Climate change: has anything actually changed?

For some time now my only exposure to the world has been through five minutes of radio news on Classic FM, plus some TV news at 6 pm (how much I get is affected by our dinner time at this nursing home). But, bit by bit, I’ve been hearing and seeing more. The coming elections in Australia and NSW have rather passed me by, though I have become more impressed than I once was by the Prime Minister’s capacity to speak cogently and apparently without notes.

The issue that has grabbed me most, especially in the last few weeks, has been heat/weather/climate, mostly because it has been a staple element in both kinds of news. And two elements have stood out — extremes, and consequences for the electricity grid. Ole Humlum’s monthly survey of all kinds of weather data from the official sources won’t be out for a few days. But already we know that January was, in global terms, an extremely hot month. What is more, nearly all of it came from one continent — ours. Our hot January pushed North America’s very cold January out of consideration, though North America might score more powerfully for February.

The ABC devoted a lot of time to voiced alarm about our hot weather, and also to the contemporaneous freeze in the USA and Canada, but seemed unable to draw any conclusions about ‘climate change’. Perhaps its news editors felt that drawing conclusions was for the listener/viewer, and there’s something to that. But the ABC gave plenty of time to scary warnings from the self-appointed Climate Council. Listening to the dire alarm made me feel, not for the first time, that those of us who might reasonably style ourselves as ‘climate realists’ need an opposing self-appointed voice pointing out, again and again, that much of the scary stuff is inadequately based on good science. No, I am not proposing to form such a body; I’m too old and too frail. But it needs a leader and a sponsor or two, perhaps through crowd-funding and not via large donations from coal miners or their counterparts.

Throughout the past few weeks we have been urged to do the right thing and not put a strain on the grid — turn things off, make your house warmer, not cooler, and so on. We have so far escaped real blackouts, though it was apparently a close-run thing in Victoria. If you will forgive the mangled metaphor, we are skating on thin ice in terms of hot and cold weather. If we have an unusually cold, still and cloudy winter the same appeals will occur again, and cold weather, really cold weather, is much more costly in terms of human life than is hot weather.

It is well to remember that 85 per cent of our Eastern Grid electricity comes from the burning of fossil fuels, with hydro making up most of the difference. Solar and wind contribute very little, and it is hard to see them ever doing much more  in terms of ‘dispatchable’, reliable, cheap electricity. More and more houses are being equipped with solar panels, and that is fine for domestic users, if they have the money and don’t live in an apartment. But the system as a whole absolutely relies on coal, and to a much smaller extent on natural gas and portable fuels like petrol and distillate. So when you hear someone expatiate on how the electric vehicle will help to save the environment, you might quietly suggest that its fuel comes, 85 per cent of it, from fossils.

And I didn’t hear any of this being argued out in what might well be one of the longest election campaigns I can remember. It’s all about how each side will act to reduce the cost of our electricity bills. Mr Shorten says he is going to ramp up the installation of renewables, though how that will make a difference is not clear to me. If any journalist asked him that question, the grab and the reply did not appear in the telecasts I saw. It’s just not do-able. It has to be true that he and the other senior people on the Labor side know this — the arithmetic is simple. If we want to have really reliable, dispatchable electric power then we need to ramp up coal-fired generating power stations. But no-one is proposing this.

Why? And again the arithmetic is pretty simple. Both sides have become trapped in a dilemma, in which a passionate minority outweighs a relatively indifferent majority. I’ve written about this before, so here is a quick summary. Around the world, including the USA and Australia, the proportion of respondents who tell the interviewer that ‘climate change’ is important to them runs at about 7 per cent. That is without any prompting from the interviewer. If you feed the respondent a question about the importance of climate change then you will get much higher numbers saying ‘Oh yes, it’s pretty important’. You would get the same sort of responses about any issue of media consequence, like domestic violence, child abuse or dead fish in the Murray/Darling system.

But those 7 per cent make up most of The Greens, who are well organised and hold some legislative sway. They are supported by well-funded NGOs like the WWF, international agencies that have links to the United Nations, not to mention Australian government departments and agencies for which ‘climate change’ is their reason for existence. Yes, I would like the Prime Minister and his ministers to say a few things straightforwardly, that the Paris Accord is rubbish, that more new coal-fired generators are essential, that fracking is the way to make us more petroleum-resilient, and so on. There would be a tremendous fuss if they did, because that would to go against the orthodoxy, and the electorate has not been prepared for such a contest. The other 93 per cent who aren’t passionate alarmists don’t care enough about the issue to go into battle for the Government. They are interested in jobs, transport, education and their kids’ futures. Not only that, to repeat, they don’t know much about climate change, and think it’s all too hard for them. It isn’t, and our governments have let the electorate down by not setting out, clearly and accessibly, that there are many sides to this issue, and governments have to tread carefully.

