love you and reckon you are so on the money.

  87. BilB

    Thanks for your support Ms Doolittle, you’re right, I am on the money. That bottle was good.

  88. Gab

    Excellent work, Bruce of Newcastle! A pleasure to read. And yes I agree it is very sad how the lemmings continue to ignore hard evidence in their quest to keep the climate scam going.

  89. chrisl

    Well done, well said, well argued Bruce of Newcastle. Destroy a world to save it! Totally sums up BilB. Total ideology. Totally heartless! Where does this attitude come from…. BilB?

  90. jumpnmcar

    Bilb, you gave it a burl and got stomped with every flit and evasive red herring.
    Good effort for nil return.
    You must encourage others to try, it’ll do them good.

  91. JC

    Bilby

    You’re not only destroyed but made to look like a callous disgusting piece of shit. The only thing left now is to stick your head in a vice and get someone to tighten it, leaving you there for a month without food… and water (only twice a week). Alternatively you could go the Graeme Bird route, which is to get a neck tie and go hang yourself in the nearest ladies toilet. My personal advice, as the founder and CEO of the JC lefties suicide hotline, is the Bird route.

  92. Bruce of Newcastle

    Go on, now say that there is enough oil for a million years.

    Several thousand. Then methanol from nuclear energy.

    Coal find could fuel UK for centuries: Vast deposits totalling up to 23trillion tonnes found under the North Sea

    That is about 4,000 times as much coal as the UK has combusted since the Iron Age.

    Coal liquefaction

    I know of at least one coal company in Australia that has successfully run a pilot plant, which is no surprise since the South Africans and Chinese have been doing it for ages already. Its quite profitable at $85/t for thermal coal and $700/t for crude oil. The only thing stopping a plant being built here is green politics.

    Coal. Is. Oil.

    Man that guy is clueless.

  93. BilB

    Not nil return, jumpy, also not stomped, I would have to be wrong to have been stomped, and I’m certainly not that. I have seen inside the rabbit hole, though, and all of the craziness.

  94. BilB

    ……such as coal to oil. It does work but it is three tonnes of coal to one tonne of oil. Just to avoid using free energy from the sun, genius.

  95. oldsalt

    The Chinese will get cane going again in the Ord’s next stage. Sandalwood will be a nice little earner, we may even dominate the market until others catch up with our technology, after that I’m not sure about its growth prospects.

  96. Bruce of Newcastle

    Just to avoid using free energy from the sun, genius.

    Learn to do an NPV. “Free” is not the same thing as economic.

    You have to add the capital cost of the panels and the storage. Then the maintenance and replacement capital. Once you do that not only do you never make the capital cost back (even without the discount rate) but it probably never even saves CO2 emissions on a life cycle basis. You do know what a LCA is? I get them done by CSIRO when I need em, which I do from time to time. All that carbon burnt for silicon and battery materials manufacturing is a lot of carbon and a lot of energy.

    Do you never do research BilB? I am quite bemused by your naïvety. And quaint clueless ideology.

  97. .

    BilB

    You really are clueless. Consumer demand in developing nations is inelastic, and their supply schedule of tradeable goods is likely to be more inelastic than that of a developed country – because of the narrow base of the economy.

    A 27% increase in food prices for a developing economy has the triple whammy of being part of their export base and a major component of incomes, facing inelastic demand and having a low income to start with (low productivity and a lack of diversification come into play again).

    You are really clueless. All you have is ideology.

  98. BilB

    But you can’t eat Sandalwood, OldSalt, and according to BoN if you are not growing food everywhere that you can you are murdering starving people. Those murdering farmers will be haunted until the end of civilisation, so says Bruce of Newcastle.

  99. JC

    Bilby

    The neck tie option. Think about it.

  100. JC

    Bruce

    They don’t get it. You talk yourself hoarse, blue in the face but it does no good as it’s a religion to them. They think there is catastrophic warming and the only way to counter it is with the use of plastic panels with magnifying glass and propellers on sticks attached to AAA batteries for storage. They think this will provide adequate energy for industrial civilization…. or pretend they do when most of them would like to see countless people dead.

    Don’t waste any times with them. Just treat them like the disgusting misanthropes they are.

  101. BilB

    The problem you have with your fiction “.” Is that most countries grow their own food, particularly third world countries. For such countries to have food at international prices they have to have access for such produce to western markets. This is very difficult to achieve for subsistence farmers, so local prices match local ability to pay in local market places. As I said, BoN’s food argument is a fiction dreamt up by fossil fuel lobbyists to falsely discredit bio fuels.

