By Mike Marriott	2012 Heat Wave, 2013 Australian Heatwave, The New Normal
Australia's record breaking heat continues: warmest 12 months on record
Sometimes a picture says it all:
From the BoM FaceBook page.
The entire continent is experiencing above-average-to-highest-on-record temperatures.
Summer looks grim.
210 thoughts on "Australia's record breaking heat continues: warmest 12 months on record"
ikonfilm says:
I wonder if Tony Abbott will dismantle the BOM in response.
maybe he will hire Watts, so that they can together scream about station "bad siting" and move them all.
Every year.
Meteo stations makers could cash so much money that way …
Where is the red and purple this means nothing without red and purple.
how effin warm can orange be?
astrostevo says:
Well look and see and read the key!
( Its on the right hand side and says "highest on record" for the stronger, darker orange and "very much above average" for the paler yellower orange.
Also from this BOM site :
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml
"The mean temperature anomaly, +2.75 °C set a record for Australia's largest positive monthly mean temperature anomaly, for any month, displacing the previous record of +2.66 °C in April 2005."
Were people complaining or were they out enjoying the warmer than normal winter weather?
J Giddeon says:
Australians are desperately trying to avoid the heat. That's why so many more of them migrate from the southern states to the Queensland than visa versa!
yep here they come
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/interstate-migration-to-queensland-crashes-to-near-30-year-low/story-e6freoof-1226000730980
Courier Mail or ABS?
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetsim?opendocument&navpos=450
or fact
Queensland's net interstate migration remains low
The net gain from interstate migration in the year to 30 June 2012 was 11,800 people, down from a peak of 37,980
people in the year to 30 June 2003, although higher than the level for the previous 12 months (7,150). However,
this was still the largest net interstate migration gain over the year among Australia's states and territories.
http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/publications/pop-growth-highlights-trends-qld/pop-growth-highlights-trends-qld-2013.pdf
JB,
Boy you're a dill. I made one simple point which is entirely supported by the facts…""many more of them migrate from the southern states to the Queensland than visa versa"
And then you spend 3 or 4 posts trying to prove that black is white. Yes, the stampede north has become a mere rush but my original point remains unchallengable.
just as big a stampede west twodicks
Describing climate change as "a defining challenge of our time," and recognizing the "mutual benefits to intensifying cooperation," they also welcomed the efforts of the UN Secretary General in mobilizing political will through 2014, toward the successful adoption of a protocol, another legal instrument, or an agreed outcome with legal force under the convention which would be applicable to all parties by 2015, during COP-21 which France stands ready to host.
http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/prime-minister-singh-and-president-obama-announce-india-us-climate-change-working-group/
Meanwhile, in that mysterious place called 'The Rest of the World':
Malta – 2nd coolest July on record.
Arctic – coldest summer ever according to DMI
USA – record cold July in many parts of the fly-over states.
England – coldest spring since 19th century.
What does the "G" in AGW stand for?
Yes, I know what RCP8.5 is. But it is just one of several potential outcomes. I know you, and most alarmist, prefer it because it yields the scariest results and that's what its all about.
But other scenarios yield different, less alarmist guesses. Lomborg used one of those other scenarios for his sea level rise. So when you say he didn't understand AR5 because he didn't use the scariest guesses, you are wrong.
I know that in this funny little world you inhabit, disagreeing with your conclusions is the same thing as being wrong, but you are wrong there.
Okay then which RCP did he choose?
Wrong thread?
no it will follow you around until you answer it
Still stalking?
you said Lomborg used a lower RCP yet do not appear to know what it was.
surely or shirley you knew what RCP he used when you posted the above,
bit of a dickhead if you didn't
1. I've already answered your question in the correct thread but clearly without the required alacrity. Don't worry you'll develop patience when you grow up.
2. Avoiding the question so I guess that's a yes to stalking
3.Don't call me shirley.
So which level of action is he arguing for, maintaining co2 concentration below 520PPM or below 620PPM
RCP 4.5
Emissions peak around mid century at around 50% higher than 2000 levels and then decline rapidly over 30 years and then stabilise at half of 2000 levels. CO2 concentration continues on trend to about 520 ppm in 2070 and continues to increase but more slowly.
RCP 6
In this scenario, emissions double by 2060 and then dramatically fall but remain well above current levels. CO2 concentration continues increasing, though at a slower rate in the latter parts of the century, reaching 620 ppm by 2100.
both of these scenarios require global policies to start limiting greenhouse gases now
even lomborg acknowledges that " start fixing it now with low-cost, realistic innovation"
t_p_hamilton says:
G stands for global. Globally very hot in July. AGW predicts weakening of the polar vortex, which apparently leads to more frequent blocking events, i.e. climate change.
Malta has an area of 316 km2, Gids. One month was cool.
Australia has an area of 7,700,000km2. 12 months of record warmth
Do you understand there is a difference in area and period, Gids?
England's spring was the fifth coolest since 1910, and coolest since 1965 according to UK Met….where the hell did you get your figure?
July in the US, according to NOAA, was characterised by extremes. The NW and NE experienced near-record and record warmth, while the SE near record cold.with one county experiencing record cold. Thank you for obscuring the reality.
Meanwhile central Europe experienced record warmth in July, only to see records again broken in August.
Despite a DMI coldest summer in the Arctic,SSTs were at historic highs,so check mate buddy….and Autumn sees temperature tracking above the mean. DMI's means are model derived and are strongly biased by the coldest temperature in the set,so are very approximate.
So, problems with your info ruin your perspective.
@J Giddeon : "What does the "G" in AGW stand for?"
Indeed. It means global and this means that cherry-picking a few exceptions tothe rule doesn't show its not happening merely that some people like yourself don't quite understand what global or average means.
Human-Induced Rapid Global Overheating is about trends and large areas and never says that record cold spells in some places won't happen only that on average and globe wide things will get hotter – among other things.
"Overheating"?
Talk about an exaggeration!
No, a word choice to reflect that its not just getting warm but rather getting excessively hot.
cannot have overheating astrostevo must always stick either to warm or cold .
using the words hot or overheating is a no no
"ice age is coming as temperatures plummet" also seems acceptable in the loonie lala land of WUWT's flying monkey circus
Was it "excessively hot" mid-Holocene years ago when the earth was the same temperature? That's exactly what the Marcott reconstruction shows. Was it "excessively hot" when it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That's exactly what ice cores show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
It's not excessively hot. Not even close. It *might* get excessively hot in 100 or 200 years but that is still to be determined. To claim otherwise is flat out wrong.
Was it "excessively hot" when it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That's exactly what ice cores show.
love it, who told you that, lindzen.
john are you incapable of understanding that simple chart that shows temperature based on the ice core reconstruction?
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/tony-browns-cooling-england.html
Mike, I noticed that some denier sites, as WUWT did in 2010, were recently pushing the bullshit line that the Danish Meteorological Institute data shows record cold in the Arctic. I wouldn't be surprised if moronic deniers coming here try the same garbage too with very little understanding of exactly what that data set represents and the reasons why it can't be used as some sort of reference for the entire Arctic. Rather than rehashing what others have already done, here is a 2010 article at SkS that explains it quite clearly such that even the deniers with double digit IQ's should be able to understand it. http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-data-on-Arctic-temperatures-Intermediate.html
too late a moron has already claimed that, after i stopped laughing I had a look at his other cold records Malta for july lowest temp about 17DegC
his others all brought up dickheads like goddard and watts links
http://appmalta.mobi/maltaweathersite/blog/?p=4788
Its an interesting little virtuous circle you guys have here. When the temps move in ways that aren't approved the alarmist sites clam up and the only people talking about it are the skeptics (and visa versa for warming temps).