Bill Shorten won’t do any more than talk about the issue and the importance of renewables. It’s not a Federal matter, for the most part, anyway. But he will pounce on the Coalition if there is any move to become rational about the electricity problem, dragging all the local, national and international alarmists to his side. So we’ll muddle on, paying more for our power and getting nowhere. If our population goes on increasing as it has done in the last decade — roughly another million people every three years — the strain on the Eastern Grid will produce system failures and blackouts before very long. And then each side will blame the other. We ought to be able to do better than this, but there is no sign that doing better will happen, from either side. Winning in May is what it is all about, and who cares what happens then? Whatever it takeswas the title of former Labor Minister Richardson’s account of his political life. It applies to both of our party groups at the moment.

Add in the many examples of unethical behaviour by our elected representatives, and you can see that the election campaign will not be about some central issues, but another smokes-and-mirrors fest. It is really disheartening. And I haven’t even mentioned the ACT Government’s quite dishonest claim that the ACT is close to, or will arrive at, being one hundred per cent renewable. Ecchh! Remember, when you press the light switch in the ACT, 85 per cent of the electricity comes from fossil fuels…







Join the discussion 154 Comments

  • Neville says:

    Great to have you back at the keyboard Don and as always you make a lot of sense.
    Here’s Dr Roy Spencer’s opinion of our so called hot Jan and he concludes that it is mostly weather and not climate change.
    Note the cooler SW WA and NE Qld, which proves that their pixie dust driver can make fools of anyone silly enough to try and make a case for their CAGW.
    The Nth Mallee where I live has so far experienced a very mild Feb and will do so until Sun 18th if the forecast is accurate. The next 2 nights at Mildura will drop to just 9 c according to the BOM.

  • Neville says:

    More homogenised temp adjustments from the BOM, leading to higher temps across Australia.
    Just like the HAD Crut 4, they’ve changed temps over a very recent period of time to find a warmer trend.

  • Grahame McCulloch says:


    Glad to see you able to get back to the keyboard, and that you remain articulate and challenging as always.

    We have rather different views these days – which was not so much the case when we were both active in national university affairs and policy in the 80s and 90s in particular. I think the issues of dispatchable power and the balance between the costs and benefits of fossil fuels and renewable energy are not as unambiguous as you suggest. And I think you should have higher expectations of our Prime Ministers, no matter what their political colour. Surely we should expect anyone holding this office to be able to speak intelligently and clearly without notes, and I am not sure the incumbent meets this test, unless cliches are now seen as meeting this test! Is he really an exemplar?

    Be that as it may, please accept my best wishes. And keep writing – do not go easily into the night!

    Grahame McCulloch

    • Don Aitkin says:


      Glad to hear from you. Tell me why you think that the balance is not as unambiguous as I think, and I’ll argue with you.

      As for the PM, I have known all PMs since and including Harold Holt, but not Abbott or Morrison or Turnbull. I was not impressed with McMahon as a speaker, or John Gorton. Very impressed with Paul K, who gave an impromptu one-hour speech on mining to the AMIC, thought MT was just talk, and saw nothing remarkable about Morrison until quite recently. That’s all.

  • Chris Warren says:


    Your comment;

    “And I haven’t even mentioned the ACT Government’s quite dishonest claim that the ACT is close to, or will arrive at, being one hundred per cent renewable. Ecchh! Remember, when you press the light switch in the ACT, 85 per cent of the electricity comes from fossil fuels…”

    was ungracious and opportunist.

    It is well established that businesses are carbon neutral if they address their local emissions by funding or purchasing offsets somewhere else.

    This is the case for the ACT’s electricity sector. The actual power consumption comes with CO2 emissions but these are offset through ACT purchasing offsets from contracts with wind farms and solar sources outside the ACT.

    This is all explained here:

    Carbon emissions that are properly offset do not represent any problem and are “renewable” provided the offset is “renewable”. This appears to be the case with the sources in the ACT document.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      The ACT Government does not say, ever, that what it is trying to do is to invest in renewables both in the ACT and elsewhere to the point where the electricity thereby generated is equivalent to the amount consumed by ACT residents. That would be the honest description, but no Minister ever says anything like this, and the reader/viewer is left with the impression that in some magical way the ACT is powered exclusively by renewables. The amount is in any case a tiny proportion of the Eastern Grid, and most of it is generated in other jurisdictions, to their profit. Seems nutty to me, but then that’s what religion-like beliefs can do to some people..

      • Chris Warren says:


        What are you suggesting by saying “The ACT Government does not say, ever, that what it is trying to do is to invest in renewables:

        ” to the point where the electricity thereby generated is equivalent to the amount consumed by ACT residents. ”

        But this is the for the ACT purchasing out-of-territory renewable energy to the point where it offsets entirely the carbon emissions of ACT actual usage. How else can the contracts with the various solar and wind farms be interpreted????

        Surely the renewable electricity purchased has to equal the amount consumed by ACT residents.

        It may be a bit of a bureaucratic trick, but I see their point even though technically the actual flows of electricity come from the National Grid which still contains carbon emissions. This is NOT magical.

