Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Tim Flannery on Radio National's "Life Matters" this morning talking about the 'extraordinary number of severe events'.
After all his stuffing up (the dams will never fill again, etc) he can he still be paid to go on sprouting his dire predictions?

I've only lived in Queensland for 20 years but can never in this time remember such a cool, wet summer. Hardly breaking any heat records here!

Julia why don't you visit the Climate Commission website and actually see what has been documented around Australia this summer ?

And given that Tim Flannery was simply commenting on these facts (not future predictions) exactly what was he doing wrong ?

http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/ExtremeWeatherReport_web.pdf

 

[wayneL]

Yet even the maniacal advocate Hansen has grudgingly doffed a cap to the "twenty years pause" in global warming.
And the acolytes are stuck on tthe dogma.

 

[basilio]

Yet even the maniacal advocate Hansen has grudgingly doffed a cap to the "twenty years pause" in global warming.
And the acolytes are stuck on tthe dogma.

Really Wayne ?? Yes of course I can easily find Watts and Judith Curry and Climate Depot and The Australian in fact any number of mindless repetition blogs parroting that line...

I'm trying to work out exactly what they are denying with their breathless commentary?

Are they saying that we havn't had a steep increase in global temperatures in the past 150 years ?

Are they saying global warming has stopped and will not increase again and there is nothing to worry about ?

Are they saying that CO2 and other greenhouse gases won't be causing any further increases in global temperature and that we should rewrite everything we know about science as a result ?

There is in fact an excellent discussion in Skeptical Science which picks up on all the increases in the earths energy over the past 20 years.

Of course we also know how seriously James Hansen views the issue of global warming. He has decided to quit his well paid position at NASA to work full time as an activist to get us moving .

__________________________________________

Which takes us back to the last couple of topics Wayne. You brought up a paper which confirmed global temperatures for 11,300 years and demonstrated how quickly and sharply global warming has occurred with the increase in human produced green house gases. Any observations on that ?

And how about the effects of this this climate change on Australian conditions as evidenced by the record temperature and weather events this year. Did they actually happen Wayne ? Is it all okay ?

New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Posted on 25 March 2013 by dana1981

A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.

As suspected, much of the 'missing heat' Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.

Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.

The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/s...g-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?_r=0

 

[basilio]

Well folks you can breath easier now because Lord Abbott has decreed that the Climate Commission will be no more when he is swept into office.

That should take care of all this argy bargy on global warming.

Abbott to 'shoot messenger' on climate

Date

Ben Cubby
Environment Editor


Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said he ''suspects'' Tim Flannery, the head of Australia's Climate Commission, would be made redundant if Mr Abbott becomes prime minister.

Mr Abbott has pledged to abolish the Climate Commission - the federal government's agency for explaining climate science to the public - if elected, along with repealing the carbon price.

...A Climate Commission report released on Wednesday examined links between Australia's extreme weather and human-induced climate change. It found natural events were being influenced by climate change, because greenhouse gases are accumulating and trapping extra energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

The extra energy meant that natural events were being given an extra kick, meaning heavier bursts of rainfall, more intense heatwaves, and more prolonged dry spells. While heatwaves are not uncommon in summer, eight of Australia's 21 hottest days on record have occurred this year.

The report's lead author, Professor Will Steffen, said the report relies upon the known physics of the climate system, empirical observations of past and present weather, and the variety of mathematical models that can test assumptions from different angles.

''We have seen this basic shift in the climate system, where natural events are amplified because there is more energy in the system,'' he said. ''The different lines of evidence all point to this conclusion.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-on-climate-20130403-2h776.html#ixzz2PRFo6elQ

 

[wayneL]

Good. Because it is nothing more than a propaganda unit.

I would like to see it replaced with a truthful science based unit explaining of host of environmental impacts, including, but not limited to the ways human do impact local and regional environment and climate via land use changes and general pollution.

I believe a more accurate, non-doomsaying, non-mendacious commission would be better and more widely received.

But perhaps Flannery and his band of Apocalyptic Loonies have done too much damage? Already they have spawned a sub-culture of lecturing religious evangelists spewing forth their hypocrisy of monumental proportions, dividing us into a polarised nation of pragmatists and fantasists.

That will take time to heal.

 

[basilio]

Well congratulations Mister Wayne !!!

I just don't think I have ever seen such a compacted series of lies and slander in so few words.