  102. JC

    ……such as coal to oil. It does work but it is three tonnes of coal to one tonne of oil. Just to avoid using free energy from the sun, genius.

    You fucking clown. You monstrous despicably stupid clown. The sun’s energy is as free as a coal deposit in the ground. It’s free in the sense that it is there and available for exploitation.

    You clown, the sun’s energy has to be converted which like coal or nuclear has to be converted to a way that we humans can use.

    There is no economies of scale with wind and solar. In fact there are dis-economies as most of the costs are indivisible like coal or nuclear.

    Choose the right neck tie.

  103. JC

    As I said, BoN’s food argument is a fiction dreamt up by fossil fuel lobbyists to falsely discredit bio fuels.

    So a sudden demand shock like we saw in the middle of last decade doesn’t impact prices? There’s no price signal in markets?

    You despicable fucked in the head clown, even Algore recognized he’d fucked up and attempted to dissuade people from using bio fuels because of the detrimental impact on food prices.

    Get the neck tie, you moron.

  104. JC

    Reuters reports that Gore said his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies was rooted more in his desire to cultivate farm votes for his presidential run in 2000 than in doing what was right for the environment:

    “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens, Greece. First-generation ethanol refers to the most basic, but also most energy intensive, process of converting corn to ethanol for use in vehicle engines.

    Gore went on to say that “first-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.” Gore now supports so-called second-generation technologies that do not compete with food — using farm waste or non-food sources such as switchgrass to make ethanol. He added that he did not expect to see a clean energy or climate bill for “at least two years” following Republican victories in the midterm elections.

    Do you understand the knock on effect that a rise in the production of corn for ethenol has a knock effect on other grains as a result of relativities through substitution and transfer of demand?

    Don’t forget to choose the neck tie. Grow with a green color.

  105. oldsalt

    Not taking sides. Plenty of land on the Ord and its coming stages straddling the border, not sure yet how it can feed the masses directly but just might free up some arable land elsewhere by replacing what they do with what we can do better. Singapore doesn’t have land, exporting mangoes to them is a top end of the market enterprise. Unsure exactly what the Chinese want and what they’ll do if the cane doesn’t work out. Damming the Fitzroy would be even better.

    The Sandalwood industry has biofuel potential because of the cropping of host species. As an alternative cash flow it can also help the local cattle stations.

    Jatropha is being planted to the north of us for biodiesel. This does have the potential to take land currently being used for corn subsistence production. There again, if you insist on preserving the corn production you may also be keeping the people who depend on it in a cycle of poverty and seasonal hunger. Small biodiesel plants could free them from the need to purchase fuel with their meagre surplus. Particularly if fuel subsidies are withdrawn, under pressure from IMF and free marketeers. So much developmental theory is predicated on the experience of continental economies and just doesn’t work the same way in archipelagic nations.

  106. most countries grow their own food, particularly third world countries. For such countries to have food at international prices they have to have access for such produce to western markets. This is very difficult to achieve for subsistence farmers, so local prices match local ability to pay in local market places.

    That’s a naive fantasy. Subsistence economies are subject to economic laws.
    They are also more susceptible to starvation, drought, flood, and other abrupt shocks to their food supply.

  107. JC

    Oldsalt

    Bio fuel need subsidies. Why the fuck would want to subsidize that worthless crap when the land could possibly be used to growing food without subsidies. Ethanol destroys car engines too. It’s greenscum feel good worthless crap.

  108. oldsalt

    Not taking sides just telling what I’ve observed. Some land is so poor and rainfall so unreliable it barely grows anything eg to our north in many places dry land ag requires 5 hec to feed 1 family. They face dilemmas we don’t and if, if, Jatropha can earn them an income to buy rice instead of growing corn so much the better, help them to diversify. A high value small volume export crop to complement or replace the subsistence cycle is everyone’s dream.

  109. BilB

    Palm oil works for subsistance farmers also, Old Salt. The fruit can be crushed for a good yield of bio oil to run pumps, and the palm fronds burn very well for cooking.

  110. JC

    Palm oil works for subsistance farmers also, Old Salt. The fruit can be crushed for a good yield of bio oil to run pumps

    I wish I could stick you in a pump soaked in palm oil and dump you the middle of the Pacific.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>