        If the grid emitted a megatonne of carbon, but the grid owners also created an offset of a megatonne elsewhere then, as I see it, there is no net increase of CO2 into the atmosphere.

        Maybe this arrangement needs to be verified by a formal Performance Audit or Carbon footprint analysis of some sort.

      • JimboR says:

        “and the reader/viewer is left with the impression that in some magical way the ACT is powered exclusively by renewables”

        Assuming they achieve their goals then that is the net effect, although it’s not magical except maybe to those who don’t understand it. If you’re a Canberra resident concerned about CO2 emissions and considering buying an electric car, you know you can recharge your car every night in the ACT and your annual motoring will contribute nothing to the atmospheric CO2 levels.

        A Qld motorist with similar concerns would only have the same peace of mind if they ticked the “100% renewable” box on their agreement. Effectively, the ACT govt. is ticking that box for all of you – and that’s a bit cheeky since there’s usually an end-user price premium associated with that box.

    • Tezza says:

      Welcome back to the keyboard, Don.
      When as an ACT resident and an ex-Catholic I read the statement: “It is well established that businesses are carbon neutral if they address their local emissions by funding or purchasing offsets somewhere else”, I immediately think of the pre-reformation sale of indulgences.
      In both cases, my confidence in the accounting is zero, and is not increased by the assertion that “it is well established”.

  • Good to hear your voice again, Don! Weather v. climate aside, I’m sitting at my desk staring at – ohh, maybe 50 cm of snow and a temperature of minus 1.5 C. Even as I write, the snow keeps pounding down. This is unusual for the normally temperate winters on the mainland of Canada’s West Coast.

    However, I clearly remember the winter of 1949 when the snow in this area was well above my knees … Admittedly, my knees were lower, then. I also clearly remember the winter of 1978 when the snow in the same area was at least as deep as now.

    Canadians’ median age is 40: Many of us won’t remember those and other big snowfalls. Instead, we rely on meteorologists to look up historic dates and numbers. Those numbers say that what we’re experiencing is unusual.

    I’ve been following the numbers around Australia, and think it fair to say your meteorologists also say they’re unusual. Weather? Climate change? Other than to say far, far more than 7% of North Americans are thinking and talking about this, I’m not qualified to comment.

    As the song goes: “Nowhere to run to … Nowhere to hide …”

    • Don Aitkin says:


      My evidence for the 7 per cent is Pew Research. What is yours?

      • My evidence is not research-based, but rather comments I’ve stumbled across in social media, in the shops, in news stories … I’ve said “I’ve stumbled across …” because I haven’t prompted such comments or taken special note them to support my “bias.” I know you as a wily pollster, Don, so I also know answers depend on how questions are phrased.

        I’ve just asked Google: “percentage of Canadian adults concerned about climate change?” Up popped the 1986 Ipsos result that “Two-thirds (63%) Feel “Desperately Concerned That If Drastic Action Not Taken Right Now World May Not Last Much Longer Than Another Couple Of Generations.”

        That was the first hit to come up; not wanting to cherry-pick or bias the result, I decided to go with first hits only. Because of the parameters I’d set myself, I didn’t search for something more current.

        I then asked Google the same question about Americans. The first hit came from a February, 2018 journal of the American Psychological Association, which stated: “71% of Americans … think global warming is happening, according to a Yale Program on Climate Change Communication survey, while 47 percent say they are “very” or “extremely” sure of it, 13 percent do not believe it is happening; the rest are unsure.”

        Then I asked the question about Australians: The first story to come up was a summary of a Lowy Institute Poll headed: “Australians’ support for climate action at its highest level in a decade.” (June, 2018) The poll’s summary states: “59% of respondents agreed with the statement: “climate change is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs … This represents an increase of 5 percentage points from 2017, and a consistent increase in support for this statement over the past six years. It suggests that support for climate action in Australia is bouncing back towards its high point of 68% in the first set of Lowy Polls in 2006.”

        Breaking with my “first hit” methodology, I ran through the Google headers in response to my question about Australians’ perspective. Story after story after story said much the same.

        Don’t tell me polls are for dogs. At what point does “weather” become “climate change”? This once happened over eons. It’s now been happening over – what? The past 30 years? The past 50? The past 100? … I don’t know, but what I can see and feel in our increasingly hotter summers and increasingly colder winters over the past decade, is that whatever’s happening, is doing so faster than most of us anticipated. Our windstorms have also increased in frequency and strength; have your cyclones done the same? When I lived in Australia in 1998, they’d been doing so for several years.

        I fear we may have passed the point of no return. Tell your grandchildren you love them. Hug tightly them tightly. And hope for the best.

        • Don Aitkin says:


          As you recognise, it all depends on the way the question is asked. Pew asks respondents what the major issues affecting them are. One in fourteen say global warming or climate change or something of the kind. When does weather become climate? The conventional wisdom is thirty years, but that doesn’t mean much. The truth is that we have little good data about global temperature before1979. There are five main datasets even now and they don’t really agree with each other. Which is right? How would you tell?