Then you reject the data about colder weather by claiming its only the 'dickheads' talking about it.
still laughing, an entire globe to pick from to prove something and the best you can do is
and even then you can only produce one link for DMI with a coolest night of 17Degc
and you have not got a clue about DMI Arctic, same as you have not got a clue about RCP's
come on lets have your links
K largo says:
Here is a link for you from BoM. It also has some pretty pictures like the one above.
Issued two years ago. Didn't get much of a run at the time. Certainly not here.
SPECIAL CLIMATE STATEMENT 33 Coldest autumn for Australia since at least 1950.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs33.pdf
yes i remember, it was cloudy and raining
A major driver for the cool conditions in autumn was unusually heavy rainfall. Rainfall averaged
over Australia in autumn 2011 was 68% above the autumn average of 120.5 mm and ranked as
Australia's fourth wettest autumn on record. This was strongly influenced by the wet conditions in
March 2011 where Australia recorded rainfall 141% above the March average. March 2011 ranked
as Australia's wettest March on record and the third wettest month (of any calendar month) on
record. April was also above average (by 18%); however, with the decay of the 2010/11 La Niña
the influence on Australia's rainfall dropped off with below average rainfall recorded in May (by
46%). It was the wettest autumn on record for the Northern Territory, and ranked seventh in
Queensland and tenth in South Australia. Areas that recorded well above average autumn rainfall
include large parts of northern and central Australia. The western areas of Western Australia, as
well as western Tasmania and other scattered areas across Australia, had well below average
rainfall (figure 8). A number of sites had record rainfall in autumn with some sites recording
rainfall over 500% of their autumn mean (table 5).
The point, which was obviously too subtle for you to follow, was that high temps in Aust aren't proof of anything other than it was hot in Aust. Equally cold temps in Malta or the upper Arctic or the fly-over states or England aren't proof of anything other than its not hot everywhere.
I understand your fretting here. If the temps have spent the last 15-20yrs not doing what you want, then you are going to grasp at any straw that might float by. But high temps in aust, even record high temps, are but a passing curiosity.
I just collected on a bet with a denialist who thought it unlikely that Australia (as a whole) would break a warm record in any 12-month period.
And look likely to collect on a record for the January to December period.
Also have a few bets running at good odds of a new global warm record in the near future.
What odds can you quote me?
Otherwise shut up.
Again, Gids: Malta area 316km2, Australia area 7,700,000km2…and periods compare 30 days and 365 days….do you concede you are not comparing apples with apples?
"do you concede you are not comparing apples with apples?"
Well not concede given that that word has overtones of backtracking. I never sought to compare these things. My point, obviously made too subtly, was that, while there was record heat here, it wasn't global.
Tell me, do you really think that a record high in Aust in any way validates the theory? I'd like to know because I'm still trying to work out just how radical the approved views are in this group.
It would be very unusual to find a global scale anomaly covering every inch of the network, as in every part of every continent above [or below] the baseline period. We have just experienced the warmest decade globally since adequate records were kept, and none of those years were free of areas of occasional anomalous cold. If you want to point to anomalous cold, it's perfectly fair to ask you why you would consider an area the size of Malta and its surrounding sea meaningful as a regional indicator, when the obvious case of Australia is much more reasonable. Are you suggesting that the anomalous cold is outweighing areally the anomalous warmth? Cos it ain't.
And you got the other stuff just plain wrong, or as with July in the US, omitted nearby data. But it's not your fault, professional liar Morano tried it on and you obediently trusted him to be honest. Maybe in future you will treat his efforts with some skepticism and check them before he steers you into another wall.
@J Giddeon : "You reject the data about colder weather by claiming its only the 'dickheads' talking about it."
Really? Citations very much needed.
A good example of where someone supporting the science explains why colder than usual weather phenomena also occur as a result of Human-Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) is here :
No name-calling and a good explanation for y'all. Oh & this was from a couple of years ago but still as valid now as before.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/December-2009-record-cold-spells.htm
Hansen's analogy of the loaded dice -note one side of the dice is still blue.
Really please look at these and think seriously on what that tell us.
Australia has just had it's hottest twelve month period on record in an ENSO neutral year
malta is not even as big as an outer brisbane suburb and brisbane just had its warmest winter on record
you still have no idea about the arctic temps even though end of winter volume for ice was the lowest ever
now put up your links for flyover states and england
as your score so far is zero
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/coldest-spring-in-england-since-1891/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/30/1122-record-cold-temps-in-the-u-s-in-one-week/
poor bastards have been waiting all year to find a month with these figures, waiting waiting , do not mention june or may or april or march or febuary or january
and the WUWT claim is not supported by the daily mail link?
good to know what you consider to be science sites though
I don't consider them to be science sites, in the same way as I don't consider Sks to be science site. They are all advocacy sites. But they are places to jump off to check things out.
eg download CET data, run your own tests and see if the claim checks out. On second thoughts, don't bother. You'd need to be numerate.
So to date, you've not found anything wrong with my original point other than you'd prefer it wasn't true.
SKS links to science whenever it posts , wuwt has guest post from complete idiots and links to newspaper articles which themselves are written by people not even qualified to speak on the subjects they post
you have contradicted yourself and are too blinkered to notice it
you claim nothing is happening and link to lomborg who believes that it will take care of itself by the time we get to three degrees.
why does lomborg think that a three degrees rise is okay ?
Does he? Where did he say that? Not that I necessarily disagree but I don't recall reading anywhere that he said that. Or are you just making stuff up again? Does that often work for you?
You said it for him unless you do not understand these
and now you think that 3Degc would be okay, any science to back that inane belief or is it just part of your other fantasies "
we are only at 0.85DegC above preindustrial and the SPM recognizes that extreme events are in fact increasing
just how much more with and extra 2.15DegC
what a stupid person you are,
Lomborg gets his distortions regurgitated by The Australian,who then echo them in the following days editorial. The claim that there are net benefits from AGW going forward until late in the century is NOT born by an honest reading of WG1
This is a real information crisis. Lomborg lies and The Australian reinforces it. Pure mendacity, simple corruption.
JB, you're like a dog with a bone. And even when I tell you its you're own leg you're gnawing on, you re-double your efforts.
I never said Lomborg bought RCP4.5 or 6 or that I bought RCP4.5 or 6. You started out asserting that Lomborg completely misunderstood the SPM because he'd used 2ft as the SLR number rather than your preferred 98cm.
I pointed out that you were wrong because other RCP did come to 2ft SLR and Lomborg probably used those. I note that you haven't acknowledged that you were wrong to say he misunderstood the SPM but no one, least of all me, expects you to acknowledge any of your errors. I've also now noticed that the guess for mean SLR under RCP8.5 is 63cm (2ft give or take). So Bjorn might have been using that.
Anyway, irrespective of which scenario he used for his SLR figure, it doesn't mean he then has to accept the very minutiae of every single guess made about that particular RCP.
Sometimes it is possible to think for yourself. You should try it one day.
you are talking gibberish again the RCP8.5
@RC
"82 cm is the average for the period 2081-2100, not the level reached in 2100. Both the curves up to 2100 and those 20-year averages are shown in Fig. 3 above. Note that the additional rise of up to 16 cm in the final decade illustrates the horrendous rates of rise we can get by the end of the century with unmitigated emissions.
