Resisting Climate Hysteria

[trainspotter]

Thanks for that response TS. It certainly broadens the conversation.

I'm also wary of conflating natural disasters with what are essentially human caused events. Earthquakes, volcanoes are outside our control. We just have to deal with them.

Gross pollution effects as you mentioned and the effects of a rapidly changing climate can be at least partially addressed by changing what we do. For example in the mid eighties we discovered that fluorocarbons were destroying the ozone layer and we put into effect the Montreal protocol to ban fluorocarbons. Thirty years later there is an improvement.

In the 50's and 60's gross air pollution was causing huge smogs in the big Western Cities. Anti pollution laws were brought in (and they wern't supported by business..) and yes the air became cleaner. We can change.

_____________

With regard to Anthony Watts and rising sea levels. My reading of his work was that he just wasn't accepting that there would be any significant increase in sea levels that would represent a danger to low lying areas around the world.

Earthquakes and volcanoes and sea levels rising is part of what the world has been doing for millions of years. 60,000 years ago there was a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Where is it now? Underwater. Why? Because sea levels rose. Was that man made? Nope.

Sea level varied by over 100 metres during glacial-interglacial cycles as the major ice sheets waxed and waned as a result of changes in summer solar radiation in high northern hemisphere latitudes. Paleo data from corals indicate that sea level was 4 to 6 m (or more) above present day sea levels during the last interglacial period, about 125 000 years ago

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html

Did man and Co2 cause this over the last 125,000 years? HUH ?? Well did it???

Ya just gotta love science and FACTS !!

regions which were under the ice sheets (e.g. much of northern Eurasia and North America) are rising - in some cases by up to 7mm/year.
regions which were on the forebulge (e.g. the east coast of the U.S.) are sinking, typically at rates of 1mm/year or slightly more.
regions further away are moving vertically at smaller rates as part of the overall adjustment that this causes. For example, Australia is rising at ~0.3-0.4 mm/year.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_geol.html

Short-term geological effects

A number of geological processes contribute to short-term changes in measured sea level. A few examples are:

earthquakes and other small-scale geological events
sinking of land through compaction of sediments and/or withdrawal of ground water
sinking of land through withdrawal of oil

So therefore earthquakes, compaction and sinking of land is contributing to the rise in sea levels.

Been happening for millennia basilio. Just because some shrill named Al Gore makes a movie and self promotes awareness (but conveniently forgets to tell the public his company makes millions from this)

Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ing-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

Then Obama comes out with this tripe ...

THE UNITED STATES IS LEADING GLOBAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. PRESIDENT OBAMA IS TAKING THE BIGGEST STEP YET TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BY FINALIZING AMERICA’S CLEAN POWER PLAN, WHICH SETS THE FIRST-EVER CARBON POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR POWER PLANTS.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

Then authorises Shell to pump croood out of Alaska on the same day ..

In a visit to the small north-west Alaskan village of Kotzebue, Obama was set to announce a federal coordinator for response efforts in the region, myriad grants to increase community resources and systems to address the regional impact of climate change.

A fact sheet outlining the plans did not address the role or impact of oil drilling or shipping in the Arctic. This is particularly important for villages like Kotzebue, which is proximate to the Bering Strait, where melting ice has increased shipping and resulting jobs for Arctic residents.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/barack-obama-climate-change-strategy-arctic-alaska

Oh oh ... we need oil says Shell & Obama approves it ...

Fox Business reports that Marvin Odum – the president of Shell Oil – says exploratory drilling off the northwest coast of Alaska is ‘going well.’
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates 'the Chukchi and Beaufort seas hold 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil.'

Odum said, 'Oil will continue to be needed as the United States transitions to more renewable energy.'

http://www.shell.us/about-us/projec...ses/shell-oil-president-reports-progress.html

Abbott not wanting to be left out ...

The Government has announced that Australia will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, ahead of the Paris climate change conference in December.

