Australia
This thread is for discussion of Australian aspects of global warming.
Climate Conversation Group
Taking the heat out of global warming
For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.
Latest climate models v. reality
As the models continue to leave actual temperature readings in their dust, sizeable warming halted about 1995 — although it might resume at any time. It must hasten to have any hope of catching up with the predictions.
If you claim warming continues, we want evidence of continued warming — eminently reasonable. Making us wait for 17 years for that evidence invites us to doubt you.
Claiming that warming hasn't stopped is the same as claiming it has — and both are ridiculous, for nobody knows the future. The best you can do is describe the past.
Click graph for larger version.
The quotes that warmists claim don’t exist
Andrew Bolt
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_quotes_that_warmists_claim_dont_exist/#99629
But this desal madness was clear at the time. Where were the experts?
Andrew Bolt
Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 08:03am
It’s all very well to point out the financially-bleeding obvious now, but where were the experts when a few of us were trying to stop this madness before it was too late?
There are two things we need to know. First, how did the maniacs in the then Labor Government come to decide on a hideously expensive desalination plant rather than a cheap dam? Second, how was almost all scientific and engineering dissent suppressed or muffled?
Is the very same process now occurring on an even vaster scale with the carbon dioxide tax?
>>>>>>>>>
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/but_this_desal_madness_was_clear_at_the_time_where_were_the_experts/#99857
————————————————————-
“Permanent” El Nino prediction documented in Nat Geo here:-
2009 Scientific Consensus : El Nino To Become Permanent
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/global-warming-general-001/comment-page-2/#comment-69751
ENSO has been negative continuously since May, 2010 [just gone neutral I think] – and has been negative for 38 out of the last 52 months.
Nowhere to hide now.
Dam full but desalination plant on line at $500m a year
Rachel Browne, Heath Aston
IT WILL be more than four years before the Sydney desalination plant [Kurnell] produces a drop of water again, if the water level at Warragamba Dam declines at the same rate as the last time it topped out in August 1998.
Even if levels drop at the same rate as the fastest decline it would be two years before the dam falls to 70 per cent – the point at which the desalination plant would be turned on.
Assuming the former rate, a private owner of the plant – to be announced by the State Government this year – will take more than $500 million from NSW taxpayers without producing a litre of water.
Based on estimates from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, a private sector owner would take $591 million in ”availability charges” from Sydney Water – payment for keeping the plant available.
Taking away fixed costs, including $1.1 million a month to be paid to the plant’s operator, Veolia Water, and financing debt on the expected $1.1 billion price tag – which excludes a possible privatisation of the $600 million pipeline – a little over $50 million a year will go to the owners in profit.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/dam-full-but-desalination-plant-on-line-at-500m-a-year-20120310-1ur5i.html#ixzz1omdHHHTu
$50m profit from nil production – nice.
Good news: the Department of Climate Change will scrap up to 300 jobs.
Bad news: there’ll still be 600 of em left.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/labor-takes-axe-to-green-bureaucrats-to-bolster-surplus/story-e6frg6xf-1226318042678
Bob Brown has resigned as leader of the Australian Greens
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/6739947/Bob-Brown-resigns-as-Greens-leader
HERE’S proof the climate really is changing. The Melbourne Theatre Company is putting on a play next month with a global warming sceptic as the hero. Swear to God.
Andrew Bolt
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/arts-warming-to-climate-sceptics/story-fn6bfkm6-1226332141936
As the MTC describes it: “Dr Diane Cassell is a serious scientist lecturing in what has become the cool degree at university; Climate Science…
“For nearly 20 years, Diane has been measuring sea levels in the Maldives.
“When her empirical data contradicts the prevailing view on the causes for climate change, she finds herself pressured by her funding-driven boss, Professor Kevin Maloney, not to publish her findings.”
That plot is straight from reality.
Dr Nils Axel-Morner, one of the world’s greatest authorities on sea levels, has done just this research at the Maldives.
And top Australian physicist Prof Brian O’Brien last year warned of the pressure on scientists to conform to the warming faith, telling of a colleague who’d confessed: “Brian, I completely support what you’re saying, but I have 65 researchers in my laboratory and the only funding I can get for them and to get their PhDs is greenhouse funding from Canberra or wherever.”