It is also worth noting that the 98 cm is the upper value of a "likely" range (66% probability to be within that range). As IPCC also notes, we could end up "several tens of centimeters" higher if the marine-based parts of the Antarctic ice sheet become unstable. Leading ice experts, like Richard Alley and Rob De Conto, consider this a serious risk"
so the 98cm by 2100 is in the likely range no where near the worst case possible.
trying to claim a 2ft rise by 2100 from the chart is not only misleading it is dishonest
AR5 SPM table SPM.2
exactly. now read again ""82 cm is the average for the period 2081-2100, not the level reached in 2100".
whenever people just comment such as this "AR5 SPM table SPM.2"
he is saying that he does not have a clue but it looks like he does
clothhead
oh by the way
Gavin Schmidt ‏@ClimateOfGavin 20h
WAIS collapse is not being ruled out. Currently accelerating loss #RSclimate
Ice loss increase in last decade v. likely in Greenland, likely in Antarctica, mount. glaciers larger right now
so now we have watts morano and lomborg all lying by omission,
and if you think that lomborg is using RCP8.5, you've have had a go at just about every other scenario to date all requiring real action to reduce emissions, then this is the RCP8.5 outcome for temperature
": RCP8.5 is actually even worse than the temperatures out to 2100 would indicate, since at 2100 in RCP8.5 you are still emitting carbon at a rate of 20GtC per year. If it takes another century to get that down to zero, the additional carbon emitted boosts the peak warming to something more like 8C. The graphs in this summary are the usual time range out to 2100, but a new wrinkle in AR5 is that the report did give some consideration to what happens over the coming millennium — hinted at in the reference to "irreversibility." –raypierre]
even being really kind to lomborg he has misread
selecting even his 600mm figure it still gives over 700mm by 2100 in the 66% confidence range
so he cannot have used RCP8.5, unless he was lying
"whenever people just comment such as this "AR5 SPM table SPM.2″
Ahhh a new pejorative. . as the rules of this site just there for show?
Anyway, it doesn't show "he does not have a clue". It does show that he is completely frustrated with your determination to deny the most basic of facts.
Your sources are lying by omission: cherry-picking and excluding. History shows us that the citing of Watts and Morano is an admission of an intent to decieve.
Please do not insult our intelligence by linking to them.
I could never insult your intelligence, Nick.
I've avoided linking to places like WUWT since I figured it would elicit an irrational outburst. Most true beleivers are very careful to ensure they aren't exposed to any contrary views or data.
In this case I was merely pointing to an analysis of CET data on WUWT. Just because its on WUWT doesn't make it wrong. If you want you can, as I did, download the CET data and check the claims for yourself.
I swear that sometimes I think that if Watts said the sun rose in the east there'd be a whole alarmist community suddenly trying to re-write Copernicus.
The data is what it is, irrespective of who uses it.
A link to Watts is followed by the invariable uncovering of a falsehood,distortion or some crank inanity. If Watts claimed the sun rose in the east it would be a true measure of his competence,as for once he would not be over-reaching. I'll give you a perfectly rational outburst , backed by his record on the internet: Watts is an incompetent fool, and a blight on communication. He is a bad faith operator.
The CET is not as accurately representative of whole England temperature as the full modern network. The full network trumps CET stupidity from Watts every time.He avoided it because it contradicted a claim he wanted to press. If you think you are getting any traction by using Watts, think again. It only proves you are either gullible or intent on deception.
The article said "According to the Central England Temperature Series, England has just experienced its coldest Spring since 1891. ".
guess what?…when you look at the data (remember the data?) the CET shows that, according to that data, "England has just experienced its coldest Spring since 1891. " Sheesh.
Its just so anti-intellectual to assert that data is wrong because its presented by the wrong messenger.
sounds like intent on deception
Jeebus….it's not getting through to you is it, Gids? The margin of error in extrapolating the CET to represent UK temps is much larger than using the full data suite. If it was truly representative they would call it the All England Temperature Series, wouldn't they? UKMet do not use the CET as representative of the British Isles: they use all the station data to determine the matter.
Can it be any more obvious that Watts is having a lend of you?
JG: "this flower is red"
Nick": "that's a complete lie and you are a fool for believing it because that flower over there is blue".
Your analogy is completely wide of the mark: we are looking at one claim about one area…and you have selected the less fit data set, and extrapolated it for a purpose that it is not well suited. A more apt analogy would be "JG: this flower is red. N: this is the same red flower and in better focus."
"The data is what it is, irrespective of who uses it"…It's not who [though Watts is obnoxious],it's what it's being used to support. Watts wants to extrapolate from a few stations to make a claim about the UK, while the UKMet uses a larger network spanning the whole area. Whose claims about a month throughout the UK are more representative: the multi-station network or the CET?
Here's the CET, or HadCET They data collectors certainly do not claim it is representative of England, but what would they know? Watts has cast around for some melodrama and discover that the best data set does not provide it, so out it goes in favor of the lesser one,and never mind the CET isn't England.
Abbott, get out of coal or suffer the economics consequences
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/darwin-69517
Those darn sceptics cost a lot of money. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy
and on and on but humans are too stupid
it is their planet also
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2013/Agency-reports-10,000-walrus-ashore-in-northwest-Alaska-as-ice-recedes-beyond-shallow-water/id-405f4c3bcc7447a883a530e5f6601e6f
AR5 WG1 Michael the Mann
http://www.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html
Attention, J. Giddeon
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/cc.offthecharts1.pdf
AS I WRITE, the bulldozers and chainsaws are brutalising another superb stand of ancient forest not far from where I am in Orbost, south-eastern Victoria.
Those trees have stood for 600 years, sheltering and feeding generations of greater gliders and powerful owls; the lush understorey of ferns and blanket leaf have kept delicate lichens and mosses damp and cool in the hottest summers over the millennia.
and this is the mob claiming that they will plant carbon forests WTF
the new normal Arctic
http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i10/p35_s1?bypassSSO=1
APN getting the message out
http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/sweaty-september-smashes-records-more-heat-come/2040189/
Scepticism by consenus? Yes, http://scef.org.uk/index.php/component/content/article/54-general-/96-the-sceptic-view
A guy named Mike Haseler has written " As chairman of the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum I would like to make it clear that the agreed text of the "sceptic view" makes it clear that we do not "deny global warming" and such a statement is a lie. Full text of Sceptic View is available at the SCEF website."
Wingnuts of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your reason.
so basically it is a conspiracy
I particularly like this one
"Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the "medieval warm period" as well as being cooler during the "little ice age"."
It's a good thing they had those accurate thermometers all around the globe way back then and not proxies or anecdotes to measure temperatures during the "medieval warm period" and "little ice age".
On their blog they still cannot agree that he has it right after five rewrites, comments are a wee hoot mon
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/the-sceptic-view-rev-0-5/
That sort of ignorance -they don't even understand the idea of proxy- proves they should not be taking part in a 'debate'. Pure D-K.
Yeah I don't know why they'd be wary of proxies. After all Ms Gergis and her pals were able to use these marvellous proxy datasets, some of which weren't even on mainland Oz to determine Aust temps 800 years ago to within 1/100th of a degree. Truly miraculous.
And we know she was right on the money about this, because her paper was peer-reviewed and all.
So you and lomborg have made complete fools of yourselves with his
"the IPCC estimates the Sea level rise by end of century as 1,5ft to 2ft"
(450 to 600mm)
now you do not know the difference between Australia and Australasian
Gergis et al is not the only proxy study for the area
and you still failed to understnd what the dickheads at the denier site where saying
Proxies are no good except the ones that produce the MWP, which we now know were regional in any case
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/fresh-hockey-sticks-from-the-southern-hemisphere/
So three of the four RCP find SLR of 2ft (two as the upper limit, 1 as the mean) and Lomborg is a fool to use that number? OK, if you say so!
(Interesting that you'd prefer to be seen as a dill rather than admit you were originally incorrect)
As to proxies, I think its marvellous that we can use NZ and Tassie proxies to determine temps several thousand km away, 100s of yrs ago to a precision of two decimal places. Just wondrous things those proxies. That's probably why Mr Mann used them – although for some reason never explained he preferred some to others.
