Resisting Climate Hysteria

[derty]

Basilio is hanging on, at least I'm not on the ignore list anymore.....

Basilio is tacitly admitting agreement to the Hockey Stick fraud - as even the IPCC decided the MWP had to go.....to create "unprecedented" temperatures.

This posted over a year ago on ASF from those truthful scientists, well perhaps in AR1 and AR2, but it seems the graph wasn't scary enough for Al Gore.

Briffa was also caught out using a small subset of tree ring data that supported a hockey stick in 2009, rather than use all the data which of course showed no hockey stick at all.

View attachment 45431

It's all pure science isn't it basilio? Everyone else just needs more practice at lapping it up. Now if we could only find a way to get questioning people to lap to the 3% of man's CO2 driving that hockey stick as easily as you do then this pseudo science would become science, right?

The reason for the large MWP in AR1 and AR2 has been explained to you before in detail within this thread before OWG. As has the Mann hockey stick and supporting studies that use numerous other datasets that replicate the anomaly. I will just assume you have a poor memory.

It's hockey sticks all the way down. All the way down.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

The reason for the large MWP in AR1 and AR2 has been explained to you before in detail within this thread before OWG. As has the Mann hockey stick and supporting studies that use numerous other datasets that replicate the anomaly. I will just assume you have a poor memory.

It's hockey sticks all the way down. All the way down.

Sorry, my "lapping" ability isn't as sophisticated. Er, so 1 study from Mann using 12 tree rings to create a hockey stick invalidates the hundreds of peer reviewed MWP studies and even the IPCC AR1 and AR2 reports. Yes, you've made perfect sense - the IPCC invalidates the IPCC. The magic show is pulling a puppy out of a hat...where's the bowl?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Over the past 5 days we have had 61.8 mm of rain in Townsville.

The average is included in the table below, gleaned from Elders, a company with an interest in weather.

http://www.eldersweather.com.au/dailysummary.jsp?lt=site&lc=32040

December 2011
September October November [December]
date min to 9am anomaly max from 9am anomaly rain to 9am
°C °C °C °C mm
Thu 01/12/2011 25.1 +1.0 31.7 +0.3 0.0
Fri 02/12/2011 25.3 +1.2 32.1 +0.7 0.0
Sat 03/12/2011 24.5 +0.4 30.8 -0.6 0.2
Sun 04/12/2011 23.4 -0.7 26.6 -4.8 3.6
Mon 05/12/2011 23.0 -1.1 29.6 -1.8 47.8
Tue 06/12/2011 22.9 -1.2 30 -1 10.2

December 2011 Average 24.0 30.1
December 1940-2008 Average 24.1 31.4
December 1940-2008 Highest 28.8 31st 2001 42.1 30th 1984
December 1940-2008 Lowest 17.9 5th 1998 22.9 6th 1964

December 2011 Total 61.8 4 day(s)
December 1940-2008 Average Total 125.7 9.7 day(s)
December 1940-2008 Wettest Total 458.0 1975
December 1940-2008 Driest Total 0.0 2001

So with less than a week in to December we have had nearly half of our average rainfall going back to 1940.

I would prefer to follow the evidence rather than a hockey stick.

And the temperatures are pretty average too.

gg

 

[derty]

Sorry, my "lapping" ability isn't as sophisticated. Er, so 1 study from Mann using 12 tree rings to create a hockey stick invalidates the hundreds of peer reviewed MWP studies and even the IPCC AR1 and AR2 reports. Yes, you've made perfect sense - the IPCC invalidates the IPCC. The magic show is pulling a puppy out of a hat...where's the bowl?

Don't really know what lapping is. I have re-quoted below the previous explanation to you for the AR1 and 2 graphs to jog your memory.

You keep trotting out this 'the IPCC killed the MWP' and hockey stick has been discredited meme.

