Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

There are a number of studies that have shown how the melting of Arctic ice is disrupting the jet stream and causing breakouts of Arctic air to impact on the weather in Europe and the US.

It's not a finished work but at this stage the weather extremes currently experienced in the northern hemisphere appear to be part of the climate changes brought about by global warming.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/10/arctic-sea-ice-and-jet-stream-changes.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/climate-change-the-jet-stream
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/abstract

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes

Jennifer A. Francis1,
Stephen J. Vavrus2

Article first published online: 17 MAR 2012

Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap

Climate change skeptics are pointing to the record cold weather as evidence that the globe isn't warming. But it could be that melting Arctic ice is making sudden cold snaps more likely—not less

Read more: Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather

| TIME.com http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/#ixzz2phMLZod6

 

[Knobby22]

Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap
| TIME.com http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/#ixzz2phMLZod6

Thanks Basilio.
That Time magazine article is excellent.

 

[Logique]

The Fairfax US correspondent is careful to report it as cold weather. Certainly it couldn't possibly be climate change like the hot temperatures in Australia. And in line with Basilios construct that the US low temps '..appear to be part of the climate changes brought about by global warming..'

Global warming, a bullet proof theory, both cold and hot temperatures prove it!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/cold-weather-turns-lethal-across-the-us-20140107-hv7p9.html
Cold weather turns lethal across the US
January 8, 2014

Chicago: As the “polar vortex” bringing record low temperatures crept across America on Monday, the cold became so intense that for a time it became difficult to describe.
Some weather forecasters began to simply refer to “dangerous cold” and newspapers published tips on avoiding frostbite and lung damage.
“If you can stay indoors, please do so,” said Gary Schenkel, executive director of the city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications. “Everyday activities may not be feasible.”

On Monday morning it was colder at Chicago airport, a record-breaking 26 degrees below zero - or 42 below with wind chill - than it was at the South Pole, where it was minus 23. The National Weather Service warned that “potentially life-threatening wind chills will continue through [until] Tuesday morning".

 

[basilio]

The Fairfax US correspondent is careful to report it as cold weather. Certainly it couldn't possibly be climate change like the hot temperatures in Australia. And in line with Basilios construct that the US low temps '..appear to be part of the climate changes brought about by global warming..'

Global warming, a bullet proof theory, both cold and hot temperatures prove it!

It is a weather event Logique because it is essentially a short term event. You would describe a change of temperatures over a long period of time as closer to a change in climate. ie the warmest year in Australia was 2013

And please be accurate. I was quoting a range of scientific papers that are describing the spilling of the polar vortex into the northern latitudes as a possible consequence of the melting of Arctic ice (caused by global warming).

It's their construct not mine. And it's quite possible for large scale warming in the earths climate to cause changes in local climate. Why not read the references for further information ?

 

[wayneL]

What then is the explanation of previous incidents of vortex creep?

Time also ran an article on a previous incidence blaming global cooling.

There are hypotheses regarding this, but nothing has been "shown".

 

[noco]

Chris Turney and his brigade of GLOBAL WARMING ALARMIST can't seem to decide whether the GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE is melting the ice or increasing the ice in Antartica.....He said some time back that penguins will die if the ice melts and now he is now saying the penguins will die because there is too much ice and they will have to travel 60 km to get food.

I believe nature takes care of these anomalies because it has all happened so many time before and they all still seem to survive one way or another.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...mes_warming_for_trapping_penguins_in_ice_too/

 

[overhang]

Chris Turney and his brigade of GLOBAL WARMING ALARMIST can't seem to decide whether the GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE is melting the ice or increasing the ice in Antartica.....He said some time back that penguins will die if the ice melts and now he is now saying the penguins will die because there is too much ice and they will have to travel 60 km to get food.

I believe nature takes care of these anomalies because it has all happened so many time before and they all still seem to survive one way or another.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...mes_warming_for_trapping_penguins_in_ice_too/

Typical trash journalism from Bolt, if he had actually researched he would have found they are two different breeds of penguins. The ones in the article years ago were the Emperor penguins, the current article is about the Adelie penguins.

 

[noco]

Typical trash journalism from Bolt, if he had actually researched he would have found they are two different breeds of penguins. The ones in the article years ago were the Emperor penguins, the current article is about the Adelie penguins.

Apart from the peguins, the hliarious point is that 38 so called scientist led by Chris Turney went to Antartica to prove the ice was melting due to Global Warming and they then get ice bound and have to be rescued by helicopter.......How embarrassing!!!!!!!!!I guess this is why you, overhung, has gone on the attack to try and discredit Andrew Bolt.