Is it valid to call it a study given its ignominious end? Or is it de rigueur here to consign that unfortunate incident to the memory hole.
the gergis paper isn in review now
http://joellegergis.com/?page_id=6
RCP8.5 SLR 2100 equals 500mm to nearly one metre way higher than lomborg's claim
Lomborg has told a lie and you fell for it claiming that it was within the range of RCP8.5
So to achieve a sea level rise below two feet we will need strong mitigation measures
yet you had claimed that we do not because you did not know that RCP's were emissions scenarios
Congtratulations on completely missing my point. On Gergis, I'll look forward to reading your peer reviewed published rebuttal shall I?
even mcintyre has conceded that after revision the hockey stick will still be there in the gergis paper,
all these skeptic papers got past peer review as well, they are all rebutted
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-agw-papers-debunked/
science works
AR5 says the mean SLR under RCP8.5 is guessed to be 63cm. Done. But its clear you want to ignore that. OK do so but the rest of us don't have to follow that deceit.
Can you let me know what other parts of AR5 you intend to ignore as being incompatible with the one true faith?
A hockey stick is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if it will still show temps in the 13th century being a whole 0.09C lower than now. I just don't know how the flora and fauna have survived the rapid increase in temps from that time.
9/100ths of a degree…oh the humanity.
"Congtratulations on completely missing my point."
didn't miss it…just thought it was bollocks and so ignored it.
Point proven beyond doubt. Thanks for the admission. You're just as stupid as the hypocrite. I think I'll go back to ignoring your idiocy.
The point was, Gids, that, after rejecting climate proxies as unreliable, in the next breath Haseler went on to make an assertion about relative MWP warmth based on…drum roll…climate PROXY evidence.
Can I just expalin something that I know will be forgotten 2 seconds later? Not all sceptics think the same. No really, its true. But this idea that i'm a sceptic and they are sceptics and therefore I'm bound to defend what they say is shite.
Now I know that in your little circle it doesn't work that way and everyone is required to think and act like everyone else. If one swine decides to creepily stalk another poster, then everyone else needs to look the other way or defend the indefensible.
But that's not me. I didn't raise a finger to support or otherwise what these people said. I just used it to segue into my own views on proxies. To summarise, I think proxies are the most masochistic of data…they love to be tortured.
"Not all sceptics think the same. No really, its true."
"But this idea that i'm a sceptic…."
Trust me, I will never accuse you of being a sceptic. You are anything but a sceptic. You are a denier but don't worry, we are all fully aware that there are degrees of denial. For example, you certainly don't seem to be like the completely batshit crazy ones that try to rewrite physics and deny there is even a greenhouse effect.
But here's the thing that the vast majority of deniers have in common and you seem to be one. They all rubbish the science when they don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about. They think "science" is something any idiot with google and excel can do. None of them can justify why they think climate science somehow has different conventions to other branches of science. They will happily take the advice of their doctor, their lawyer, their mechanic or any other expert in their life yet they are rarely critical of any garbage trotted out by non-experts that support as long as it supports their own ill-formed opinion. Don't get me wrong, you are completely entitled to your own opinion. You are also allowed to voice it. What you are not entitled to though, is your own truth. Especially when that truth is based on lies.
JG" But this idea that i'm a sceptic and they are sceptics and therefore I'm bound to defend what they say is shite."
you just did in this nonsense
What established science have I denied?
comprehension fail
very much in line with
https://watchingthedeniers.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ssl.png?w=580&h=466
the mean 2081 to 2100 is 63cm that is not the mean of the SLR at 2100 it is the mean over that 20 year period .
the mean at 2100 is nearly 750mm as you would expect with a range of 500mm to nearly 1000mm
so you had no idea what RCP's were and no idea what the chart is showing
that was for clothhead
and as stefan rahmstort stated
"the final decade illustrates the horrendous rates of rise we can get by the end of the century with unmitigated emissions."
what does 'clothhead' even mean? or doesn't the childish namecalling need to make sense?
Definition of cloth head in English
cloth head
a stupid person.
JG – has it not entered your thick skull that we no longer play Mr Niceguy when dealing with thickheads.
Yes Dr No, I'm very well aware of the "we" in the group. Similarly we have JB saying "everyone here thinks"….
There's a really element of groupthink here where everyone thinks or pretends to think the same thing – safety in the herd. Even when members stray into unequivocally unethical behaviour, the "we" avert their eyes or race to support that behaviour.
But being told that the "we" thinks I'm this or that is about as convincing as being told by the throng in Jonestown that only idiots think the Kool Aid isn't nutritious.
Do you accuse people who accept the Theory of Evolution, the Laws of Gravity, Heliocentrism or even that the Earth is an obloid spheroid as being guilty of groupthink? Same for climate science. The fact you don't get that is the central part of your problem. As for your assertion that someone here is engaging in "unequivocally unethical behaviour", how about growing a pair and saying who and what that is?
you do realise that you are on a site where most accept the science,.
when you come in with absolute drivel then you will be challenged
when you resort to absolute crap then you will be called am idiot
if you want a site where you can say whatever shit comes into your head and everyone will cheer you on then go to the site where you get your nonsense from such as WUWT
here you are just a total waste of time
" As for your assertion that someone here is engaging in "unequivocally unethical behaviour", how about growing a pair and saying who and what that is?"
JB and his stalking of another poster here so as to unsuccessfully 'prove' he was a Christian.
This was discussed across many threads over quite a timeframe. I see Mr uknowispeaksense that you are expert at averting your eyes.
By the way, do you have a shortened form for your name? I always feel dirty when I write out the whole thing – being forced to tell a lie.
I know you think that's clever but it isn't very original so if you want to know what you can call me, you can call me Mr Uknowispeaksense.
Since when is looking at someone's publicly available Facebook posts unethical? And is it unequivocable? I have a dictionary you can borrow because I think you need it.
Oh and your faux outrage at legal behaviour and my alleged ignoring of said behaviour is transparently childish and silly. You are an intellectual lightweight and if you want to have a go at demonstrating more of that, be my guest, but you are way out of your depth. The fact you don't seem to recognise your inadequacies was at first a little sad but I am now starting to find it quite entertaining. You are a poster child for idiocy and quite frankly the more you display that the better service you are providing.
"Do you accuse people who accept the Theory of Evolution, the Laws of Gravity, Heliocentrism or even that the Earth is an obloid spheroid as being guilty of groupthink? "
Do you really, I mean really, think that AGW is as well established as the Laws of Gravity? Really? FFS you guys really are true-believers. Not a sceptic bone in your body.
When was the last time gravity took an unexpected hiatus? Wow. Dill central.
A hiatus in 3% of the system is not really a hiatus. There is more than enough evidence to show where the heat is. 4 hiroshima bombs per second building in the oceans. Perhaps you don't think the oceans are part of the global climate system? But let's get to the crux of things. Are all the climate scientists making this stuff up? Yes or no?
"if you want a site where you can say whatever shit comes into your head and everyone will cheer you on…. "
I don't want or need people to cheer me on…that's your go. I'm enjoying myself here. The self-contained and self-reinforcing certainty within the group is fascinating. Only approved information allowed. Only approved views allowed. All unwanted data expunged in a group approved effort in a group approved way.
what data? where? wuwt? nova? mcintyre?
Thickhead : "I'm enjoying myself here."
More like "pleasuring" .
Ah, the logical fallacy of false equivalence…
A sure sign that one is talking to an idiot. At least he had the good grace to admit that he was "dill central".