Claim one: Tony Abbott says Australia's per capita emissions targets for 2030 are "the best in the developed world".
Verdict one: Australia's per capita emissions targets are behind the developed nations of Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. Mr Abbott is incorrect.
Claim two: Mr Abbott says that Australia's absolute emissions targets for 2030 are neither "leading" nor "lagging" the field.
Verdict two: Australia is behind a number of western nations, but sits in front of both Japan and South Korea, and is comparable to New Zealand and Canada. Mr Abbott's claim is justified.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott told ABC Radio's AM program that Australia's goal was environmentally and economically responsible and said he was confident Australia could achieve it "without clobbering jobs and growth".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/tony-abbott-emissions-reduction-targets-paris-2015/6711330

Politics at it's finest. So there you have it basilio SOMETHING IS BEING DONE !! Stating that the ocean is going to rise 10 metres and there will be no rain in the dams and the Himalayas will not have snow on them is ALARMING. Not useful in any sense of the form. We are changing ever so slowly away from fossil and coal but like all fledgling business's it takes time to get into full swing.

With regard to Anthony Watts and rising sea levels my understanding of the article was that he was providing a balanced view ??

ALARMIST - The Norfolk Naval Base is going underwater due to global warming and the sea level is rising because of Co2 !!!!!!!!!!! EXTREME

DENIER - The Norfolk Naval base is going underwater due to the land compacting approx 50% of the RSLR as the city was built on a reclaimed swamp 300 years ago!!!!!!!!!!! MODERATE

No amount of ridiculous claims about typhoons of the century and 7 metre sea water rising and hottest EVER on record BS is going to make it happen any faster to change to renewables.

 

[noco]

Earthquakes and volcanoes and sea levels rising is part of what the world has been doing for millions of years. 60,000 years ago there was a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Where is it now? Underwater. Why? Because sea levels rose. Was that man made? Nope.



http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html

Did man and Co2 cause this over the last 125,000 years? HUH ?? Well did it???

Ya just gotta love science and FACTS !!



http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_geol.html



So therefore earthquakes, compaction and sinking of land is contributing to the rise in sea levels.

Been happening for millennia basilio. Just because some shrill named Al Gore makes a movie and self promotes awareness (but conveniently forgets to tell the public his company makes millions from this)



http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ing-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

Then Obama comes out with this tripe ...



https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

Then authorises Shell to pump croood out of Alaska on the same day ..



http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/barack-obama-climate-change-strategy-arctic-alaska

Oh oh ... we need oil says Shell & Obama approves it ...



http://www.shell.us/about-us/projec...ses/shell-oil-president-reports-progress.html

Abbott not wanting to be left out ...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/tony-abbott-emissions-reduction-targets-paris-2015/6711330

Politics at it's finest. So there you have it basilio SOMETHING IS BEING DONE !! Stating that the ocean is going to rise 10 metres and there will be no rain in the dams and the Himalayas will not have snow on them is ALARMING. Not useful in any sense of the form. We are changing ever so slowly away from fossil and coal but like all fledgling business's it takes time to get into full swing.

With regard to Anthony Watts and rising sea levels my understanding of the article was that he was providing a balanced view ??

ALARMIST - The Norfolk Naval Base is going underwater due to global warming and the sea level is rising because of Co2 !!!!!!!!!!! EXTREME

DENIER - The Norfolk Naval base is going underwater due to the land compacting approx 50% of the RSLR as the city was built on a reclaimed swamp 300 years ago!!!!!!!!!!! MODERATE

No amount of ridiculous claims about typhoons of the century and 7 metre sea water rising and hottest EVER on record BS is going to make it happen any faster to change to renewables.

Coral used to thrive in Morten Bay....Where is it now?....It died because the waters in Morten bay became cooler..Coral only survives in warmer waters..Darra Cement works dredged it for 60 years to produce cement.

 

[basilio]

TS who said anything about the last 125,000 years (and beyond) of changing cliamte being the result of human intervention ? Yeah it's the rotation of the earth, long cycles yada yada.