          • JimboR says:

            “Pew asks respondents what the major issues affecting them are. One in fourteen say global warming or climate change or something of the kind. ”

            I’m surprised it’s as high as that. I don’t think I could say it’s affecting me. If we wait until a large proportion of the population claim to be affected by it, it may well be way too late to do anything about it.

          • JimboR says:

            I wonder how many of the 1 in 14 work on the land. Farmers are true believers, and it’s one of the reasons they’re abandoning the National Party.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Farmers are true believers,” jimb sez.

            Is that right, jimb?

            I think you’ll find that people like farmers who work outside and have done so for most of their lives are quite aware that this country is one of extreme droughts, flooding rains, hot days, cold days and everything in between.

            When you have experienced everything nature can throw at you and survived, have your hands in the 4 billion year old earth daily and are aware of the extremes that brought it to where it is today you aren’t likely to be a nervous bed-wetter about ever-changing climate.

            I’m a farmer and my 150 acres that overlooks the city of Brisbane was 7c cooler today.

            Was that down to the extra CO2 emissions there, do you think?

      • Chris Warren says:

        It may be possible to get 7% if you merely asked people what issues concern them with no context.

        In door-to-door surveys I have done in Canberra the results are heavily biassed towards – shopping centre closures, glass on bike paths, hoons at night, housing affordability, and jobs for their kids. Issues such as free trade, nuclear power, and climate change rarely came up except for people already active in political movements.

        What is the evidence for Pew finding 7%??? What was the specific survey instrument?

  • Stu says:

    The big question for your side of the argument has to be, how did the researchers of the world pull off such a huge scam. It involves every major science organisation around the world, every government practically bar the USA, and every meteorological body. Pretty impressive really, you have to admit.

    And on the other side we have a court case going on in California where the oil companies are being sued. One of the filed documents accuses Exxon of funding denial while knowing (from their own research) that CO2 would do harm to the world.

    “In addition to providing funding to scientists to promote invalid theories, Defendants funded industry front groups that aggressively denied and sought to discredit climate science. From 1998 through 2017, ExxonMobil alone spent $36 million funding 69 organizations that misrepresented and persistently sought to discredit the scientific consensus that Defendants’ fossil fuel products were causing climate change.”

    Pretty gutsy to file that in court with back up. Go and checkout the court documents, interesting reading.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      No, it is you you raised the notion of a scam. I don’t think it is one at all. There is a lot of government policy and government departments which fund research into climate change. Why wouldn’t the academies support the orthodoxy when there is so much money available. It is plainly what has happened here.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova has a look at the new adjusted BOM data and provides a very good account of the ongoing linked history at the end of the post.
    We know that the IPCC’s preferred data-base (HAD Crut 4) was adjusted up after the 2010 BBC Dr Jones interview on top of their Climategate emails scandal, but they always adjust down the earlier trends as well.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, BoM suddenly “finding” that 51c at Carnarvon in 1953 is very interesting. We had 50c at Planet Downs, near Haddon Corner in Sturt’s Stony Desert in 1957 that was recorded on a verandah that was built on the principle of a Coolgardie Safe and would have been a lot cooler than any Stevenson Screen.

      Those sort of temperatures were not uncommon particularly in the 19th century but BoM don’t want to know about them and have deleted them.

      If this doesn’t prove that they need auditing, what will it take?

  • Neville says:

    Bob Tisdale looks at the 30 year global warming trend 1916 to 1945 and finds that their climate models are hopeless at finding any AGW in this earlier part of the record. He uses GISS data.

    Interesting that the HAD Crut 4 trend ( 1916 to 1945) is 0.167 c/ decade and Berkeley is even higher at 0.171 c/ decade.

    And we know that co2 levels were much lower at that time and temp trends for Greenland were higher then than in recent decades of the late 20th century. See Vinther et al that I’ve linked to months ago.

    Bob finishes his post with his assessment of their models.


    “In the following, I’ve initially repeated the closing comments from the earlier post in this series.

    For the early 20th Century 30-year warming period of 1916-1945, climate models are consistently horrible and consistently inconsistent at simulating the primary metric of human-induced climate change, which is global mean surface temperature.

    And, surprisingly, based on those horrendous excuses for climate models, we’re supposed to believe their crystal-ball like prognostications of future global mean surface temperatures and other climate metrics!!?? Fat chance of that happening with anyone who has a spark of common sense. If only more persons understood how poorly climate models simulated global mean surface temperatures—the primary metric of human-induced climate change—the human-induced global warming scare might just disappear into the past like the Y2K scare. Then again, the global warming/climate change scare has nothing to do with science; it is simply global politics at its worst, masquerading as science.

    The IPCC couldn’t be a scientific entity. No scientific entity would set its foundation on models that perform as badly as this. The climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive should be presented as examples of failed attempts to simulate Earth’s climate, not used for government policy”.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Curry looks at some recent studies on SLR. And these new studies seem to return to more sane projections for future SLR.