Bolt certainly did a good job on the so called Professor Flannery and he has done a job on Turney as well.

 

[Valued]

Apart from the peguins, the hliarious point is that 38 so called scientist led by Chris Turley went to Antartica to prove the ice was melting due to Global Warming and they then get ice bound and have to be rescued by helicopter.......How embarrassing!!!!!!!!!I guess this is why you, overhung, has gone on the attack to try and discredit Andrew Bolt.

Bolt certainly did a good job on the so called Professor Flannery and he has done a job on Turley as well.

I read that this was not what they were trying to prove at all and they went to Antarctica for a completely different recent than to prove the ice was melting.

That being said, the existence of ice is a prerequisite for the ice melting. The fact that they got stuck in ice does not mean it is not melting. Presumably, if global warming is correct, the melting would not occur fast enough to allow them to escape. Humans require food, water and heat to live. They cannot wait for ice to melt.

I would also like to state I am neutral towards global warming, since I haven't bothered to research the evidence for myself. People always ask me how I can not be on board with it but I can't since I am a busy person and haven't reviewed the evidence for myself. I may not even understand the evidence if it's scientific. Further, if it does exist, I am sure we have very smart people working on that. I can't be of much help. My understanding though is that all professional scientific bodies in the world support or are neutral towards global warming. Given this, and the fact that on my very basic knowledge, global warming means the destruction of Earth as we know it, we should probably hedge our risk here and do something about it in case it does go wrong.

Everything in life is about probabilities. If there is even a 1% chance global warming is correct then we should treat it as a 1% chance our entire portfolios could be wiped out. This is actually a huge chance and an unacceptable risk, well worth hedging. We should spend a little time and money on insuring against this outcome in case it does happen. Once we prove global warming is not happening for sure, then we can stop hedging this risk.

 

[overhang]

Apart from the peguins, the hliarious point is that 38 so called scientist led by Chris Turney went to Antartica to prove the ice was melting due to Global Warming and they then get ice bound and have to be rescued by helicopter.......How embarrassing!!!!!!!!!I guess this is why you, overhung, has gone on the attack to try and discredit Andrew Bolt.

Bolt certainly did a good job on the so called Professor Flannery and he has done a job on Turney as well.

I'm sorry to upset you nobo by insulting your idol. You see the whole relevence of Bolt's article was to attempt to insinuate that Turney had contradicted himself over the penguins when in fact this isn't the case at all and they are two separate breeds, a little research by Bolt would have prevented this. I don't need to discredit this right wing nutjob as he does enough of that himself, his court appearances speak volumes about his journalism.
Have you finished Cory Bernardi's book yet?

 

[noco]

I'm sorry to upset you nobo by insulting your idol. You see the whole relevence of Bolt's article was to attempt to insinuate that Turney had contradicted himself over the penguins when in fact this isn't the case at all and they are two separate breeds, a little research by Bolt would have prevented this. I don't need to discredit this right wing nutjob as he does enough of that himself, his court appearances speak volumes about his journalism.
Have you finished Cory Bernardi's book yet?

Firstly, please get my screen name right....it is noco not nobo.

Secondly, I guess you are are a fan of Professor Flannery and all his predictions. I would certainly like to know your opinion of that left wing nut case?

BTW.....I was around in the great depression and I am not talking about the recent GFC.....I have lived and breathed CLIMATE Change all those years......nothing has changed....I have experienced long draughts, floods, fire, extreme storms in Brisbane before WW11 with hail as big as tennis balls and have been through 3 cyclones in the north....my mothers house was reduced to match wood in Port Douglas in 1911. I witnessed time and time again the erosion of the Gold Coast where the sand dunes were washed out to sea and then replenished again by the prevaling winds to form again....there were no houses built on those sand dunes before WW11.....and the nut cases now blame GLOBAL WARMING for the houses that almost fell into the sea......it was the rock walls they built to prevent it happeneing......now look at the mess they created for interferring with nature.

My youngest son spent 6 momths at Davis in Anartica a few years ago....he salled on the Auroa Australis and they could not get the ship into Davis for two weeks in October...they had to walk 5 km to the base.

I am sure the peguins would have survived and adapted to the change in conditions.....unfortunately the dinasoars didn't survive.....I guess it must have been GLOBAL WARMING .????????

GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?????????????? It's absolute crap and I don't have to take Andrew Bolts opinion or any other nut scientist for that matter.