And interestingly enough, as you pointed out, the earth is still responding to these events. IE land masses rising as the loss of miles of ice cover releases pressure.

This conversation is about the impact of the last 200 of hundred years of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 , methane) on our climate. It should be about

1) How much has our world changed already.
2) What is the best current information on how continued greenhouse gas emissions will affect our climate
3) What are the risks to our civilisation if these predictions eventuate.

The fact that the oceans rose and fell hundreds of metres in the past is interesting. The possibility that we could see rises of feet or metres in the next century as a result of increasing temperatures and melting of ice packs spells Trouble.

So what do we gain by ignoring the vast majority of scientific information and evidence in favour of a sliver of carefully selected interpretations and deliberate misinformation ?

 

[trainspotter]

TS who said anything about the last 125,000 years (and beyond) of changing cliamte being the result of human intervention ? Yeah it's the rotation of the earth, long cycles yada yada.

And interestingly enough, as you pointed out, the earth is still responding to these events. IE land masses rising as the loss of miles of ice cover releases pressure.

This conversation is about the impact of the last 200 of hundred years of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 , methane) on our climate. It should be about

1) How much has our world changed already.
2) What is the best current information on how continued greenhouse gas emissions will affect our climate
3) What are the risks to our civilisation if these predictions eventuate.

The fact that the oceans rose and fell hundreds of metres in the past is interesting. The possibility that we could see rises of feet or metres in the next century as a result of increasing temperatures and melting of ice packs spells Trouble.

So what do we gain by ignoring the vast majority of scientific information and evidence in favour of a sliver of carefully selected interpretations and deliberate misinformation ?

I refuse to debate with someone who is deliberately misunderstanding what I am typing

You asked my opinion .. I gave it. You asked for a solution ... I evidenced it. You asked for FACTS ... I posted them. You asked to be educated .. I did it. You wanted me to agree with you ... I concurred.

No one is ignoring the "information" provided by self serving scientists and politicians. The world is doing something to reduce carbon emissions. See the links I posted there ... WHITEHOUSE press release, CSIRO, NASA, NOAA or are they wrong as well?

The world has been heating and cooling for millions of years. The world has been shaken by earthquakes, volcanoes have erupted, land has subsided, erosion has cause the Grand Canyon. But you know all this and dismiss it as a "sliver of information" and "deliberate misinformation". Are you for real? You do realise that the tectonic plates sinking actually release more Co2 gas into the atmosphere then what man is producing right now? How are you going to stop that?

And the deeper the imaging equipment goes, the farther back in time scientists can see — as far back as 250 million years, said van der Meer. "Essentially, we can see the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea, and the opening and closing of oceans," he said.

In other words, the scans depicted the interior of the Earth, enabling the researchers to "see" the tectonic plates that have sunk into the planet over the past 250 million years.

The researchers then quantified the plates that have sunk into the deep Earth, and their calculations showed that the Earth produced twice as much CO2 as there is today.

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

But this is mere misinformation again now isn't it?

So you want to focus on the last 200 years and blame it on man has caused this problem? Be my guest .. I for one believe that MODERATION is called for instead of some obtuse rant about civilisation is going to end because of Co2.

My prediction is this ... WE WILL ADAPT ! Evolution baby.

P.S. the thread is about RESISTING CLIMATE HYSTERIA

 

[wayneL]

Basilio your problem is that you see any person who does not uncritically accept every pro agw news release as a denier. That just stupid and unscientific.

In many ways climate science mirrors my own field that is concerned with biomechanics, physiology, morphology and pathology of the equine digit. Much so called research is conduct by those with a mercantile and/or philosophical agenda, resulting in laughable conclusions which are easily debunked.