  • Chris Warren says:



    are well known denialists. Your obsession with them is not healthy.

    Try using the
    – Australian Academy of Science
    – CSIRO
    – UK Royal Society
    – NOAA
    – Smithsonian
    – BOM
    – ANU
    – your local library

    • Don Aitkin says:


      You would be more persuasive if you dropped the ad hominem. Dr Curry is highly credentialled as a scientist. What you mean is that she takes a different point of view to you. But then she has so much more standing in this domain than you do. To sledge her in this way just demeans you. As for the others, you really need to show where they are wrong, not just call them ‘denialists’. And if you know anything about what has gone inside the learned academies in Australia you would have some justified criticisms of the position taken by the AAS, which I have written about in the past.

      • stu says:

        How is calling her a “denialist” an ad hominem attack. It is simply a factual statement. She is known for denying the propriety of generally accepted science fact, which is why she resigned from her university post. And on the other hand you have not pulled up Neville for referring to “CAGW fanatacists”.

        • Don says:

          It is an ad hominem attack, and rests on the unfounded assumption that she is wrong in what she has written about. Do you any evidence that she resigned from her university post for the reason you give? It is not what she said.

  • Neville says:

    Let’s try and make it easy for the CAGW fantasists. The endless adjustments have found about 0.194 c/decade over the last 30 years for HAD Crut 4 and less for GISS and higher for BEST. Using York uni tool.
    The HAD Crut 4 for 1916 to 1945 trend is 0.167 c/decade, so the difference is 0.027 c/decade or about 0.27c / 100 years. IOW they’ve tried endless adjustments to beef up the latest trend but the difference is just noise or about 3 hundredths of 1 degree C a century.
    And does anyone really have confidence in the HAD Crut 4 adjustments since the BBC Jones interview in 2010?
    Of course that tiny difference could be because of more/less shading by clouds, ocean oscillations, more solar radiation, AO, AMO, PDO changes etc, etc. Who knows?
    Certainly plenty of man made warming adjustments to produce the small increase in the latest 30 year trend.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry the above should read “about 3 tenths of 1 c per century”, in the above.

  • Neville says:

    Lomborg updates the latest data from the EU based IEA. Solar and Wind still supply less than 1% of TOTAL world energy and may generate 4% by 2040.
    What a waste of time and money and S&W will not make a scrap of measurable difference to global temp reduction by 2040 or 2100.
    But who cares as long as Labor and the Greens continue their fabrication about OZ’s so called mitigation of their CAGW fantasy?
    Certainly they are prepared to waste endless billions $ on their fantasy for a guaranteed ZERO return and no measurable change to temp at all.

  • Neville says:

    A number of new studies of the Greenland ice sheet shows the latest trends are higher than other periods during the earlier Holocene.
    And we don’t have to rely on Glacier Girl to support our more optimistic point of view.

  • alan moran says:

    “It’s all about how each side will act to reduce the cost of our electricity bills. Mr Shorten says he is going to ramp up the installation of renewables, though how that will make a difference is not clear to me. If any journalist asked him that question, the grab and the reply did not appear in the telecasts I saw.”

    Ah that’s because the answer is so simple – as it has been for the past five years and more. Renewable energy, as all the experts at the universities and the CSIRO tell us, is now the cheapest form of electricity. And the subsidies to renewables will mean more are constructed and will bid for business at their marginal cost thus driving down all prices. The fact that prices have doubled and supply become more uncertain is a mere aberation, besides most outages are caused by local distribution line failures. QED and don’t be too sure that the Government has a markedly different view!

  • Neville says:

    Bill Gates is a true believer in the CAGW cult but even he knows that S&W are not the answer. Here he is in a recent interview making some good points about the stupidity of renewables.

    Like the father of their CAGW Dr Hansen he knows that S&W are fairy tales just like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth fairy. Hansen was right when he called Paris COP 21 just BS and fra-d and he is a strong supporter of Nuclear energy.

    But Labor and the Greens and the donkeys who vote for them think that OZ can change the climate back to much lower rainfall like we experienced throughout OZ from 1895 to 1970 and at the cost of endless billions $. But very simple kindy maths shows us it will have no measurable impact at all by 2040 or 2100 and beyond.

    Yet many pollies, journos and MSM continue to lie to the Aussie voters and the people who tell the truth are treated with hatred and contempt by the fra-dsters. Unbelievable but true.
    “Cheap renewables won’t stop global warming, says Bill Gates”

    “The interview by Arun Majumdar, co-director of Stanford Energy’s Precourt Institute for Energy, which organized the conference, can be watched here.

    When financial analysts proposed rating companies on their CO2 output to drive down emissions, Gates was appalled by the idea that the climate and energy problem would be easy to solve. He asked them: “Do you guys on Wall Street have something in your desks that makes steel? Where is fertilizer, cement, plastic going to come from? Do planes fly through the sky because of some number you put in a spreadsheet?”