"the mean 2081 to 2100 is 63cm"
hurrah…finally.
that is not the 2100 mean, just how thick are you?, do you even understand by end of century is at 2100?
Lomborg's claim ""the IPCC estimates the Sea level rise by end of century as 1,5ft to 2ft" is a lie ?
if he was honest he would have stated that " the IPCC estimates the sea level rise by end of century as 1ft to over 3ft depending on the RCP outcomes"
or are you still getting your means mixed up?
If he was writing a 47 page treatise that was going to be forensically analysed by morons actively seeking to find any little semantic ambiguity on which to hang, no matter how tenuously, a claim of error, then he might have written what you said.
But instead he was writing for common-sense adults.
common sense adults like you? who had absolutely no idea that he was telling you a lie and you fell for it, even after about fifteen times explaining why he lied you still carry on like a pork chop, no wonder everyone here thinks you have a real problem facing reality
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pork%20chop
" the IPCC estimates the sea level rise by end of century as 1ft to over 3ft depending on the RCP outcomes"
so six extra words requires a 47 page treatise to get it correct.,
you really are an incredibly stupid person
… as well as a wanker.
"Since when is looking at someone's publicly available Facebook posts unethical?"
Nothing wrong with looking at someone's Facebook page if that's your thing. I'm sure in a bygone age the JB's and U's of this world used to furtively peer of the back fence at the neighbours laundry. Same thing really. But trawling through two years worth in an attempt to find anything that could be taken out of context and used to ridicule is neither ethical nor sane.
"And is it unequivocable? I have a dictionary you can borrow because I think you need it."
No, the word is unequivocally. According to the Cambridge dictionary there is no such word as 'unequivocable'. Perhaps you ought to keep that dictionary. But a word of advice – maybe you should use it occasionally.The trouble is you are so full of yourself that it would never occur to you that you'd need to look anything up.
Fear not Mr U, the group will now avert their gaze and pretend not to notice that your pomposity has led you astray yet again.
No it wasn't unethical for john byatt to look at my Facebook page. It was creepy for him to read it for at least a month and then post hints about it including a paraphrased quote from almost 2 years ago that I was supposed to recognize. When I asked him for a link to where I had said it he refused to post one knowing that would expose him as reading my personal Facebook pages. BTW this site has a policy about that:
Immediate bans will be placed on those who "cyber stalk" and try to identify either the blog owner and/or commentators.
I never posted a link to my Facebook page on this site. John byatt claims to have found it somewhere else. He posted hints about pages I had Liked on Facebook and things I had posted but when I accused him of reading my Facebook posts he denied it and accused me of slander. He claims he doesn't have a Facebook page but you must be logged in to read anyone's posts regardless of whether they are public or private.
When I changed my security settings to prevent him from reading accessing my page he noticed it the same day. That alone proves he was reading my page that day and not just one time a month ago when he "came across it". Two days before that he mentioned a site I had just liked that day. It's when you consider his actions as a whole that they are unethical and a violation of this site's policies.
He still minimizes what he did by saying "It took 20 seconds to scroll down" but anyone who has a Facebook page knows that is complete bullshit. He also makes it sound like he looked at it once but he posts prove he was reading it at least daily at times. John byatt continues to minimize, distort, shift blame, and deny. He also continues to accuse me of lying about being an atheist.
I can't figure out why he apparently NEEDS me to be a christian for whatever reason. He even claimed that I had "praised god" but of course if he had seen a post of mine or anything else where I had actually "praised god" then he would have posted it. He's proven himself to be not only unethical but also a liar.
Some here have no issue with john byatt's behavior. I find it creepy and a violation of this site's written policies.
If anyone wants to play along at home you can start here:
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/california-feels-the-heat-new-report-notes-impact-of-climate-change-significant-and-growing/#comment-46638
what a complete load of bollocks,
seems that readers are on to you bill
Rodger the Dodger says:
My question is to Bill Jamison,
Why do you continue to haunt the comments section of this site? The science of global warming is over 150 years old, and was settled over 30 years ago. Your continual and monotonous protestation will never change the facts. Most intelligent people have moved on, accepted the fact and are now rolling up their sleeves to do something about it. You on the other hand act like a nasty dumpy troll with a vendetta. No capacity for rational thought or insight. Start acting like an adult, move on and direct your juvenile frustration somewhere else. I hear that burning ants with a magnifying glass in pretty good. We've all seen your type many times before. Hanging around forums like a bad smell with evangelical determination, posting pointless, inane and bigoted ramblings. You enjoyment is to taunt and provoke, and never giving any respect. Is there something mentally wrong with you? Where you abused as a child? Why do you persist? Why not just cut your losses and do something constructive with your life.
Yep, I'm pretty sure they will avert their eyes from my typo. Don't forget to look up "yep" since that seems to be your thing. It may or may not be word. Obfuscation is a good word too. That also seems to be your thing.
john byatt please point out anything that I wrote that wasn't accurate and then correct me. This should be good.
ahhh, Bernie, it was Mr U who draw the comparison. I merely responded to point out the lunacy of that.
JG "When was the last time gravity took an unexpected hiatus? Wow. Dill central".
What a truly wonderful example of denial, of course all the sceptics knew that gravity would prevent man ever building heavier than air machines, I mean it was quite obvious.
Heavier than air flying machines impossible – Nasa
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/…/fg_kitty_hawk_12.17.03_prt.htm‎
Dec 17, 2003 – "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," said this very … "Professor Goddard does not know the relationship between action and .
petar-hoist-own
some real classics here, worlds most stoopid claims
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/stoopid.lis
would appear that gravity has been in a hiatus since the first aircraft took off
" Most, if not all, of the five global mass extinctions in Earth's history carry the fingerprints of the main symptoms of global carbon perturbations (global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia or lack of oxygen; e.g. Veron, 2008).
It is these three factors — the 'deadly trio' — which are present in the ocean today. In fact, the current carbon perturbation is unprecedented in the Earth's history because of the high rate and speed of change. Acidification is occurring faster than in the past 55 million years, and with the added man-made stressors of overfishing and pollution, undermining ocean resilience".
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/ipso-2011-workshop-summary.cfm
"The Ocean has already absorbed more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system and around 33% of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans. Ecosystems are collapsing as species are pushed to extinction and natural habitats are destroyed. Scientists believe that there is still time to prevent irreversible, catastrophic changes to our marine ecosystems but that this requires drastic action within a decade."
"As a matter of urgency, the marine scientists say that world governments must:
• Reduce global C02 emissions to limit temperature rise to less than 2o
C, or
below 450 CO2e. Current targets for carbon emission reductions are
insufficient in terms of ensuring coral reef survival and other biological effects
of acidification, especially as there is a time lag of several decades between
atmospheric CO2 and CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Potential knock-on effects
of climate change in the ocean, such as methane release from melting "
I though that two dicks had denied the 450ppm limit
JG "Do you really, I mean really, think that AGW is as well established as the Laws of Gravity? "
what about evolution?
you do of course accept evolution we take it?
So no one prepared to support U's assertion that AGW is as well established scientifically as the Laws of Gravity? Just a rush to change the subject. SOP for this group.
i am afraid that once again you have failed basic comprehension
uki ""Do you accuse people who accept the Theory of Evolution, the Laws of Gravity, Heliocentrism or even that the Earth is an obloid spheroid as being guilty of groupthink? ""
So do you?
Sorry, I didn't realise this was a test.
Of course AGW is as real as gravity, evolution, the heliocentric solar system and a spherical planet Earth.
Only a scientific ignoramus would argue otherwise.
Sorry JB, one moronic assertion at a time. Gravity first.