This doesn't stop a legion of evangelical acolytes denigrating the tried, tested and successful orthodoxy or derivatives thereof. Yep, we get called similar names from the zealots, just like from the alarmists.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

 

[basilio]

NASA says sea levels will rise by a metre over the next century

9 hours ago September 07, 2015 7:08AM

Image
Video

NASA’s OMG mission will examine how warm ocean water is speeding the loss of Greenland’s


EXPERTS fear an ice sheet the size of Queensland is melting so quickly it will cause massive storm surges capable of decimating Australia’s coastal cities within the next century.

Satellite images recently captured by NASA show large sections of Greenland and Antarctica are vanishing at a much faster rate than previously thought.

Because of this scientists now believe sea levels will rise by a metre over the next 100 to 200 years. And this is not good.

Dr Steve Rintoul from the CSIRO told news.com.au if the NASA predictions prove true Australia could expect more devastating flash floods similar to the one suffered by Brisbane four years ago.

He said as the average sea level rose, so did the risk of destructive storm surges.

“What that means is that the frequency and severity of coastal flooding increases and those floods are more serious as the average sea level rises,” he said. “Most Australians live along the coast, and this is where we are going to feel the impact of sea levels rises.

“There is also about 150 million people that live within one metre of present day sea level, and so if sea levels rise by one metre, those people will be displaced. Many of our major cities around the world are close to sea level and also much of our industry and infrastructure is also close to the coast. The implications of rising sea levels are quite serious because a one metre rise would cause serious disruption not just to people on low level islands but to infrastructure and the economy in countries that have a coastline.”

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...t that stirred a lynch mob&itmt=1441605289857

 

[sydboy007]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...s-hottest-on-record-nasa-data-show/?tid=sm_tw



The global temperature has been above the 20th century average now for 366 consecutive months – dating back to February, 1985.

 

[sydboy007]

http://inhabitat.com/vast-ocean-discovered-under-chinese-desert-may-be-worlds-largest-carbon-sink/

Li may have been searching for carbon, but it seems that the water holds the answer to the mystery. The alkaline soil on the surface of the desert helps to dissolve carbon which is carried underground by rainwater, meltwater from the surrounding mountains, and irrigation from farming. Cavernous chambers store the carbon-filled water in an immense underground ‘ocean’ from which it cannot escape, acting as a giant ‘carbon sink’. The combination of the alkaline sands on the surface and saline water deep beneath create the perfect conditions for carbon capture.

Forests and oceans have been traditionally considered the world’s largest carbon processors, but Li’s research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, appears to show that, paradoxically, the driest places on earth may be hiding massive water reserves which serve as enormous liquid carbon sinks. Li explained that “It’s like a can of coke. If it is opened all the greenhouse gas will escape into the atmosphere”. These desert waters may contain more carbon than all the plants on the planet combined.

Fascinatingly, when Li’s team took samples of the water from a variety of locations and used a process of carbon dating they “recorded a jump of ‘carbon sinking’ after the opening of the ancient Silk Road more than two thousand years ago.” Meaning that the natural world began dealing with human excess long before we ever imagined. “CCS [carbon capture and storage] is a 21st century idea, but our ancestors may have been doing it unconsciously for thousands of years,” he said.

The big question now is whether other deserts in the world harbor watery secrets on a similar scale. There is some scientific excitement about the likelihood of a “trillion tons” of carbon contained in subterranean desert aquifers worldwide, a figure that matches the “missing carbon” on the planet, according to scientific calculations.

 

[SirRumpole]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...s-hottest-on-record-nasa-data-show/?tid=sm_tw

View attachment 64364

The global temperature has been above the 20th century average now for 366 consecutive months – dating back to February, 1985.

It's freezing cold at my place now, so that data must be rubbish ! (noconomics)

Seriously, a very disturbing trend

 

[sydboy007]

It's freezing cold at my place now, so that data must be rubbish ! (noconomics)

Seriously, a very disturbing trend

Yes. We had 29C last Wed and I was wondering if this feels like an impending ice age then why did hte mamoths wear great coast

I think if the el nino that's forming sends things along the lines of the 98 one then attitudes will quickly change back to worry. I fear much of Australia may end up like California before too long.