Aha! Exactly what we skeptics have known all along. This is the real reason for corruption of science. These department heads are corrupt gravy-train trough-slurpers who care nothing for the integrity of the scientific method. Grow some and harden up you parasites. Universities should be funded by a generic education-targeted source rather than scholarships, grants and junkets handed out by politically-driven bureaucrats according to the agenda-du-jour.
RC – that link goes to the headline only, with a login required. Seems the Herald Sun now paywalls its articles.
Odd. I get the full article when I click on the link via the Google Reader CCG feed (you’ve got to get that Mike) but paywall login when I click on the same link via the the CCG blog comment.
You can get the full article by copying the headline “Arts warming to climate sceptics” into Google News and searching for it (comes up top of list).
That works for me (also for WSJ) but I’d be interested to see it if it doesn’t for others.
What’s Google?
Anyhoo, thanks for the tip. Using a reputable search engine, I found the article reproduced in full on GWPF here:
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5497-andrew-bolt-arts-warming-to-climate-scepticism.html
Many thanks.
Here is one of the best blog posts I have ever read. It is on Jo Nova’s article regarding Paul Bain’s use of “Denier” in a Nature paper. Worth the 10 mins to read. In fact, worth its own article!
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/nature-and-that-problem-of-defining-homo-sapiens-denier-is-it-english-or-newspeak/#comment-1071887
There was quite a lot on this topic at Bishop Hill.
I think it underlines the state of groupthink when the author says it is “accepted practice” to use the term “denier” in his field
Whew! Dead right Mike. E.M. Smith is Cheifio BTW and Joanne has in fact turned the comment into a post article http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/cheifio-e-m-smith-responds-to-bain-et-al/
Yet ANOTHER outside specialist decrying the shoddy state of climate science; this time a computer programmer/economist and marketer of same (with patents no less) with a sound engineering pragmatism.
And his smack down of Bain and “denier” is top-shelf.
Glad you pointed out the comment Mike, I’ve only got a vague handle on that controversy because I’ve had my head in BOM’s ACORN – SAT – what a bizarre series the first location I’ve looked at, Alice Springs Minimum, is. The adjustments make NIWA’s NZT7 handiwork look rather ordinary.
For example the very first step working back in time from the last open site is +0.8 C. The cumulative step change total by the time you get back to the start of the series is -1.7 C. Have a think what that does to a before and after raw to adjusted linear trend.
The steps are VERY LARGE e.g. in 1975 there’s a -1.6 C step.
More starting here and up-thread http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/threat-of-anao-audit-means-australias-bom-throws-out-temperature-set-starts-again-gets-same-results/#comment-1071983
I seem to be left on the thread by myself. I don’t whether the Aussies are struggling with step change methodology (I’ve detailed it), they’ve all got bored and moved on, they resent a Kiwi lecturing them, they’re stunned at what is being turned up, or they’re mulling over it and will rejoin in the weekend. I suspect Ken Stewart has been traveling and hasn’t had time to crunch what I’ve posted.
Probably a number of those reasons combined.
Mike, sorry I didn’t initially read the E M Smith post you linked to. I had been following the discussion on BH and there wasn’t a lot of interest there.
I have to agree this is pretty powerful stuff and mirrors my experience too.
Thanks for sharing.
Cheers
Andy
NEWS: New legal approach — consumer protection laws may protect citizens against misleading BOM statements
Strange. What happened to those “heat trapping” GHGs?
Dissipating heat huh. Does the IPCC know about this?
Muahaha! The IPCC only knows about keeping the gravy train a-rollin’. Some real doozey frosts here in the south. My holiday house at Hanmer has no water – underground pipes are frozen. First time in at least ten years. More GHGs please! Oh wait, what was that about dissipation?
Actually, Richard, maybe you could help out an aging brain here…. For clouds (water vapour) to be a positive feedback mechanism, my understanding is that that argument depends on cloud cover raising the minimum temperatures. Which is okay by me, I mean when it is cloudy at night we won’t get a frost. Usually.
But you have underscored a point that seems to me overlooked or minimised by the CAGW climate scientists: Increased cloud cover surely must decrease the daily maximum temperature. Which is a negative feedback.