    “The idea that we have the current tools and it’s just because these utility people are evil people and if we could just beat on them and put (solar panels) on our rooftop—that is more of a block than climate denial,” Gates said. “The ‘climate is easy to solve’ group is our biggest problem.”

    If he only looked at the numbers in the climate science debate…

  • Neville says:

    Here AGAIN is Aust rainfall from the BOM, 1900 to 2018. Note this is an anomaly graph with above and below the average rainfall line and I’ve used an 8 year moving average line to make it easier to understand.
    1895 to 1970 was a period of much lower rainfall than we enjoy today, although OZ will always be a land of droughts and flooding rains. But most people are ignorant of this OZ rainfall record and some get VERY hostile when you try to explain it to them. Why is it so?

  • Neville says:

    Ken Stewart has completed his check of the new WA Acorn 2 temp data. Just 7 years ago the messy Acorn 1 data was claimed to be “world’s best practice”, but now Acorn 2 has increased the maxima by 29% and minima by 17% in WA.

    Here is his conclusion of the data changes in WA. Next is the NT.


    Comparison of Acorn2 versus Acorn 1 data for Western Australia does not encourage confidence in the Bureau’s methods:-

    There are no additional stations, so the network is still extremely sparse.

    There is a very small amount of additional digitized data.

    The average trend in maxima for WA has been increased by 29%, and in minima by 17%.

    Differences between Acorn 1 and Acorn 2 daily data can be up to nearly 11 degrees Celsius.

    New record maximum temperatures have been set.

    Diurnal Temperature Range (an important indicator of greenhouse warming) has not been significantly changed on average, but there is an enormous variation between individual sites.

    The issue of instances of minima being higher than maxima caused by too vigorous adjustments has been “fixed” by further vigorous adjustments.

    The “square wave” pattern in adjustments in Perth has been largely rectified. The square wave is now in the difference between Acorn 1 and Acorn 2.

    It beggars belief that a dataset that was proudly described as “world’s best practice” just seven years ago has needed to be adjusted by so much. Has “best practice” changed so much? How was Acorn 1 so wrong? How can we be sure that the new version is better, and will itself not be changed again in a few years?

    There are now four versions of WA temperature: Raw; High Quality (no longer available); Acorn 1; and Acorn 2. All are different.

    The record for Western Australia reveals a state, not of excitement, but of confusion.

    Next: the Northern Territory.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Yes indeed, Don, what has actually changed?

    Sea levels certainly are not rising locally. Well, not for the last 70-odd years, anyway.

    I have been away birding for the last couple of days in the heatwave and have seen some wonderful birds. Rose-crowned Fruit Doves, Mistletoebirds, Riflebirds, Peregrine Falcons, Alberts Lyrebirds, even Spangled Drongos and they are all surviving amazingly well.

    But that’s the trouble with us denialists, we just don’t know when we should be bleating.

    Rational scepticism is a terrible affliction.

  • Neville says:

    Here is the Vinther et al 2006 long instrumental record of Greenland. This is a very long study over 200 years and co-authors are prominent alarmist UK scientists Dr Jones and Dr Briffa.

    Looking at temps over this long period we find that much earlier decades are warmer than the last few decades and they even hold up well against some of the decades over one hundred years ago, back in the 1800s. See TABLE 8.

    So what will be their excuse when the AMO changes to the cool phase, perhaps sometime in the 2020s? Or has it started already? Who knows? See TABLE 8 from the study comparing decades.

  • beththeserf says:

    So good to get another sane, (rational) review of the climate controversy from you, Don. The data is what it is, regardless of homogenizations, ACORN 1 and 2 revisionism . Neville has linked to this … Carnarvon BOM addjustments make the 1953 raw data 3.3 degrees hotter.

    Climate change not a science but a religion where ‘noble’ lies are necessary and excusable.

  • Stu says:

    Did anybody read this. SMH Ross Gittins 14/2/19

    In the dim distant past, politicians got themselves elected by showing us a Vision of Australia’s future that was brighter and more alluring than their opponent’s.

    These days the pollies prefer a more negative approach, pointing to the daunting problems we face and warning that, in such uncertain times, switching to the other guy would be far too risky.

    Illustration: Simon Letch
    Illustration: Simon LetchCREDIT:
    We’ve gone from “I’m much better than him” to “if you think I’m bad, he’d be worse”. Maybe they simply lack any vision of the future beyond advancing their own careers.

    Management-types tell us we should conduct “SWOT analysis” – considering our strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. But we’ve become mesmerised by the threats and incapable of seeing the opportunities. Such a pessimistic mindset is crippling us when we could be going from strength to strength.

    Take climate change. It, of course, is a threat – to our climate, and hence to our comfort and our economy – but think a bit more about it and you realise that, for a country like ours, it’s also a new gravy train we could be climbing aboard.