 

[explod]

The warmer poles are causing the cold to be displaced north and south respectively. This in turn is increasing volatility. Colder and hotter bursts and more intense air movements (ie gale force winds becoming common)

I have described this a number of times on this thread but few bother to think it through.

We have a problem that I realise is not being solved and the changes taking place will destroy mankind first.

 

[sydboy007]

The warmer poles are causing the cold to be displaced north and south respectively. This in turn is increasing volatility. Colder and hotter bursts and more intense air movements (ie gale force winds becoming common)

I have described this a number of times on this thread but few bother to think it through.

We have a problem that I realise is not being solved and the changes taking place will destroy mankind first.

It's Darwinism at work. We have the knowledge, just not the will.

It's just a shame we'll force many specifies into extinction, though I think some humans will survive, just we'll be forced back to a pre industrial life style.

The old adage of things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.

 

[Tisme]

Good thing climate change isn't happening...take the cool nights in Townsville for instance .... practical yin and yang


clicky on blue:

Queensland is suffering through the worst drought in its history with 80 percent of the state drought declared and no end to the big dry in sight. Shane Webcke reports.

 

[noco]

Good thing climate change isn't happening...take the cool nights in Townsville for instance .... practical yin and yang


clicky on blue:

Queensland is suffering through the worst drought in its history with 80 percent of the state drought declared and no end to the big dry in sight. Shane Webcke reports.

Yep...Near the end of September and we still have a blanket on at nights....never had it happen in 44 years living here.....Very dry though....The Ross River Dam is down to 40 % and water restrictions apply.

They say it has lot to do with the El Nino.

 

[Tisme]

Yep...Near the end of September and we still have a blanket on at nights....never had it happen in 44 years living here.....Very dry though....The Ross River Dam is down to 40 % and water restrictions apply.

They say it has lot to do with the El Nino.

I must admit the only thing I know about El Nino is that it started to get the blame in WA years ago when the weather started going bonkers. As kids we were taught the Humboldt Current was the predictor of drought and that current was predicated on Antarctica's temperature and the ozone layer above it.

I notice there is a lot of talk about southern oscillation indices too, these days.

Of course the three main weather events which mattered in the past were:

rain on Melbourne cup day;
how fricken hot xmas day was;
clear skys for easter;

and the hope the temp would stay over 105 °F (40 °C) long enough for the school to end early.

 

[noco]

The statistics presented by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology are a farce and have been fiddled with to back up this Global Warming and to make out it is worse than the Alarmists state.


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

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n-climate-change/story-e6frg6zo-1227547888822

For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures. This doesn’t mean, though, that it’s not true.

In fact, under prime minister Tony Abbott, a panel of eminent statisticians was formed to investigate these claims detailed in The Australian newspaper in August and September last year.

The panel did acknowledge in its first report that the bureau homogenised the temperature data: that it adjusted figures. The same report also concluded it was unclear whether these adjustments resulted in an overall increase or decrease in the warming trend.

No conclusions could be drawn because the panel did not work through a single example of homogenisation, not even for Rutherglen. Rutherglen, in north*eastern Victoria, is an agricultural research station with a continuous minimum temperature record unaffected by equipment changes or documented site moves but where the bureau nevertheless adjusted the temperatures.

This had the effect of turning a temperature time series without a statistically significant trend into global warming of almost 2C a century.

According to media reports last week, a thorough investigation of the bureau’s methodology was prevented because of intervention by Environment Minister Greg Hunt. He apparently argued in cabinet that the credibility of the institution was paramount — that it was important the public had trust in the bureau’s data and forecasts, so the public knew to heed warnings of bushfires and *cyclones.

Hunt defends the bureau because it has a critical role to play in providing the community with reliable weather forecasts.

This is indeed one of its core responsibilities. It would be better able to perform this function, however, if it used proper techniques for quality control of temperature data and the best available techniques for forecasting rainfall.