So, my question is this: Is the overall effect of increasing night-time temperatures and decreasing day-time temperatures positive or negative?
First thing Mike, clouds are liquid but water vapour is gas so there’s two feedback mechanisms being studied – cloud and water vapour. What complicates things is that these two are interrelated and you have to look at radiation, sensible heat, latent heat of evaporation, wind and whatever.
In terms of AGW, the posited positive water vapour feedback is tied to a posited increase in evaporation and proponents point to night-time minimums rising faster than day-time maximums [but BOTH rising] as “evidence” of positive water vapour feedback but that in isolation does not prove a positive feedback. What must be shown also is increasing evaporation measured by water vapour levels at the various atm pressure levels. The WV metrics are anything but conclusive on that (long tortuous tale). Generally, at low level WV has risen but fallen at higher levels.
All climate models assume clouds result in net positive feedback (see below) but models utilizing superparameterized cloud modules (none in AR4) return negative feedback.
So if you will permit me to rephrase your question: Is the overall [water vapour] effect of increasing night-time temperatures [rising faster than] day-time temperatures [combined with cloud levels] positive or negative?
AGW says positive, but when you look at all the factors in concert there’s a growing body of papers saying those override AGW evaporative effects so that the net effect is negative. Latest paper being ‘Understanding sudden changes in cloud amount: The Southern Annular Mode and South American weather fluctuations’:-
It’s complex and to be honest I’m struggling to get to grips with it myself. I’ve been in contact with Dr Roy Clark (‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2′, US EPA Submission) and he’s just today sent me a bunch of stuff on this very topic e.g. he says:-
And,
Along with a 100 page comment on a US Fish and Wildlife regulation http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070-0127 that I’ll grind through in time he made these references:-
Adding,
Finally these papers:-
I’d like to have given a nice simple answer Mike but ‘fraid not – I’m still stuck on the questions.
I might be misunderstanding what you are asking Mike. What I’ve outlined is what is happening over climate-span time. The hydrological cycle (H2O in all its forms – solid, liquid and gas) is the attenuator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuator in the feedback loop that limits amplification and maintains stability in a system similar to an electronics control loop (“B” in this diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ideal_feedback_model.svg). Wikipedia describes this:-
The Melbourne day-by-day experience is more instructive I think to understand just how overwhelming water vapour and clouds are in terms of dissipation or retention of heat as compared to the minor GHGs, CO2 being foremost.
High pressure, dry air, clear skies and Melbourne got cold in a day with no CO2 effect whatsoever. Andy reported similar at his local Dobson ski field: wind blew the snow away, a high pressure system moved in, dry air, cold but no snow.
The US heat wave on the other hand is/was accompanied by moisture and a jet-stream/circumpolar vortex system that is/was not allowing heat dissipation at a higher level. That situation is now easing and life will go on. Good news for the overweight who have been deprived of their air-conditioning.
Richard – many thanks for taking the time to fill in the blanks for me. This is really interesting stuff. In fact I would like to nominate your post as a guest article here – I think many other Climate Conversation readers would appreciate the insights and links you share.
Roy Clark’s paper was particularly interesting, concluding that:
Probably should read:-
“All [AR4] climate models assume clouds result in net positive feedback”
Just one of the pitfalls of plagiarism I guess.
I don’t agree with everything that Dr Clark states (for what that’s worth) e.g. :-
“Unexplained ‘adjustments’”
The fact is that NZCSC accept the need for adjustments to the NZT7 but they dispute the application of them. Similarly, Blair Trewin covers adjustment explanations for Australia’s ACORN – SAT in ‘CAWCR Technical Report 049′ but replication of them starting from raw data is almost impossible (plus they’ve introduced “weather dependent” (?) adjustments).
I think we should be careful about innuendo in regard to temperature record adjustments. There’s been plenty of uninformed comment at JoNova wrt BOM’s HQ and ACORN – SAT lately. I think that if more people read NZCSET’s ‘Statistical Audit of the New Zealand Temperature Series’ and the CAWCR TR 049 they would have a better appreciation of what it’s all about.
