World leaders abandon the sinking ship in Poland while the southern ocean cools

Two great posts from Jo Nova. World leaders stay away from Poland apart from islanders from the non-sinking islands looking for money. And the Great Southern Ocean is cooling instead of warming. Could there be a problem with the models?

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

8 Responses to World leaders abandon the sinking ship in Poland while the southern ocean cools

  1. Up The Workers! says:

    “Could there be a problem with the models?”

    Maybe so, but not half as big as the problem with the carpet-bags.

  2. duncanm says:

    “Could there be a problem with the models?”

    its deep, deep heat.

  3. Dr Fred Lenin says:

    What the Hell is a model in this context? It can be anything you want it to be ,the criminal carpetbaggers like turnbullwith their training to lie in the lawtrade ,make the Nafia look like a benevolent society. Remove all subsidies and strangling regulation from the power industry and coal and watch the scam vanish into thin air,then you pas retrospective laws to punish the crims who benefitted from the scam,confiscation of family assets and very long terms in hard labour prisons seem appropriate

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Hark, don’t be an idiot.

    The Arctic is heavily affected by the AMO, which as you know has a ~60 year cycle. Don’t take our word for it, ask a certain Dr. Michael E. Mann (PDF link).

    The Antarctic is much more affected by the PDO because there’s a greater geological connection to it, even as the Arctic is affected by the AMO because it is connected to the north Atlantic, and is constricted by the Bering Strait from the Pacific.

    The Southern Ocean is cooling because the Pacific has been cooling. This is called ‘thermodynamic equilibration’. The Pacific will continue to cool until the PDO hits its own ~60 year trough and starts to bounce back upwards again.

    The PDO and AMO aren’t quite in synch because they’re at either end of the great conveyer belt – which is the thermohaline cycle referred to by Mann’s paper. Salinity flows take a while on the conveyer belt.

    The IPCC ignores the cycle because if they took notice of it it would drop ECS by nearly half. Which is why their models are so crappy at forward projection of temperature and almost everything else.

  5. Faye says:

    Wake up Hark the Idiot Angel! The CO2 Scam isn’t about the climate silly, it’s about the transfer of wealth. JoNova was one of the first to spell this out. Try to keep up or you will end up in hell.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Hark! Bruce – the AMO is not ignored by the IPCC and climate scientists.

    They’re doing epicycles upon epicycles.
    Because neither the epicycists then, nor the IPCC scientists now, want to accept what the data is saying.

  7. Garry Eyles says:

    Senior Politicians are having an each way bet – send a minister to demonstrate to the inner cities luvvies that they are committed to the cause but stay away themselves in case it all goes pear shaped. Sooner or later the proles ( silent majority who funds this crap) will wake up to the scam and look around for someone to blame.

  8. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Anyhow, you certainly wildly exaggerate on the matter, and still seem to think you have proved that climate change cannot be dangerous, all because of the way you squint at the graphs on your laptop.

    Nope I don’t think that. I think anthropogenic global warming by greenhouse gases cannot be dangerous, as the value for ECS that I get from primary data analysis is around 0.7 C/doubling. If you can do logarithms you’ll understand why CO2 can’t be harmful at that level.

    Climate change can be very dangerous indeed, but mostly due to natural variations which we have seen in history and the paleodata.

    As for squinting at graphs, what are they for but to examine and understand? To look at and understand a graph like GISTEMP you have to understand what went into it and whether it is justifiable. In GISTEMP’s case certainly not, given the statistically very odd adjustments and the use of model derived fill-in data. It’s a circular argument to use a model to produce up to half your datapoints then turn around and say to the world our data fits the IPCC ensemble models.

    I’m still curious to know what you think is the reason why snow extent is not changing when the temperature is supposed to be rising.

Comments are closed.