There has been no improvement in its seasonal rainfall forecasts for two decades because it uses general circulation models. These are primarily tools for demonstrating global warming, with dubious, if any, skill at actually forecasting weather or climate.

Consider, for example, the millennium drought and the flooding rains that followed in 2010.

Back in 2007 and 2008, David Jones, then and still the manager of climate monitoring and prediction at the Bureau of Meteorology, wrote that climate change was so rampant in Australia, “We don’t need meteorological data to see it”, and that the drought, caused by climate change, was a sign of the “hot and dry future” that we all collectively faced.

Then the drought broke, as usual in Australia, with flooding rains.

But the bureau was incapable of forecasting an exceptionally wet summer because such an event was contrary to how senior management at the bureau perceived our climate future.

So, despite warning signs evident in sea surface temperature patterns across the Pacific through 2010, Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam, originally built for flood mitigation, was allowed to fill through the spring of 2010, and kept full in advance of the torrential rains in January 2011.

The resulting catastrophic flooding of Brisbane is now recognised as a “dam release flood”, and the subject of a class-action lawsuit by Brisbane residents against the Queensland government.

Indeed, despite an increasing investment in supercomputers, there is ample evidence ideology is trumping rational decision-making at the bureau on key issues that really matter, such as the prediction of drought and flood cycles. Because most journalists and politicians desperately want to believe the bureau knows best, they turn away from the truth and ignore the facts.

News Corp Australia journalist Anthony Sharwood got it completely wrong in his weekend article defending the bureau’s homogenisation of the temperature record. I tried to explain to him on the phone last Thursday how the bureau didn’t actually do what it said when it homogenised temperature time series for places such as Rutherglen.

Sharwood kept coming back to the issue of “motivations”. He kept asking me why on earth the bureau would want to mislead the Australian public.

I should have kept with the methodology, but I suggested he read what Jones had to say in the Climategate emails. Instead of considering the content of the emails that I mentioned, however, Sharwood wrote in his article that, “Climategate was blown out of proportion” and “independent investigations cleared the researchers of any form of wrongdoing”.

Nevertheless, the content of the Climategate emails includes quite a lot about homogenisation, and the scientists’ motivations. For example, there is an email thread in which Phil Jones (University of East Anglia) and Tom Wigley (University of Adelaide) discuss the need to get rid of a blip in global temperatures around 1940-44. Specifically, Wigley suggested they reduce ocean temperatures by an arbitrary 0.15C. These are exactly the types of arbitrary adjustments made throughout the historical temperature record for Australia: adjustments made independently of any of the purported acceptable reasons for making adjustments, including site moves and equipment changes.

Sharwood incorrectly wrote in his article: “Most weather stations have moved to cooler areas (ie, areas away from the urban heat island effect). So if scientists are trying to make the data reflect warmer temperatures, they’re even dumber than the sceptics think.”

In fact, many (not most) weather stations have moved from post offices to airports, which have hotter, not cooler, daytime temperatures. Furthermore, the urban heat island creeps into the official temperature record for Australia not because of site moves but because the record at places such as Cape Otway lighthouse is adjusted to make it similar to the record in built-up areas such as Melbourne, which clearly are affected by the urban heat island.

I know this sounds absurd. It is absurd, and it is also true. Indeed, a core problem with the methodology the bureau uses is its reliance on “comparative sites” to make adjustments to data at other places. I detail the Cape Otway lighthouse example in a recent paper published in the journal Atmospheric Research, volume 166.

It is so obvious that there is an urgent need for a proper, thorough and independent review of operations at the bureau. But it would appear our politicians and many mainstream media are set against the idea.

Evidently they are too conventional in their thinking to consider such an important Australian *institution could now be ruled by ideology.

Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

 

[Ijustnewit]

The statistics presented by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology are a farce and have been fiddled with to back up this Global Warming and to make out it is worse than the Alarmists state.


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

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n-climate-change/story-e6frg6zo-1227547888822

For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures. This doesn’t mean, though, that it’s not true.