Such a comprehensive trashing of the CSIRO and the 40 years research from all the scientists in the field.

A masterful willful ignoring of what is currently happening to our climate and the direction we are going.

And you clearly know so much about the other members of the Climate Commission to slander them so comprehensively.

_________________________________________________________

Ah no. This is just an Aprils Fool joke isn't it - only a few days late.


The other Commissioners are

Mr Roger Beale AO

Roger Beale is an economist and public policy expert, and currently the Executive Director of Economics and Policy at Pricewaterhouse Coopers.

Mr Gerry Hueston

Gerry Hueston is a prominent businessman who recently retired as President of BP Australasia, after a career with BP spanning 34 years in a variety of management and senior executive roles in New Zealand, Australia, Europe and the United Kingdom.


Professor Lesley Hughes

Professor Lesley Hughes is an ecologist in the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University and an expert on the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems.

Professor Veena Sahajwalla

Professor Veena Sahajwalla is Associate Dean (Strategic Industry Relations), Faculty of Science, and Director, Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology, at the University of New South Wales.


Professor Will Steffen

Professor Will Steffen is a climate science expert and researcher at the Australian National University, Canberra.


Not to mention of course the Science advisory panel. Clearly mendacious lying hacks.

To support its role in providing information and expert advice on the science of climate change and the impacts on Australia, the Commission is supported by a science advisory panel. The members of the Panel are:

Professor Matt England, University of New South Wales, expertise in global-scale ocean circulation and its influence on regional climate.

Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne, expertise in climate variability and climate change, including interannual climate variations due to El Niño-Southern Oscillation and weather extremes.

Professor Andy Pitman, University of New South Wales, climate modeller with a major focus on land surface processes.

Professor Neville Smith, Bureau of Meteorology, expertise in ocean and climate prediction.

Professor Tony McMichael, Australian National University, expertise in impacts of climate change on environmental conditions and human health.

Dr Helen Cleugh, CSIRO, expertise in the dynamics of carbon, water and energy cycles in Australian ecosystems and the effects on climate variability and change – especially the vulnerability of land-based carbon sinks.

Dr Lisa Alexander, University of New South Wales, expertise in changes in the frequency and/or severity of extreme climate events.

Professor Brendan Mackey, Griffith University, expertise in forests and climate.

 

[Some Dude]

It is part of a theme however... if one is listening.

Wayne, that was very deceptive piece of writing you quoted with regard to the paper which explored global temperature changes over the past 11,300 years.

Lets go back to the point of the research.

One theme seems to be quote some article, others go and check the article and source research, demonstrate that it has been misrepresented (at best), little to no response, move onto next article or sub topic, rinse and repeat. I wonder why people don't adjust where they get their sources of information from or how they evaluate what information they listen to?

Definitely seems like part of a theme...

 

[orr]

Dude !!!! it's important to listen the right way:

 

[noco]

If I were Tony Abbott, when he becomes Prime Minister, on or before the 14th September, I would drop this idiot Flannery and his 1000 odd staffers on the first day in office.

What a saving that would be to the budget. Flannery alone with his $180,000 per annum. There will never ever be enough rain to fill the dams, so the stupid ALP State Governments of QLD, NSW AND VIC get conned into building costly desal plants, now all in moth balls.

And how about this other bloke Viner up north who stated kids would never ever see snow again in the Northern Hemisphere and what happened? The largest snow falls in decades in Brittain and the USA.

What a pair of wankers





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...vered-with-viner/story-e6frgd0x-1226611185281

 

[Whiskers]

The Climate Commission is nothing more than a tool set up to try to promote the justification of a carbon tax/trading scheme.

It has preconcieved terms of reference that the current global warming is totally man made.

Did you know... Australia's average temperature has increased by 0.9 °C since 1910. Bottom right of webpage below. Talk about an alarmist revelation from two years of data.

Holy ****... at that rate we'll all be fried within a decade. The end of the world is nigh!!!

Seriously...

I've lived and worked primiarily in the same area for over 50 years and the weather of the last couple of years or so, ie heat, humidity and rain is reminicent of a couple of periods, especially the 1970's... but then I suppose it's pretty easy to indoctrinate younger people who haven't been around long enough to see these things before, that it's an alarming concern.