    Illustration: Andrew Dyson
    Illustration: Andrew DysonCREDIT:
    The stumbling block is that responding to climate change requires change – and no one likes change, especially those who earn their living from the present way of doing things.

    So, what more natural reaction than to resist change? Economists are always warning politicians not to try “picking winners”. In reality, they’re far more likely to resist change by spending lots of money trying to prop up losers.

    Start by denying that change is necessary. Global warming isn’t happening, it’s just a conspiracy by scientists angling for more research funds.

    EnergyAustralia would provide free rooftop solar panels and batteries to charities to help them slash power bills.
    EnergyAustralia to turn charities into mini-power plants
    Add to shortlist
    Nothing new about heatwaves, droughts, floods and cyclones – they’ve always existed. They’re becoming bigger and more frequent? Just your imagination.

    What you’re not imagining is the ever-higher cost of electricity. But that’s just because those ideologues imposed a carbon tax and are making us subsidise renewable energy. Get rid of the taxes and subsidies and the cost falls back to what it was.

    And those terrible wind turbines. They’re unnatural and unsightly, they kill rare birds and their noise endangers farmers’ health.

    Renewable energy is unreliable because it depends on the wind blowing or the sun shining. You need coal for steady supply. With the greater reliance on renewable, where do you think the blackouts are coming from?

    Merkel just decided to close all of Germany’s coal power plants. All of them.
    Coal bites the dust in Germany, Europe’s greenest nation
    Add to shortlist
    And renewable energy is so expensive. Coal-fired electricity is much cheaper. Plus, we’ve got all our chips stacked on coal. We’re world experts at open-cut coal mining. Our coal is much higher quality than most other countries.

    Coal provides jobs for 30,000 workers. There are towns desperate for jobs who’d just love another coal mine. And, of course, we’ve still got huge reserves of the stuff that’s of no value if it stays in the ground.

    Some of these claims have always been untrue, some are no longer true and some are less true than they were.

    Just this week, for instance, a report from the independent Grattan Institute has debunked the claim that “outages” are being caused by renewables, saying more than 97 per cent of outage hours can be traced to problems with the local poles and wires that transport power to businesses and homes.

    While it’s true that power from existing coal-fired generators is dirt cheap, many of these are old and close to the end of their useful lives. They’re not being replaced by new coal generators because there’s too much risk that the demand for coal-fired power will dry up before the generators have returned the money invested in them.

    The latest report from the CSIRO says the lowest-cost power from a newly built facility is now produced by solar and wind.

    The cost of solar, battery storage and, to a lesser extent, wind power, has fallen dramatically over this decade, partly because of advances in technology but mainly because of economies of scale as China and many other countries jump on the bandwagon. These falls are likely to continue.

    This has gone so far that the old arguments about the need for a price on carbon and subsidies for renewables are being overtaken by events.

    Installation of renewable generation is proceeding apace, with all renewables’ share of generation in the national electricity market jumping from 16 per cent to 21 per cent, just over the year to December, according to Green Energy Markets.

    So, as the economist Frank Jotzo, of the Australian National University, has said, coal is on the way out. The only question is how soon it happens.

    According to our present way of looking at it, this is disastrous news. But not if we see it as more an opportunity than a threat.

    Professor Ross Garnaut, of the University of Melbourne, has said that “nowhere in the developed world are solar and wind resources together so abundant as in the west-facing coasts and peninsulas of southern Australia.

    “Play our cards right, and Australia’s exceptionally rich endowment per person in renewable energy resources makes us a low-cost location for energy supply in a low-carbon world economy.

    “That would make us the economically rational location within the developed world of a high proportion of energy-intensive processing and manufacturing activity.”

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don and Neville


    We know denialism exists already from scientists peddling nicotine. Curry does not merely take a different view to “me” – she denys the view emanating from :

    – Australian Academy of Science
    – CSIRO
    – UK Royal Society
    – NOAA
    – Smithsonian
    – BOM
    – ANU

    As a typical tactic – Judith Curry simply makes up ‘straw men’ to then ramp-up her project. For example she writes:


    The alarm over sea level rise
    The public discourse on the threat of sea level rise is typified by these dire statements from climate scientists:
    “That’s the big thing – sea-level rise – the planet could become ungovernable.” – Dr. James Hansen, former Director, NASA GISS
    “We’re talking about literally giving up on our coastal cities of the world and moving inland.” – Dr. Michael Mann, Penn State 
    [see: ]


    All this is FALSE

    Hansen never said: ““That’s the big thing – sea-level rise – the planet could become ungovernable.”

    Mann never said ““We’re talking about literally giving up on our coastal cities of the world and moving inland” in the context of sea-level.

    Hansen’s comment was:

    “It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.”

    Mann’s comment was only in the context of hurricanes hitting coastal cities.