No zoot, this issue isn't whether AGW is real, the issue is whether the theory is as well established and understood as the Laws of Gravity.
eg using the laws of gravity we've been able to send space-craft beyond the heliosphere using gravity-assist from other planets with great precision. Do we understand AGW to that level of precision.
I think that you will find that you have not yet answered the original question,
guess what is going to follow you around this time twodicks?
Sorry JB….keep forgetting that any subtlety of thought or writing flies over your head.
To a reasonably literate person my answer would have been clear. But alas.
So no I don't accuse those people of groupthink. But the question and the answer are irrelevant because our understanding of AGW is not in the same league as our understanding of those items.
So since U has done a runner and won't return for a few days following his balls-up, maybe you can answer. Do you think that AGW is as well established scientifically as the Laws of Gravity?
Don't fret, I won't chase you around for an answer…I'm an adult.
Oh,I'm here. My typo is a balls up? Wow. So, what we have here is you, a scientific illiterate, accusing tens of thousands of scientists from all around the world, of being unable to think independently. You really are mentally retarded.
oh, and more on my "doing a runner"…ummm you seem to be assuming that I have nothing better to do with my time than come here and respond to morons like you. You certainly do think highly of yourself. Not that I need to explain myself to you but I should let you know that I have a loving partner who is much more important to me than you. I have my job, as an ecologist, which is way more important than you. I have a pet dog, that is more important than you. I have my arse to scratch, which is more important than you.
You see, you come in here thinking you are making a difference and you know, you are, but not in the way you think. All you do is show anyone reading that you are useless tool, intellectually impotent and borderline retarded. You have admitted that trolling in here is fun, and that quite frankly is extremely sad. If your life is so fucked up that you get enjoyment out of trying to piss people off and making a dick of yourself, well, you have my pity. I really do feel sorry for you. You could probably benefit from therapy. Perhaps, you should try online dating and meet up with someone who can better fill your time and make you a productive member of society. Maybe just getting outside and getting some fresh air might do you some good. Whatever you decide to do, you really should reevaluate your life and try and become a better person than the twisted mess you are now. Good luck
95% is the gold standard.
They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."
Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.
The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.
"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.
— WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
By SETH BORENSTEIN— Sep. 24 3:12 PM EDT
and poor old twodicks thought AGW was a guess
he seems to have gone over the edge from inanity to insanity ,
"thought AGW was a guess"
twodick's has no idea of fields of expertise
Roger Pielke
Born	November 2, 1968 (age 44)
Residence	United States
Citizenship	American
Fields	Political science, Science and Technology Policy
and another of these deniers with a two second memory
evidence?, read your comments over the past two days re Lomborg
stop tugging it and your memory might come back
comprehension fail….
never said agw was a guess, used the word guess to describe ar5 projections.
that inability to fathom subtlety causes you to misunderstand so much. Is it sad or is it comical, or is it tragicomedy? Who knows? More to the point, who cares?
"never said agw was a guess, used the word guess to describe ar5 projections"
IPCC AR5 projections are for AGW you clothhead
give your two peni a rest for a day.
made a little bet with myself that there'd be an inane childish response to hide the error. I won.
you have been thrashed on every stupid comment that you have made since you have been here,
you get your crap from watts and morano and lomborg,
and you give us an IPCC AR5 appraisal from a political scientist.
and you have no idea of UKI's field of science, your understanding of science is about as competent as a creationist.
So far you have told us that you have two dicks
that you pull yourself a lot against the advice of your priest or pastor
the rest was all drivel
oh dear…the 'man' is deranged.
Doesn't like been shown up for what he is and lashes out like a demented dervish
Projections aren't guesses.
Do we understand AGW to that level of precision.
Now you'll need to explain what you mean by "level of precision. Or do we have to launch space craft (engineering, not science BTW) using the "laws" of AGW?
You really do draw ridiculous parallels.
No Mr U, a typo is where you swap the 'i' and 'e' or type 12 instead of 21. Its not where you take three sentences to try to prove how very much more literate you are as compared to others only to find the exact opposite. that's not a typo…more of a psycho.
as to your rantings about my personal life, you are drawing a somewhat long bow there which is rather dangerous for someone who shoots himself in the foot so often.
someone at WUWT said that he did not believe in god
out came the creationists
one posted this crap http://revfelicity.org/2013/09/17/god-in-climate-change/
these people are still living in the bronze age
The definition of TYPO is "Typing mistake" it is not restricted to letters alone
words can often be a typing mistake
so if i wanted to write JG is a self confessed wanker but instead typed self confession wanker, it would still be true but imply that he has only confessed it to himself where in fact he has confessed to the whole world here on wtd
that he is a regular tosser
It wasn't a mistyped word. It was an entire unambiguous paragraph where the pompous oaf tried to demonstrate his superior language skills and came a cropper. But as a loyal lapdog you'll pretend to buy his typo excuse.
But I have to admit I'm more than a little worried. Given your stalking acumen AND your obvious obsession with, what they call in the pot-boilers, my manhood, I see bad things in the future. Creepy? Oh yeah.
Again with the logical fallacy of false equivalence.
Gravity is not a complex multifactorial phenomenon – its action follows a very clear and simple set of short equations.
The 'greenhouse' effect on the other hand encompasses a whole suite of physical processes that are complex (but not impossible) to describe.
And yet, ironically, scientists have a very good understanding of the manifold underlying component physical processes and are still basically clueless about what gravity actually is, and especially how it ties into the other universal forces.
As others have said above, the physics of global warming is at least as well understood as that of gravity. The fact that it takes more than a page to describe the action of global warming is not an argument against the strength of the science compared to that of gravity. If you don't know this then that is a reflection of your ignorance, and not of the science.
government interference once again AR5
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/has_the_un_climate_panel_now_outlived_its_usefulness/2696/
it needed in effect to impose a carbon budget. It had to restrict total man-made emissions forever to below about one trillion tons of carbon — or to 800 billion tons if we assume that our emissions of other greenhouse gases are unlikely to halt anytime soon. We are already two-thirds of the way there, at around 530 billion tons.
That was the bald scientific calculation. But three governments in particular objected to this statement. According to sources who attended the meeting, they were China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. was not involved.
The scientists dug in. "I sat for five hours defending this paragraph," said Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich, a Swiss science university, who was the coordinating lead author for the relevant chapter on "projections, commitments, and irreversibility."
"There was very strong opposition from many governments. It was obviously political, though they were using strange scientific arguments," Knutti said. The governments saw this statement as, in effect, scientists imposing emissions restrictions through the back door. "I am proud to say we didn't lose any figures," he added, "though some of the text was rewritten a bit."
more to come on SLR by 2100
optimistic and overconfident
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/optimisticicesheetprojectionsinar5
Top scientists appraisals
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/yale_e360_forum_on_ipcc_report_2013/2698/
comparisons sea level projections
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/comparisonofsealevelprojections
You told us it was the US holding it up and now you're saying it wasn't? Sure sounds like it's a political document and not a scientific one if individual countries get to influence the final report.
er that was AR4 dummy
Yes AR4 which you said was held up by the Bush administration. So you're admitting you were wrong? That would be a first!
Geez it was nice wasn't it not having Bill Jamison the terminal denier to spoil the conversation. But now he's back. just when you thought that the Facebook drama bridge was burned, he is starting back up again. NewsFlash. No one cares !! Why do you keep regurgitating crap like a cat with a fur ball. It was boring the first time, and it is now even more boring the second time. It's time to see a psychologist. This site is called 'Watching the Deniers' and is a good spot for those interested in the psychology of denial to chat about how crazy and stupid deniers are. But no, you are not content to live your own life, you have to come onto a site which is the antithesis to your belief and kick dust about. All you do is make the place very dusty. A very perverted and strange individual indeed. All you do is manically hurl insults and crap about. I'm going to let you in on the secret. The ability of CO2 to warm a planet is a natural law. That is, it is immutable and universal. You can observe it's effect on Venus and you can observe it's effect in a laboratory.