To blame climate change for this is obsurd, simply because it's not unprecedented. Even the flooding was only marginally higher than the late 1800's... and because the impact, ie more people were affected is simply a reflection of interference with the river flows and urban sprawn in flood prone areas since then.

Similarly, to blame 'climate change' for increased bushfires is absolute garbage. Bushfires have always been happening. The only difference is more people now live in or adjacent to rural acerages without proper property management practices for fire protection, ie no controlled burnoffs in the cooler months or proper fire breaks around their property and crown land.

http://climatecommission.gov.au/about/terms-of-reference/

 

[basilio]

Wkiskers the increase in temperatures in Australia of .9C has happened over a hundred years period not two.

That would be catastrophic...

Another observation.

How can you be so certain that the entire knowledge field built up by climate scientists over the last 40 years (and going back to the 1890's ) is wrong?

Its a big call isn't it ?

 

[Some Dude]

How can you be so certain that the entire knowledge field built up by climate scientists over the last 40 years (and going back to the 1890's ) is wrong?

Its a big call isn't it ?

Not if the science was done that could show that the work performed over the last 40 years demonstrating multiple lines of evidence is wrong. Imagine the funding, as is often implied for motive, that would be available to you if you could actually demonstrate that it is wrong.

 

[Whiskers]

Wkiskers the increase in temperatures in Australia of .9C has happened over a hundred years period not two.

That would be catastrophic...

Ooops, you're right... twas late and getting a bit droopy eyed.

Another observation.

How can you be so certain that the entire knowledge field built up by climate scientists over the last 40 years (and going back to the 1890's ) is wrong?

Its a big call isn't it ?

I'm not saying the entire knowledge base is wrong. I actually have concerns about pollution, over clearing and too much scorched earth from development and industry, but far more to do with synthetic toxic chemicals and depletion of good arable land than from a significant climate change perspective. Nature has an extraodinary ability to rebalance CO2. The southern ocean for example has a huge zooplankton population that thrives on algae, which consumes CO2.

I actually did get caught up in the hysteria a bit back in the 1990's, but two main things shone through after Al Gore started pumping the issue. The first was the controvosy over the actual data. There was a lot of selective locations and as I recall "adjustments" to the actual temperature readings. It seemed locations that didn't rise in conformoty with their notion were disregarded. The other was the financial issue, geared toward a new form of tax revenue and agencies setup to facilitate this.

One apparently confounding point from the article I posted earlier is the temp is apparently increasing more in the deep ocean and under the polar ice cap. That poses the question of whether the source is more to do with movement in the earths molten core and variations in the mantle thickness with contentional shift, volcanic activity (visible and looming) and solar flares and suttle changes in inter planetary gravitational forces and the cumulative effect on the position of the molten core.

The late Indigo Jones did a lot of long range weather forcast research back in the early 1900's based on solar flare activity with good results. He forcast the early 2000's drought within a year or so, fifty years ahead (and after his death) His work is carried on by his family with as good or better results than the BOM.

Have a fiddle with the below solar position chart with particular reference to venus and Jupiter (the stronger gravitational forces) in relation to earth and the sun and solar spot/flare activity. Imagine the different forces at work. http://www.theplanetstoday.com/index.html

 

[Some Dude]

The first was the controvosy over the actual data.

Which apparent controversy do you refer to?

One apparently confounding point from the article I posted earlier is the temp is apparently increasing more in the deep ocean and under the polar ice cap.

Would you post the source data and research associated with?

Thanks

 

[Whiskers]

Which apparent controversy do you refer to?

It was a long time ago, but a google search found this Time magazine article which talks about some of it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html

Would you post the source data and research associated with?

Thanks

The third paragraph of the article

... and note the last par in the context of previous post.

 

[Some Dude]

It was a long time ago, but a google search found this Time magazine article which talks about some of it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html

And what was the take away point for you about that "controversy"? i.e. what was the specific evidence from that "controversy" that adjusted your views.

The third paragraph of the article

... and note the last par in the context of previous post.

And which part of that study suggested:

That poses the question of whether the source is more to do with movement in the earths molten core and variations in the mantle thickness with contentional shift, volcanic activity (visible and looming) and solar flares and suttle changes in inter planetary gravitational forces and the cumulative effect on the position of the molten core.

 

[Whiskers]

And what was the take away point for you about that "controversy"? i.e. what was the specific evidence from that "controversy" that adjusted your views.