In fact, under prime minister Tony Abbott, a panel of eminent statisticians was formed to investigate these claims detailed in The Australian newspaper in August and September last year.

The panel did acknowledge in its first report that the bureau homogenised the temperature data: that it adjusted figures. The same report also concluded it was unclear whether these adjustments resulted in an overall increase or decrease in the warming trend.

No conclusions could be drawn because the panel did not work through a single example of homogenisation, not even for Rutherglen. Rutherglen, in north*eastern Victoria, is an agricultural research station with a continuous minimum temperature record unaffected by equipment changes or documented site moves but where the bureau nevertheless adjusted the temperatures.

This had the effect of turning a temperature time series without a statistically significant trend into global warming of almost 2C a century.

According to media reports last week, a thorough investigation of the bureau’s methodology was prevented because of intervention by Environment Minister Greg Hunt. He apparently argued in cabinet that the credibility of the institution was paramount ”” that it was important the public had trust in the bureau’s data and forecasts, so the public knew to heed warnings of bushfires and *cyclones.

Hunt defends the bureau because it has a critical role to play in providing the community with reliable weather forecasts.

This is indeed one of its core responsibilities. It would be better able to perform this function, however, if it used proper techniques for quality control of temperature data and the best available techniques for forecasting rainfall.

There has been no improvement in its seasonal rainfall forecasts for two decades because it uses general circulation models. These are primarily tools for demonstrating global warming, with dubious, if any, skill at actually forecasting weather or climate.

Consider, for example, the millennium drought and the flooding rains that followed in 2010.

Back in 2007 and 2008, David Jones, then and still the manager of climate monitoring and prediction at the Bureau of Meteorology, wrote that climate change was so rampant in Australia, “We don’t need meteorological data to see it”, and that the drought, caused by climate change, was a sign of the “hot and dry future” that we all collectively faced.

Then the drought broke, as usual in Australia, with flooding rains.

But the bureau was incapable of forecasting an exceptionally wet summer because such an event was contrary to how senior management at the bureau perceived our climate future.

So, despite warning signs evident in sea surface temperature patterns across the Pacific through 2010, Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam, originally built for flood mitigation, was allowed to fill through the spring of 2010, and kept full in advance of the torrential rains in January 2011.

The resulting catastrophic flooding of Brisbane is now recognised as a “dam release flood”, and the subject of a class-action lawsuit by Brisbane residents against the Queensland government.

Indeed, despite an increasing investment in supercomputers, there is ample evidence ideology is trumping rational decision-making at the bureau on key issues that really matter, such as the prediction of drought and flood cycles. Because most journalists and politicians desperately want to believe the bureau knows best, they turn away from the truth and ignore the facts.

News Corp Australia journalist Anthony Sharwood got it completely wrong in his weekend article defending the bureau’s homogenisation of the temperature record. I tried to explain to him on the phone last Thursday how the bureau didn’t actually do what it said when it homogenised temperature time series for places such as Rutherglen.

Sharwood kept coming back to the issue of “motivations”. He kept asking me why on earth the bureau would want to mislead the Australian public.

I should have kept with the methodology, but I suggested he read what Jones had to say in the Climategate emails. Instead of considering the content of the emails that I mentioned, however, Sharwood wrote in his article that, “Climategate was blown out of proportion” and “independent investigations cleared the researchers of any form of wrongdoing”.

Nevertheless, the content of the Climategate emails includes quite a lot about homogenisation, and the scientists’ motivations. For example, there is an email thread in which Phil Jones (University of East Anglia) and Tom Wigley (University of Adelaide) discuss the need to get rid of a blip in global temperatures around 1940-44. Specifically, Wigley suggested they reduce ocean temperatures by an arbitrary 0.15C. These are exactly the types of arbitrary adjustments made throughout the historical temperature record for Australia: adjustments made independently of any of the purported acceptable reasons for making adjustments, including site moves and equipment changes.