1. The graph displayed in the 1st IPCC report was a hand drawn schematic. The y-axis on the graph is dimensionless.
2. The data that the schematic was based on was collected in 1965, taken from a single site in Central England as 50 year averages.
3. When newer and more widespread data became available new graphs were created. This data did not remove the MWP, it just reduced its magnitude and placed the peak of it around the 1950 levels.
4. Of the various attacks on the 'hockey stick' they have either been dismissed out of hand or the errors that have been found have not effected the main conclusions.
5. As stated before, post the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 'hockey stick', a swag of additional studies have been done using various different proxies and all, while confirming the presence of the MWP, do not have it exceeding the current temperature.

View attachment 42914

Mann didn't use 12 tree rings - he used multiple series of tree ring proxies. The 12 tree ring study you are attempting to use is Briffa's Yamal study that used tree found preserved in the melting permafrost in Siberia. Here is what Steven McIntyre had to say about that study:

Even McIntyre denounces the more vocal sceptics with their conspiracy theories. In an apparent response to a challenge from the climate scientists' website RealClimate, he wrote to the American Spectator last October: "While there is much to criticise in the handling of this [Yamal] data, the results do not in any way show that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is a 'fraud', nor that this particular study was a 'fraud'. There are many serious scientists who are honestly concerned about AGW and your commentary … is unfair to them."

When you refer to the 100's of MWP studies I assume you are talking about that collection that was trotted out where the MWP occurred over a 1000 year period dependant on which paper was looked at, most didn't include the current period, many had been superseded by subsequent data and papers, most were localised studies and many were not papers specifically on climate change per se. All they really do is show that climate is locally variable and do nothing to support the "IPCC killed the MWP" meme.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Yes derty, those initial IPCC AR graphs weren't drawn to scale, the X axis was a little out and the Y axis was a bit off and there were just too many issues with them not showing the right trends, yet they seem to align well to the many studies describing the last 1000 years. I wonder why they would publish incorrect data in the first place, perhaps it standard practice at the IPCC? But I guess the climategate scientists found some new data to get hysterical about, perhaps some new funding had them excited too?

I wonder if they'll find some new data soon helps them re-adjust their graphs once again to better fit the actual temperatures and to avoid the criticisms from their peers. Then they'll be able to say they told us so and have everyone lapping from the AGW bowl.

 

[Logique]

This is the same Paul Ehrlich, during a recent visit feted as a guru by 'not your' ABC - hanging on his every word.

http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1964/a-history-of-scientific-alarms
A history of scientific alarms. IPA REVIEW ARTICLE - Dr Kesten Green lists the 20 most unscientific scares.

6. Population growth and famine (Ehrlich), 1968
Early Malthus reheated by butterfly biologist Paul Ehrlich, who also forecast global cooling and, later, global warming disasters. In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich wrote, ‘The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death'.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

This is the same Paul Ehrlich, during a recent visit feted as a guru by 'not your' ABC - hanging on his every word.

Freezing cold here in Canberra this week.

Let's see who's at Durban lapping up all our money while we freeze...

Perhaps they will discuss the need for new funding and create an updated version of the temperature history to show even more accelerated warming and make scary statements about weather or maybe a new video that shows children exploding?

Is this the entourage?

 

[Logique]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
"..The number of [climate coverage] articles, blog posts, editorials, and op-eds 'declined roughly 20 percent from 2010’s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009’s peak' according to a review of The Daily Climate’s global English-language media archive.

But two outlets were found to be dramatically out of step with international trends:

The Sydney Morning Herald placed sixth overall in total output, with a 21 percent jump from 2010. And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation increased its climate coverage by 60 percent.

The love media. God bless their little hand-woven earth-toned socks.."

 

[Knobby22]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
"..The number of [climate coverage] articles, blog posts, editorials, and op-eds 'declined roughly 20 percent from 2010’s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009’s peak' according to a review of The Daily Climate’s global English-language media archive.

But two outlets were found to be dramatically out of step with international trends:

The Sydney Morning Herald placed sixth overall in total output, with a 21 percent jump from 2010. And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation increased its climate coverage by 60 percent.

The love media. God bless their little hand-woven earth-toned socks.."