I’m sure too they would conclude (as I have) that NZT7 is an easy issue compared to the HQ can of worms, that is an eye opener. Ken Stewart did a 10 Part series on HQ, Part 10 is worth a read at least down to the start of the individual site examinations:-
The Australian Temperature Record- Part 10: BOM’s “Explanations”
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/the-australian-temperature-record-part-10-bom%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cexplanations%E2%80%9D/
Apparently, from the 049 report, BOM has “fixed” the HQ problems in ACORN. A bit like the way NIWA “fixed” the 7SS problems perhaps.
I agree with your point about uninformed innuendo. However, Dr. Clark’s point was that the PDO should, according to his research, cause ocean temperatures to have good correlation with land temperatures (near Pacific shorelines) and therefore provide an independent yardstick to check that any adjustments to the land temperature record are appropriate. I think this is a very interesting concept which warrants closer study. I also agree with you, that his term “unexplained adjustments” is a little inflammatory – he could have put it better.
ARGO era SST data should be obtainable for NZ but it’s the early to mid 20th century adjustments that are the problem in the NZT7. I don’t know if NIWA (or anyone) has reliable local SST data that far back.
Only the Pacific seaboard stations would come into Australian consideration as you say.
Salinger may have already done something like this in one of his papers, he did do some good work prior his recent vicissitudes. It does seem familiar and something he would have done. I’ll have a look sometime when I’m looking though his papers.
Libs want ban on teaching climate science
A body representing nearly 70,000 Australian scientists has criticised a Queensland Liberal National Party resolution calling for mainstream climate science to be cut from the state’s school curriculum.
LNP delegates at the party’s state conference passed a motion yesterday calling on Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek to stop the teaching of ”environmental propaganda material, in particular post-normal science about climate change”.
The mover of the motion, Noosa-based LNP member Richard Pearson, attacked ”false prophets who would poison the minds of our children in our schools”.
”Few people understand that the so-called science of climate change is really what can be defined as post-normal science,” he said, arguing it went beyond traditional understanding of science based on experimentation and falsifiable theories. The motion was passed with overwhelming support.
Science & Technology Australia chief executive Anna-Maria Arabia said the resolution was ”extremely harmful” and risked undermining faith in science more broadly.
The central principles of climate science – including that man-made greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere and have warmed the planet – are backed by all the world major’s scientific academies.
”The message this sends is ‘we do not treat the science as an issue of testing ideas, we treat it as a belief system’,” Ms Arabia said.
‘We shouldn’t be telling students that testing ideas is propaganda.”
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/libs-want-ban-on-teaching-climate-science-20120713-221wj.html#ixzz20Y9rphw2
But we are being browbeaten into accepting the “ideas” Ms Arabia, no dissent – and so are those students I’m pickin. That’s why it’s propaganda.
Gillard’s about to go along with the carbon tax going by this:-
“Our prime minister is a crook” Part I (and “Is our prime minister a crook?” Part II) UPDATE: and now Part III
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/allegations-about-our-pm-raging-across-the-internet-around-australia/#more-23246
Caution: sordid details
Al Gore praises inspirational Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/al-gore-praises-inspirational-australia-20120821-24jh8.html#ixzz248euCd6P
Regulator wants energy target dumped
The NSW pricing regulator IPART has called on Canberra to abandon its renewable energy target now that a price has been put on carbon.
….
The main reason for rising prices in NSW has been a doubling in real terms in transmission costs, which now make up about $654 of a typical household’s annual electricity bill.
However, the combined cost of the carbon price, the renewable energy scheme, the climate change fund and the energy savings scheme adds a further $316 to the bill.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/regulator-wants-energy-target-dumped-20120918-2641b.html#ixzz26npmssZJ
Allan Taylor’s blog
http://carboncycle-argo.blogspot.co.nz/
He has quite a lot to say about green buzz words and wind farms etc
Most Useless Flagrant Flop of Government (MUFFOG 2012): Finalist — Victorian Desal
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/most-useless-flagrant-flop-of-government-muffog-2012-finalist-victorian-desal/
“In 2007 the Victorian Government thought it was a good idea to spend $24 billion to build a humungously big desalination plant. There was a drought on at the time, and a specialist in small dead mammals said the drought would never end”
“With only 150 years of rainfall data to go from, who could possibly have predicted that it would keep raining?”