 

[overhang]

Firstly, please get my screen name right....it is noco not nobo.

Secondly, I guess you are are a fan of Professor Flannery and all his predictions. I would certainly like to know your opinion of that left wing nut case?

BTW.....I was around in the great depression and I am not talking about the recent GFC.....I have lived and breathed CLIMATE Change all those years......nothing has changed....I have experienced long draughts, floods, fire, extreme storms in Brisbane before WW11 with hail as big as tennis balls and have been through 3 cyclones in the north....my mothers house was reduced to match wood in Port Douglas in 1911. I witnessed time and time again the erosion of the Gold Coast where the sand dunes were washed out to sea and then replenished again by the prevaling winds to form again....there were no houses built on those sand dunes before WW11.....and the nut cases now blame GLOBAL WARMING for the houses that almost fell into the sea......it was the rock walls they built to prevent it happeneing......now look at the mess they created for interferring with nature.

My youngest son spent 6 momths at Davis in Anartica a few years ago....he salled on the Auroa Australis and they could not get the ship into Davis for two weeks in October...they had to walk 5 km to the base.

I am sure the peguins would have survived and adapted to the change in conditions.....unfortunately the dinasoars didn't survive.....I guess it must have been GLOBAL WARMING .????????

GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?????????????? It's absolute crap and I don't have to take Andrew Bolts opinion or any other nut scientist for that matter.

Did you actually see how you spelt my name last time?

No I'm indifferent about Flannery and honestly don't know enough about his work to actually make a judgement, I'm aware he is targeted by Bolt and other deniers.

I'm not going to pretend I have a scientific degree and will leave it to the people who have actually studied for that which in this case reads "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming" http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

Would deniers who go to a doctor and are told by 9135 doctors that they have cancer and need radiation believe those doctors or would they believe the 1 who doesn't think its cancer?

I'm not accusing you of this but I just don't understand the right, in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus they will still deny global warming but yet throw them a bible and they are indoctrinated for life. The only other people this stubborn live in the hills in Afghanistan.

 

[noco]

Did you actually see how you spelt my name last time?

No I'm indifferent about Flannery and honestly don't know enough about his work to actually make a judgement, I'm aware he is targeted by Bolt and other deniers.

I'm not going to pretend I have a scientific degree and will leave it to the people who have actually studied for that which in this case reads "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming" http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

Would deniers who go to a doctor and are told by 9135 doctors that they have cancer and need radiation believe those doctors or would they believe the 1 who doesn't think its cancer?

I'm not accusing you of this but I just don't understand the right, in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus they will still deny global warming but yet throw them a bible and they are indoctrinated for life. The only other people this stubborn live in the hills in Afghanistan.

I am not sure how long you have been out of school but you may have learnt a couple of thousand years ago 99% of people believed the Earth was flat.

I read your link on James Lawrance Powell and also the comments about him....some were not in agreeance....James Lawtance Powell has a degree in Geology and Geochemistry.....does that make him an expert on Global Warming?

He talks about the drying up of rivers in Colarado and that they never see rains again to fill the rivers....I remember Professor Flannery saying in 2007, Brisbane, Sdyney and Melbourne would never see rains again to fill the rivers and dams and look what happened. The rains came, the rivers flowed and the dams filled but in the meantime three stupid Labor state governments belived him and they all spent billions of tax payers dollars on desal plants which aer now all in moth balls. What a joke.!!!!!

Global Warming!!!!!!! what Global warming??????????


http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520254770

 

[Judd]

I am not sure how long you have been out of school but you may have learnt a couple of thousand years ago 99% of people believed the Earth was flat.

Um, no. That belief is a myth.

From the time Pythagoras (600BC) postulated that the earth was round, and subsequently supported by Aristotle (400 BC) who also noted that in a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow is round, and Eratosthenes (300BC) calculating the circumference of the Earth, no educated person believed the earth was round. Even medieval sailors noted it was round due to the fact that the bottom of the ship was the first part to disappear over the horizon followed by the masts. A Roman by the name of Ptolemy observed that as he approached a mountain it appeared to grow out of the ground confirming that the earth was round. He actually devised a method of calculating latitude and longitude.

The myth seems to stem from a cat fight occurring between religious sects, mainly Catholics apparently, around the 1600's. Some have argued it was one of the reasons the Pilgrims nicked off to America.

 

[overhang]

I am not sure how long you have been out of school but you may have learnt a couple of thousand years ago 99% of people believed the Earth was flat.