Pretty much as I said before... if you come from a psychological/behavioural perspective, the lack of real consensus, hard evidence and the politicking, ie a fear of not being believed without question coupled with the intent to suppress anything that might give critics something to argue with, leaves the integrity of the reporting wide open to 'reasonable doubt' .

And which part of that study suggested:

Note they mention the decreasing sea surface temperatures in the southern ocean... decreasing as in getting colder.

Further, the north pole region around Iceland is one of the most active volcanic regions on Earth.

Because Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge, it is being split by the movements of the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate. The tectonical plates move apart, towards east and west, and both the North American- and Eurasian systems move to the northwest across the hot spot. On top of hot spots is generally a 20-100% molten layer at the depth of 5-20 km, which supplies sufficient material for eruptions. Iceland is home to more than 100 volcanoes, over 25 of which have erupted in recent history. The volcanism on Iceland is attributed to the combination of Mid Atlantic Ridge activity and hot spot activity. http://iceland.vefur.is/iceland_nature/geology_of_iceland/​

Maybe it's just that I have experience measuring soil temps for optiminal planting and fertigation that it's clear to me that deeper soil temps are not affected by atmospheric conditions.

PS: I'll throw in a map of ocean and wind currents as well.

 

[Some Dude]

Pretty much as I said before... if you come from a psychological/behavioural perspective, the lack of real consensus, hard evidence and the politicking, ie a fear of not being believed without question coupled with the intent to suppress anything that might give critics something to argue with, leaves the integrity of the reporting wide open to 'reasonable doubt' .

1. Lack of real consensus. What lack of consensus are you referring to? Can you be specific by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.
2. The politicking and intent to suppress. Can you be specific as to what was being suppressed by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.

Specifics please, not general impressions or vague allusions.

Note they mention the decreasing sea surface temperatures in the southern ocean... decreasing as in getting colder.

So the part where you said:

That poses the question of whether the source is more to do with movement in the earths molten core and variations in the mantle thickness with contentional shift, volcanic activity (visible and looming) and solar flares and suttle changes in inter planetary gravitational forces and the cumulative effect on the position of the molten core.

Was not based on any indication from the study that you referred to? Was there anything in that study that asserts any kind of contradiction or doubt about of global warming? i.e. The seemingly confounding point can't sustain anybody categorising climate change science as hysteria?

From Nature:

“The paradox is that global warming leads to more cooling and more sea ice around Antarctica,” says Richard Bintanja, a climate researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in Utrecht. Bintanja and his colleagues show that enhanced melting of the Antarctic ice sheet ”” which is losing mass at a rate of 250 gigatonnes yearly ”” has probably been the main factor behind the small but statistically significant sea-ice expansion in the region.

Scientists have known for several years that meltwater from ice sheets can form a cold, fresh layer on the ocean surface that protects sea ice from the warmer waters below. But they were not sure whether that aided the observed expansion of Antarctic sea ice as the new study suggests.

Study available at Nature Geoscience. Suplementary available for free download.

 

[explod]

“The paradox is that global warming leads to more cooling and more sea ice around Antarctica,” says Richard Bintanja, a climate researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in Utrecht. Bintanja and his colleagues show that enhanced melting of the Antarctic ice sheet ”” which is losing mass at a rate of 250 gigatonnes yearly ”” has probably been the main factor behind the small but statistically significant sea-ice expansion in the region.

I have been tyrying to get this vibe across for some time.

I admit to be nowhere near any explert. But I follow my own observations and the news on it like some following football.

I think we may have a real problem with burning coal and oil to the point where we should be taking attention and doing something about it.

My closest Brother died last week so have been quiet. I did not mention it as wayneL thinks I use such things to take advantage of everyone.

 

[Whiskers]

So the part where you said:



Was not based on any indication from the study that you referred to?

I suppose I should have repeated also, that they refered to melt from below the glaciers. Sure melt from atmospheric conditions can find its way down, but where is the conclusive proof that it's all from atmospheric and nothing to do with something else.

As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.


Take a big step back for a moment and look at the 'big' historic picture. Aren't we coming off an ice age and not yet reached historic high temps!?

What caused the ice ages and warming cycles?

Also note the warming of .9 C from 1910... a bit alarmist and insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, isn't it?

Miles of charts here: http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

Maybe you could provide the update for the lower chart, up to say 2012.