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/rainfall/melbourne-rainfall-bom-1855-2011.png
# # #
Would be hilarious if it wasn’t such a massive boondoggle.
In Australia, it is now OK to compare climate sceptics to paedophiles
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/12/equating-climate-sceptics-to-paedophiles-is-fine-at-the-abc/
In the article. Lubos makes the point that in his Czech homeland, they used to put out this kind of garbage until about 1989, when it became unacceptable
No doubt the knuckle draggers in the NZ media and blogosphere will be happy about the ABC ruling
and here s the Australian headline
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/its-ok-to-link-climate-denial-to-pedophilia-abc-tells-ex-chairman-maurice-newman/story-fna045gd-1226538690358
It’s OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman
This firmly puts Australia on the map as one of the most intolerant and scientifically illiterate countries in the world.
Ice rinks feeling the heat of the carbon tax
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/ice-rinks-feel-the-heat-of-carbon-tax-effect/story-fndo28a5-1226548162463
Aussie ice rinks getting pushed out of business to save the planet.
Those pesky ice rinks eh?
Climate change signals raining down but proof will take centuries
……………it looks a lot like climate change is kicking in – or does it?
Professor John McAneney, the director of Risk Frontiers, an independent research group funded mostly by the insurance industry, says that based on a database of natural hazard events in Australia, including some dating back to 1803, “there has been no increase in the frequency of natural hazard events since 1950″.
But what of the spiralling insurance claims in the wake of hailstorms, floods, cyclones (think Yasi at $1.4 billion) and bushfires ($4 billion for Victoria’s Black Saturday firestorms)?
“What we can see very clearly is that when this dataset … is corrected for the increases in numbers of buildings at risk and their value, no long term trend remains,” Professor McAneney said.
”It is indisputable that the rising toll of natural disasters is due to more people and assets at risk.”
He said US hurricane modelling to identify a signal climate change is contributing to storm strength suggests it could be a while before the data is definitive. Averaging 18 different climate models, “it’s going to take 260 years”, he said.
“This whole thing about climate change being responsible for an increase in extreme weather, or natural disasters, is just a fiction really.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-signals-raining-down-but-proof-will-take-centuries-20130202-2drbx.html#ixzz2JoWC3ukN
The MacArthur windfarm in Australia consists of 140 turbines in grid formation, and is causing a great deal of distress to the locals
http://stopthesethings.com/2013/02/13/a-voice-from-the-wilderness-of-macarthur-wind-farm/
Combet’s carbon system scheme rocked: Budget to lose billions
Andrew Bolt
Europe’s carbon permits have crashed to record new low prices, leaving the Federal Government facing a budget hole of more than $4 billion a year from 2015.
The price of Europe’s Emissions Trading System permits dropped overnight to just $3.33. Australia’s price is $23 a tonne – by far the most expensive in the world.
This doesn’t just mean the Gillard Government is pricing business out of the market with a huge new tax. It also means the Government could be left with a gaping hole in its Budget in two year’s time, when Australian companies can buy cheap European permits instead of our own to offset their emissions.
The Government is counting on raising more than $9 billion a year with its carbon tax. But that tax take will be slashed by billions if Australian companies can buy European permits for around $4.
That now looks almost certain, after a plan to drive up the price of carbon dioxide emission credits was rejected overnight by the European Union’s Parliament:
>>>>>>
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/combets_carbon_system_scheme_rocked_budget_to_lose_billions/#122145
Houses next to Lake Macquarie face demolition in a council plan to adapt to sea level rise
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1462661/poll-lake-houses-demolition-plan/?cs=305
Good idea, why don’t Christchurch City Coincil follow suit and demolish most of the city?
The council is completely bonkers Andy. The comments under this article make good reading. Here’s an example:
What garbage! What foolishness! Do these idiots now know what they have done? They have overnight collapsed the property values in these suburbs. No lenders will lend in these suburbs, no one will want to build, no development will ever occur because these ‘the sky is falling in’ drama queens have just screwed the people. They state ‘risk’! Not certainty! SAck this bloody council and their lunatic sustainability department. Blood idiots playing with matches…the lot of them.!!!