I read your link on James Lawrance Powell and also the comments about him....some were not in agreeance....James Lawtance Powell has a degree in Geology and Geochemistry.....does that make him an expert on Global Warming?

He talks about the drying up of rivers in Colarado and that they never see rains again to fill the rivers....I remember Professor Flannery saying in 2007, Brisbane, Sdyney and Melbourne would never see rains again to fill the rivers and dams and look what happened. The rains came, the rivers flowed and the dams filled but in the meantime three stupid Labor state governments belived him and they all spent billions of tax payers dollars on desal plants which aer now all in moth balls. What a joke.!!!!!

Global Warming!!!!!!! what Global warming??????????


http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520254770

I'm not sure of the relevance of your analogy, the world being curved would have started with a theory just as global warming did, no doubt there were deniers regardless of the comprehensive evidence suggesting otherwise, probably is still today.

I don't think James Lawrance Powell not being a climate scientist has anything to do with that article, he merely collected the data, he didn't write the peer reviewed literature. I also would have thought that being a geologist would put him in a position to write that book but without reading it I'm not sure if it covers other areas.

Is there any amount of evidence that would possibly ever convince you that global warming is real?

 

[noco]

After reading the two articles below, I now more than ever convinced that GLOBAL WARMING IS CRAP.

The parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere now is the same as it was 420,000 years ago as scientist have proved from ice drillings in the Antartic.

Each week 600million tones of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere by plants and the oceans....that is 31.2 billion tonnes per year.......man made CO2 emissions are made up of 5.5 billion tonnes per year so the balance must come from bush fires, volcanos and the expelling of gases from cattle, sheep and other animals.

Please read the interesting comments from the two links.

BTW. my wife an I did the cruise up the Alaskan Coast in September 2012 and The ship were on took us into Glacier Bay where we observed and took several photos of large chunks of ice as big as a bus falling from the glacier into the sea......My dear wife made a comment to me "that the ice falling into the sea are like the pictures we often saw on TV promoted by the Global Warming Alarmists that the Artic ice was melting". But most of us sane people know glaciers are moving all the time with increased snow falls putting pressure on the base of the glacier and so forcing the fall of ice into the sea.



http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/global-temperature-still-headed-down-uah-negative-territory/

 

[medicowallet]

It is a weather event Logique because it is essentially a short term event. You would describe a change of temperatures over a long period of time as closer to a change in climate. ie the warmest year in Australia was 2013

And please be accurate. I was quoting a range of scientific papers that are describing the spilling of the polar vortex into the northern latitudes as a possible consequence of the melting of Arctic ice (caused by global warming).

It's their construct not mine. And it's quite possible for large scale warming in the earths climate to cause changes in local climate. Why not read the references for further information ?

Sorry to hijack, but isn't a climate data point 30 years?

So why would you accept 1 year of hot weather as representative of a position when it comes to climate?

We have very little directly measured "climate" data.

Perhaps we should go back and get more data points from the past, however, as people who have gone back far enough know, this makes some of the more extreme global warming assumptions look a bit silly.

MW

 

[sptrawler]

If climate change is happening, shouldn't everyone be embracing Abbotts plan to dam the North.
Obviously we are going to need the water.

 

[noco]

If climate change is happening, shouldn't everyone be embracing Abbotts plan to dam the North.
Obviously we are going to need the water.

Yes my friend we should have been building dams with the money wasted on DESAL PLANTS in Queensland, NSW and Victoria. Billions of taxpayers dollars down the drain thanks to that "DUMB WIT" Flannery who said in 2007 we would never see rains again to fill the rivers and dams.....and what happened?.....the rains came and the dams all filled up to overflowing.

Flannery also said the ice would melt and raise sea levels to the height of 10 story buildings.....Then in recent times he is saying that perhaps the seas might rise 10cm by the turn of the next century.

 

[noco]

Did you actually see how you spelt my name last time?

No I'm indifferent about Flannery and honestly don't know enough about his work to actually make a judgement, I'm aware he is targeted by Bolt and other deniers.

I'm not going to pretend I have a scientific degree and will leave it to the people who have actually studied for that which in this case reads "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming" http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

Would deniers who go to a doctor and are told by 9135 doctors that they have cancer and need radiation believe those doctors or would they believe the 1 who doesn't think its cancer?

I'm not accusing you of this but I just don't understand the right, in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus they will still deny global warming but yet throw them a bible and they are indoctrinated for life. The only other people this stubborn live in the hills in Afghanistan.