Sharwood incorrectly wrote in his article: “Most weather stations have moved to cooler areas (ie, areas away from the urban heat island effect). So if scientists are trying to make the data reflect warmer temperatures, they’re even dumber than the sceptics think.”

In fact, many (not most) weather stations have moved from post offices to airports, which have hotter, not cooler, daytime temperatures. Furthermore, the urban heat island creeps into the official temperature record for Australia not because of site moves but because the record at places such as Cape Otway lighthouse is adjusted to make it similar to the record in built-up areas such as Melbourne, which clearly are affected by the urban heat island.

I know this sounds absurd. It is absurd, and it is also true. Indeed, a core problem with the methodology the bureau uses is its reliance on “comparative sites” to make adjustments to data at other places. I detail the Cape Otway lighthouse example in a recent paper published in the journal Atmospheric Research, volume 166.

It is so obvious that there is an urgent need for a proper, thorough and independent review of operations at the bureau. But it would appear our politicians and many mainstream media are set against the idea.

Evidently they are too conventional in their thinking to consider such an important Australian *institution could now be ruled by ideology.

Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

I'll bet the alarmist Left will be out in force this weekend and early next week. With Adelaide , Melbourne and Hobart set to melt in the earliest heatwave in October in written records ? Adelaide going for temps around 35 degrees , Melbourne around the same and Hobart ( which has just had it's coldest Winter in 50 years) is looking more like Cairns with temps around 30 degrees. Luckily I will have my air conditioner set to 15 cool degrees and the beer fridge stocked.

 

[noco]

I'll bet the alarmist Left will be out in force this weekend and early next week. With Adelaide , Melbourne and Hobart set to melt in the earliest heatwave in October in written records ? Adelaide going for temps around 35 degrees , Melbourne around the same and Hobart ( which has just had it's coldest Winter in 50 years) is looking more like Cairns with temps around 30 degrees. Luckily I will have my air conditioner set to 15 cool degrees and the beer fridge stocked.

And in Townsville we still need a blanket on at night.....Soooooo cool.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hobart ( which has just had it's coldest Winter in 50 years) is looking more like Cairns with temps around 30 degrees.

Let's hope it's not a repeat of what happened last time. 1966, that was the last winter comparable to this one and what followed was a major disaster with fires in 1967. The wet and cold winter saturated the ground, the warm spring weather lead to lots of undergrowth and that combined with very low rainfall from late Spring onwards dried it all out and ended with the fire disaster in February 1967.

End result of that was 62 deaths in a matter of hours, 900 injuries and 7000 people homeless. That's the worst fire disaster in Tas history and 4th worst in Australian history in terms of lives lost.

Let's hope it doesn't happen again, but I know that quite a few old timers have noted the similarities between weather patterns over the past few months and what's predicted for this spring and summer (a strong El Nino which typically leads to drought).

 

[Ijustnewit]

Let's hope it's not a repeat of what happened last time. 1966, that was the last winter comparable to this one and what followed was a major disaster with fires in 1967. The wet and cold winter saturated the ground, the warm spring weather lead to lots of undergrowth and that combined with very low rainfall from late Spring onwards dried it all out and ended with the fire disaster in February 1967.

End result of that was 62 deaths in a matter of hours, 900 injuries and 7000 people homeless. That's the worst fire disaster in Tas history and 4th worst in Australian history in terms of lives lost.

Let's hope it doesn't happen again, but I know that quite a few old timers have noted the similarities between weather patterns over the past few months and what's predicted for this spring and summer (a strong El Nino which typically leads to drought).

I must admit the fire bit does scare me a bit , we back onto bushland here. There has been a lot of effort in the past month with back burning in the Lenah Valley area of Mt Wellington . So the authorities seem to be preparing for the worst , lets prey it never happens. Saturday is looking pretty bad at the latest forecast here in Hobart winds up to 50kmr and 26 degrees. If something does start it's going to be hard to control and then with Monday and Tuesday around 28 degrees it will a dangerous situation.