Just watch these videos and you will see a natural law in action
So no matter how much you scream and shout, stamp your feet or shake your head, you cannot change 'natural laws'. That is why you can never change the mind of the scientifically literate regarding natural laws. Once you know it is a 'natural law', a million blog posts and a million insults won't make a slightest dent. You might as well be trying to convince someone that gravity doesn't exist. You are banging your head against a brick wall. It's time you admit that the wall is not going to fall and all you will end up with is a few bruises.
Rodger comes here to abuse Bill and speaks about scientific literacy then posts not one but two examples of how little he knows about science. How exquisitely ironic.
Those experiments don't prove ability of CO2 to warm the planet one little bit. Real scientists are more careful about what their experiments really prove.
From the American Journal of Physics May 2010:
"The temperature rise observed in a popular classroom demonstration arises not from the radiative greenhouse effect responsible for global warming but primarily from the suppression of convective heat transport between CO2 and air due to the density difference between the two."
http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
Rodger if you like that sort of science here is a link to "scientists" proving the Coriolis Force:
And Rodger, don't forget to send these Ugandan "scientists" a donation.
Of course, although Rodger's faulty experiment and the fraudulent Ugandan one on Coriolis doesn't change the reality that increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature or that Coriolis is not a force acting on the movement of air. However if we are to promote a good understanding of science, which should include a healthy dose of scepticism, then we don't promote classroom experiments which might give the desired result but is faulty science.
That was interesting, from K Largo. Thank you.
Hey Rodger the Dodger you did a GREAT job of building up a nice strawman and then knocking him down! Of course it has nothing to do with anything I've ever posted but it appears that doesn't matter to you.
I assume Pielke is one of those scientists who is reject outright here for whatever reason. but I found this article more than a little interesting…
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html
"Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence."
very troll like comment
Pielke declares victory in the same fashion Canute did.
At least Canute did it to demonstrate to his supporters there were limits to even a very successful monarch's powers…
Pielke knows no such bounds. :-))
Pielke's profile:
"I am a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I also have appointments as a Research Fellow, Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University; Visiting Senior Fellow, Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics; and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes of Arizona State University. I am also a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank."
Clear unqualified to talk on these matters
his expertise is in political science
as eli noted on pjr's blog, pjr does not even do logic
9. EliRabett said…
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might wonder why a political scientist objects to a comment that the IPCC SPM is written by policy makers. Note that every single sentence is unanimously approved by 175 nations, each of which has a delegation consisting of policy makers and scientists.
So, as Sherlock Holmes might say, the absence of dissenters is a sure sign of a consensus
Mon Sep 30, 09:54:00 AM MDT
It's interesting. According to the recently released AR5 WG1 drafts we are not to quote or cite the material until its final version with graphics next year… obviously Roger is not subject to those requests!
I don't reject Pielke Jr outright. I reject a lot of what he says on close consideration. His favorite area is attribution and detectability of the climate change factor in weather events, which he sometimes attempts with some rigor, but he often overreaches,and the rigor is applied to sneaky reframing. He likes to be simply provocative, using the strawman,as your cite illustrates, and he likes the edict, as the last sentence reveals. PielkeJr commands 'climate campaigners' get on the right side of the evidence, damning the many with the confusion of the few.
Meanwhile he does not care to counsel people like Watts who are consistently on the wrong side of the evidence from the fundamental to the specific. This is a bit sad, utterly hypocritical, and renders Pielke Jr a bit of a joke.
PielkeJr seems to be saying that we cannot make any connections between events and climate change,and that AR5 agrees with his position. But in the example above AR5 makes comments about extreme precipitation events likely becoming more frequent, and is highly confident that post 1950 mid-latitude NH rainfall has increased. Obviously enough that can feed through to some flood events, enhancing the severity of flash flooding, and flood events in general. But the PielkeJr edict forbids making a nuanced case from this evidence !
$1 million goal reached
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-05/climate-council-has-sufficient-funding-to-operate-for-a-year/5000822
Those experiments don't prove ability of CO2 to warm the planet one little bit."
Thank-you for your interesting link, but you totally missed the point of my argument. Now it's my turn for some nitpicking.
You say that the experiments don't prove CO2 to warm the planet one little bit.
But in the article you linked to it says
"adding carbon dioxide to the system should increase deltaT by approximately 5% from its original value."
I would argue that 5% is a little bit, so in fact it does show that it CO2 warms the planet.
There is also this quote.
"Our results apply only to the interpretation of classroom scale demonstrations; they do not call into question the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the Earth's climate or existing models of those phenomena."
Then I also provided this link which does show CO2's ability to trap heat. Another natural law.
But the main point I was arguing was the futility of denying natural laws. The fact that CO2 warms planets is a 'natural law', it's physics, universal and immutable. If the classroom experiment was showing 95% of one natural law, and 5% of another natural law is really hear nor there. The combination is still 100% 'natural laws'.
But I'm sure that most people are quite sick of Bill Jamison's continual trolling and regurgitation of his off topic Facebook stories. This is typical of deniers, commenting about pointless and meaningless topics. After reading his nonsense, spanning several pages, it gets really boring. In the end I just skipped over any of Bill's comments. I would prefer to read more insightful and interesting comments. The same also applies to J Giddeon's comments. His spiteful arrogance is also getting very boring.
I don't know why deniers insist on coming to these sites and being provocative and spiteful. I not a big fan of football, but I don't go out of my way to go to football sites and provocatively comment how boring and meaningless football is. That they are all idiots and boofheads. Each to their own. If you are a denier than hang out on the WUWT and Judith Curry sites. If you like hearing about the antics of the deniers, then hang out at 'Watching the Deniers'. I personally detest deniers, and I find it entertaining seeing them being ripped into. After all, they are denying physical laws, and their crazy antics are very funny.
Rodger writes:
"You say that the experiments don't prove CO2 to warm the planet one little bit"
I stick by that comment.
You still don't get it. This is not a case of 95% of one natural law and 5% another natural law.
The two experiments you put forward showed that when you have gases of different densities then convective heat transport can be suppressed. That is an important lesson for students of meteorology to learn but it doesn't need CO2 in bottles to prove that. As the article shows, any two gases of different density will do. Or liquids.
The two classroom experiments are dressed up as if they prove something different. And this is not how you teach inquisitive young scientists no matter how important you might think it is to get the message of global warming across.
That does not mean CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere.
Zoot. That is unkind. I wouldn't call Rodger an idiot. I only pointed out the irony of him abusing Bill, talking about scientific illiteracy, and then following it up with his own example of scientific illiteracy.
The worst part is that I've never denied that increased atmospheric CO2 warms the planet. Never. Some people like to make bullshit claims in an effort to discredit other people.
You may be sick of it Rodger but I didn't bring it up someone else did.