So much for the so called peer reviews....it had to be the GREENIES behind it all......it is all very political and the IPPC were captured by these WATER MELONS.

GIVEN the low-grade attacks on me following my piece "Crowds go cold on climate cost" (The Australian, Dec 31) readers of Fairfax publications and The Guardian may be shocked to hear I believe in climate change. I also accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The trouble is, I cannot reconcile the claims of dangerous human CO2 emissions with the observed record.
I admit it. I am not a climate scientist. That said, I have closely followed this debate for more than two decades, having been seasoned originally by the global cooling certainty of the 1970s.

The climate consensus of the 70s, like the period since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, was dominated by politics, not science. I was reminded of how deeply political awareness has infected today's academies when I received an apology from a respected climate scientist who corrected his own public cheap shot at me. He said, "I attempt to be politically even-handed ... I try to steer a middle course as a scientist."

Really? Surely science is not about neutrality? It is about evidence and conclusions which fall where they will. So when an internationally acclaimed climatologist like Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville dispassionately analyses climate models covering 33 years and concludes that both the surface and satellite observations produce linear temperature trends that are below 87 of the 90 models used in the comparison, he does not politically neutralise his findings. They are empirical fact.

They eventually become political because the models he demonstrates to be seriously flawed are the bedrock on which the IPCC's global warming case is built. As Spencer said recently, "The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence of low climate sensitivity for many years ... The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new thing ... just one that is becoming more glaring over time."

Spencer is joined by celebrated Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Richard Lindzen, who says: "I think that the latest (AR5) IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase." He is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now". Any takers?

The lengthening pause in global warming is influencing the political climate. The language has changed from the specific "global warming" to the more general "climate change" and now to the astrological "extreme weather events" where "I told you so" can be almost universally applied. For example, we are to believe the recent cold spell in the US and the heat wave in Australia are both examples of global warming. Yet 2013 was one of the "least extreme" weather years in US history.

Political will is also flagging. The Copenhagen summit was almost five years ago, yet there is still no global, legally binding international agreement on emission reduction targets. Only talk.

Canada's Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq last year discarded a proposal from her department to publicly state that the Harper government recognised scientific evidence that humans were "mostly responsible" for climate change and that it took this advice "seriously".

And now, no doubt in response to the political backlash from the economic cost of green schemes, the European Commission is to order Britain to end wind farm subsidies. According to Britain's The Telegraph: "The commission ... is about to argue that the onshore wind and solar power industries are 'mature' and should be allowed to operate without support from taxpayers." Germany's renewable energy industry virtually shut down for almost a week in December when nearly 23,000 wind turbines and one million solar panels ceased to generate. Faced with uncompetitive electricity prices and the fantasy of cheap, reliable renewable energy, Germany is building 10 coal-fired power stations over the next two years with 15 more planned. The green delusion is finally confronting economic reality.

What we now see is the unravelling of years of shoddy science and sloppy journalism. If it wasn't for independent Murdoch newspapers around the world, the mainstream media would be almost completely captured by the IPCC establishment. That is certainly true in Australia. For six or seven years we were bullied into accepting that the IPCC's assessment reports were the climate science bible. Its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told us the IPCC relied solely on peer-reviewed literature. Then Murdoch papers alerted us to scientific scandals and Donna Laframboise, in her book The Delinquent Teenager, astonished us with her extraordinary revelation that of 18,000 references in the IPCC's AR4 report, one-third were not peer reviewed. Some were Greenpeace press releases, others student papers and working papers from a conference. In some chapters, the majority of references were not peer reviewed. Many lead authors were inexperienced, or linked to advocate groups like WWF and Greenpeace. Why are we not surprised?

The IPCC was bound to be captured by the green movement. After all, it is a political body. It is not a panel of scientists but a panel of governments driven by the UN. Its sole purpose is to assess the risks of human-induced climate change. It has spawned industries. One is scientists determined to find an anthropogenic cause. Another is climate remediation. And, naturally, an industry to redistribute taxes to sustain it all. With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, this cartel will deny all contrary evidence. Its very survival depends on it. But the tide is turning and Mother Nature has signalled her intention not to co-operate.

In the meantime, childish personal attacks on those who point out flaws in IPCC reasoning and advice only increase scepticism. They are no substitute for empirical evidence and are well into diminishing returns. The party's over.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council.
facebooktwitterlinkedingoogleredditemail114
Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?Back to top of page

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ys-over-for-ipcc/story-e6frgd0x-1226801761168