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988)

 

[ghotib]

On the other hand:

Some of Australia's leading newspapers have been so negative in their reporting of the Gillard government's carbon policy it's fair to say they've campaigned against it rather than covered it according to a new report by Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at the University of Technology, Sydney.

The first of a two-part analysis of Australian press coverage of climate change, A Sceptical Climate, has found that between February and July this year negative coverage of the carbon policy across 10 major newspapers outweighed positive coverage by 73 per cent to 27 per cent.

Report author Professor Wendy Bacon said the overall result was driven by News Ltd group publications (82 per cent negative versus 18 per cent positive), compared to a more balanced result for the Fairfax press (57 per cent positive articles outweighing 43 per cent negative).

http://imlweb04.itd.uts.edu.au/acij-ds/investigations/detail.cfm?ItemId=29219 contains a link to the full report, which I have not read.

Bless the Murdoch Press and its automaton-beat tuneless cacophony.

Ghoti

 

[moXJO]

On the other hand:

http://imlweb04.itd.uts.edu.au/acij-ds/investigations/detail.cfm?ItemId=29219 contains a link to the full report, which I have not read.

Bless the Murdoch Press and its automaton-beat tuneless cacophony.

Ghoti

Thats because the Carbon tax is a stupid idea that has little to do with the environment.

 

[Logique]

I've lost track of whether we've tipped yet or not. Not much heard lately about the tipping point(s) of global warming. Certainly we've reached a taxation tipping point, if you want to use mains electricity anyway. What's this got to do with a stocks forum? I understand that publicly listed industrial companies use mains electricity. Some like BHP and RIO are also slated to pay a super profits tax.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer [2007] —a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point..

..This week [Dec 2007], after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

 

[Calliope]

It's a strange climate. While Perth is melting in a heatwave, it was 25 max today here, and the rain is bucketing down - 250 mls since 9AM and still pouring, with more to come. And that's just a rain depression.

 

[orr]

It's a strange climate. While Perth is melting in a heatwave, it was 25 max today here, and the rain is bucketing down - 250 mls since 9AM and still pouring, with more to come. And that's just a rain depression.

No. What your actually decribing is weather... but why do I bother?

 

[Calliope]

No. What your actually decribing is weather... but why do I bother?

Because you are trying to be smart, I suppose.

 

[basilio]

I suppose Orr was trying to offer the most basic principle in the climate change debate (the difference between short term weather and longer term climate changes ) to a forum member who has is proud of the factthat he has no capacity or willingness to understand the difference.

So yes it is a rather forlorn gesture.

Now for something completely different. Skeptical Science has produced a neat little summary on how scientist and communicators might tackle the problems of accidental and deliberate misinformation about many topics including climate change. Worth a check.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html

 

[Calliope]

I suppose Orr was trying to offer the most basic principle in the climate change debate (the difference between short term weather and longer term climate changes ) to a forum member who has is proud of the factthat he has no capacity or willingness to understand the difference.

It is alarmists like you who most confuse weather with climate, so I can do without smarta*se lectures from you.

 

[basilio]

It is alarmists like you who most confuse weather with climate, so I can do without smarta*se lectures from you.

See ? Sheer ignorance.

Stuff that happens from day to day is the weather. Longer term changes in temperatures , rainfall patterns reflect changes in the climate.

 

[Calliope]

See ? Sheer ignorance.

Stuff that happens from day to day is the weather. Longer term changes in temperatures , rainfall patterns reflect changes in the climate.

Good for you basilio. Your extended lay-off from this thread has apparently taught you the errror of long-winded lectures, but has done nothing to abate your sheer arrogance.

 

[basilio]

Good for you basilio. Your extended lay-off from this thread has apparently taught you the errror of long-winded lectures, but has done nothing to abate your sheer arrogance.

Thanks calliope. Nothing arrogant about being factually correct. Probably just not interested in discussions with people who don't know what they are talking about and decline to find the correct answers to relatively simple ideas - for example the difference between weather and climate.