Bob Tisdale pisses on leg, claims it's raining
Global warming deniers really hate the fact that a proper comparison of computer model projections to observations does not show that "models fail." But they love faulty comparisons.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/bob-tisdale-pisses-on-leg-claims-its-raining/
Tisdale is nuts. I used to look at his site years ago, amused by his posturing and snarky habits. The whole thing was a bizarre exercise in avoiding information while appearing to provide it. He pretended to be a legitimate source of knowledge on ENSO, but he never explored the physics or the small-scale mechanisms of ocean heat exchange, just dogmatically insisted that people who had spent careers on grappling with it were wrong.
google WUWT and you get willard at the top followed by hotwhopper below pulling apart his crap, anyone linking to WUWT to use as a reliable source would have to be a complete fool
well done Sou
ABC accepts the science of evolution, gravity and climate change
Quick shut them down' cries the climate clotheads who only last year were up in arms over government censorship
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/can-australia-afford-abc.html
Tony 'space rock' Cox presents the 'conservative' 'rational' position on bad news: defund it, and it goes away. Cox argues that conservative nostalgists have rejectionist views on AGW, boat-people and Islam, thus there is no need for the ABC. Clearly he is keen on the Daily Mail model of media responsibility; let very wealthy people run media outlets as platforms for their opinions, and bully pulpits for their agendas.
The heart of the article is a whinge that since Jonathon Green left The Drum, Cox hasn't been able to get an opinion piece posted there. Diddums. The possible reason for that is that he is an incompetent ratbag who has more than had his share of the public megaphone.
it was actually after Newman left that the ABC stopped the daily climate clothhead pieces,
Newman was a pox on the ABC
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/29/abbotts-adviser-hates-wind-farms-doubts-climate-change/
To be fair to the Coalition, Newman is not in charge of the Coalition's climate policy. But it comes on top of a range of other actions that raise serious doubts about the Coalition's commitment to its 2020 emissions target, such as:
The appointment of Dick Warburton, who also doubts anthropogenic global warming, to advise on its carbon emission reduction policy.
I don't think the Libs will ever seek to privatise the ABC. That is a bridge too far. On the other hand, attempts will be made to correct the ABC's unashamed bias to the green-left. Tactically, its not a bad idea to have the thought of privatisation out there so that the actual changes will be seen as less draconian.
Abbott and co will have learned from Howard's failure to insert some even-handedness into the ABC culture and will go down a different path. I think a more conservative replacement for Mark Scott is a certainty. A greater number of non-lefties on the board will also happen but this time they will be much more aggressive in their attempts rein in the behemoth. (Bolta on the ABC board – how much fun would that be?). An independent board where even low level appointments (eg Media Watch host, etc) are vetted is quite likely.
I doubt we'll see funding cuts because that would be too blatant. The ABC won't be getting the largess Gillard heaped on it and it will need to start looking to what parts of its operation have to be cut back. Online opinion like The Drum may be in the firing line. Equally, I think its quite likely that the ABC may be forced to go down the advertising path a la SBS. That by itself will force the ABC to become more responsive to the general population and become less of a mouth-piece for the Balmain basket-weavers.
looks like both sides are complaining
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/abc-drums-up-appearances-for-the-ipa/
Correct about the Liberal background of the ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott. But one small point: The government does not appoint the MD – the ABC Board does.
Scott's appointment for five years, and his re-appointment for a further five years, was by a Board heavily stacked with Howard's right-wing placements.
The ABC has a three-year funding arrangement. That period arrived last year, so the next allocation is two years from now.The COALition cannot do anything about funding now. The ABC provides an enormous range of services that the private sector is largely uninterested in. As well, private media is undergoing compaction, is losing money, and is often incapable of providing genuine journalistic services,as you can see with News Ltd and England's Daily Mail. Pretty good at sports coverage, but crap at science and captive of the IPA and neo-liberalism.
"Bolta on the board…" oooh, how provocative,Gids. Thing is, he is an incompetent with no management or budgetary experience. Just a big mouth who runs a censored blog: not the kind of person to give responsible work to. Perhaps he could get a job as an intern.
You mustn't make the mistake of thinking the ABC is left-wing. They are a broad church, while News Ltd has drifted off with to the far right: not representative of anything much except fools, cranks and coal miners.
"You mustn't make the mistake of thinking the ABC is left-wing. They are a broad church"
Yes they cover the full range of views…all the way from the centre-right of the ALP through to the far left of the Greens
To demonstrate this broad church perhaps you could give me the names of some of those conservative and right-wing presenters on the ABC TV who counterbalance the likes of Jones, Alberici, Sales, Trioli, Cassidy, Barry.
"The ABC has a three-year funding arrangement. ". true, but one government can't lock in spending for another so these 'arrangements' may be subject to review…especially during a 'budget emergency'.
Gids, if you think those presenters are left-wing,you're barmy. They're nice clean centrists. Alberici is a Herald Sun cadet who then moved to Channel Nine…what a lefty she is! So some COALition feathers get ruffled sometimes in interviews? Labor used to complain about the same thing!
What is this left-wing thing you're obsessed with? What the hell are ABC presenters doing that so upsets you? The ABC is actually the voice of plurality and sanity thanks to some funding security and arms length management. They present much broader ranges of views than their commercial antagonists, and the reportage is neutral. They did not join in on Ruperts naked Labor antagonism, and the bullying from News Ltd bloggers…is that what upsets you?
It seems to me that you spend a lot of time arguing against media diversity and your own interests.
Gregory T says:
J Giddeon, perhaps you could define, or maybe even give an example, of who you think a good right wing presenter would be. At least, it would give us all, an idea as to you real political bent.
here are a few (10) examples of the far right, twodicks seems to think that centre right is too far left for him
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-most-appalling-statements-americas-right-wing-madhouse-week
even blaming an old lady that her husband is sick because she does not give the church enough,
another one saying that god is on his way to save america from obama
right wing loonies
"They're nice clean centrists. "
Yes its a well known phenomena among the left that they assume they are in fact mainstream. So if you see journos who say what you want to hear you assume they are centrist becuase you fail to recognise your own left bias.
Alberici is not leftist because she once worked for Nine? Come on…Oakes?
No attempt to sanatise the clear bias of Cassidy? Jones?
Not even an attempt to identify their counterbalancing presenters.
I'm not upset by the ABC. Its you chaps who are whining that it may be called to account. I think its becoming increasingly irrelevant and preaching to the choir. The ABC's main affect these days is to cannibalise Fairfax's readership. But I do object to so much public money being expended to allow the views of a small number to be shoved down the throat of the payees.
"twodicks seems to think that centre right is too far left for him"
I did say "centre-right of the ALP". Still struggling with that comprehension problem I see.
And we were talking about Aust so your link was both irrelevant and bizarre.
Still obsessed with my nether regions?.
once again the reality
http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/
This is what I drew up last night. It's being retweeted around the place. pic.twitter.com/nIDp2kfswD
here twodicks you can go through this lot and tell us which need to be censored
pic.twitter.com/nIDp2kfswD
here twodicks http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/contributors
JG "Still obsessed with my nether regions?.
nether regions
"the lower part of a place, esp when unpleasant or frightening"
vomit spew
1. Again, we were talking about ABC TV presenters. Do try to keep up with the rest of the class.
2. I'm not calling for any censorship just a little bit of even-handedness
were we ?,not from this rant. you were whining about the drum,
the drum is more than even so off you go on a different track, leave it alone for an hour or so
It's always projection with you nuts, Gids. YOU are not centrist, you are a rightist delusional. I'm not a leftist, I simply believe in government of the people, for the people, by the people. At the moment we have a plutocracy enabled by Randian sycophants who ignore their poorer constituents. That's just observation.
The ABC staffers you mentioned are just career journos, nice and neat,quite conservative, and able to get up politicians of any persuasion if necessary. Nice to see Abbott getting some scrutiny on expenses, eh? And why hasn't Brandis resigned?
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-j3zCG9DLC30/UlBMp2uHe0I/AAAAAAAAW7M/vFhxgV7xt-o/image7.png?imgmax=800
this is a real wake up call, we need action now
Another Week in the Ecological Crisis, October 6, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered says:
[…] 2013/10/01: WtD: Australia's record breaking heat continues: warmest 12 months on record […]