    Mann’s words were actually reported as:

    “If we continue down the road we’re on and make no adjustments to climate change, Mann says, then these sorts of events could eventually become two-year or three-year events. “In other words,” he said, “we get a Harvey-like event impacting the Gulf Coast, or a Sandy-like event impacting the New Jersey and New York City coast once every few years … Imagine having to deal with something like that every few years.” At that point, Mann says, “we’re talking about the retreat from our coast lines. We’re talking about literally giving up on the major coastal cities of the world and moving inland.”

    Judith Curry has merely cherrypicked some words to falsify a Hansen quote and then to fabricate disruption, she cherry-picked Mann’s comments in one context (hurricanes crossing the coast), to serve another, namely one more suited to her private denialist agenda.

    In short, she lacks credibility. Too much falsification and cherry-picking.

    • Neville says:

      Chris stop talking nonsense, the quotes are correct. Unless of course you really think we can change the climate back to the LIA?
      I thought you’d moved past your religious posturing about magically changing the climate, but apparently not.
      Dr Curry uses proper data and evidence not the silly nonsense we hear from upside down Mann etc. He is a joke.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, You accuse Dr Curry of making things up, and state , apparently authoritatively, that neither Hansen nor Mann actually said these things. Well, if you go to her paper on sea-level you can see the references. To save you trouble, here they are:

      I couldn’t open the first one, but the second I could, and Mann actually used those words. Yep. Those words that she quoted are right there in the article.

      Now, how did you come to deny the attribution? It wasn’t by going to the references, was it. No. You searched for the words a different way, couldn’t find them, so concluded that she made them up.

      Oh dear. In court you would be done like a dinner. Defamation. And quite wrong substantively. Fortunately for you, Dr Curry is not interested, and described your assault on her as ‘pathetic’, which indeed it is.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Has anything actually changed?

    Well, if we use data from CSIRO and NASA then sea level rise has accelerated.

    From 1880 to 1980 rise was 1.50 mm per year [see: ]

    It has now doubled to over 3 mm per year [see: ]

    If you ran a properly designed poll today – I am sure you would get more than 7% saying that ‘climate change’ is important to them.

    This also is a change.

    • Neville says:

      Gosh it looks like we have to ask Chris AGAIN to explain how we return to his perfect LIA climate. Here’s a few problems for you Chris.

      China, India + the non OECD don’t care and have increasing emissions of co2, into the foreseeable future, while the OECD countries have virtually flat-lined for decades. The USA now have about the same emissions as they had in 1990.
      The RS and NAS have explained in their ques 20 Q&A that we wouldn’t see a change in temp for 1,000 years EVEN IF we STOPPED all human co2 emissions today.
      And co2 levels wouldn’t change for thousands of years after that time. Of course this is not every scientists POV but it does include most of the alarmist brigade, who helped them calculate the data.
      And OZ emits just 1.2% of co2 emissions and Dr Finkel also admitted we can’t make a difference. Even if we stopped all our emissions today. Very simple maths that anyone can do, so stop wasting our time with your silly nonsense.

      • Chris Warren says:


        You are producing confused, unreferenced garbage. It is just some sort of strange stream of dogma that lacks both sense and order.

        Does LIA stand for Little Ice Age or Lazy Incoherent Argument?
        Does RS stand for Royal Society or Rat Shit argument?
        Does NAS stand for National Academy of Sciences or Neville’s Awful Spew?

        Vain references to august institutions are meaningless unless you provide a specific reference. You are just puffing-up your posts with references that lead nowhere.

        You assert Curry quotes are correct – but provide no evidence. This is pure-bred denialism.

        You are now trying to deflect attention onto other issues – a favoured tactic of denialists.

        • Neville says:

          I’ve provided all the links to you before many times and you’ve proven you know those links and understand them.
          I won’t respond to you now because you can’t even remember that you agreed that mitigation won’t work. You’re not worth the time of day and I’m far too busy to bother with your religious beliefs.

        • Don Aitkin says:


          I am not able to quickly show that Dr Curry’s quotes were correct, but I will write to her and ask for the references.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            I still cannot open the first URL, but your reference seems to be it. If it is, then the longer body of writing goes like this:

            ‘Because we have such a large fraction of people on coastlines — more than half of the large cities in the world are on coastlines. The economic implications of that, and the migrations and the social effects of migrations — the planet could become practically ungovernable, it seems to me.’

            Dr Curry thought that was ‘dire’. I think so too. Yes, there are ‘ifs’ and ‘could’ in all the Hansen writes. But it is still a dire forecast of an imagined future.

            You think it’s taken out of context. What context do you think it has?

  • Neville says:

    More data and evidence about recent SLR and some of the coastline sink rates from Jim Steele. Interesting data that most lay people don’t understand and certainly haven’t taken into account.
    Anyway the idea that we can slow or modify SLR ( or not) on human timescales is just more pixie dust science.
    Of course we know that SLs were much higher around OZ just 4,000 years as a result of a much warmer Holocene climate optimum.
    Many places all over the world had SLs up to 2 metres higher due to those earlier warmer conditions. Oh and boreal forests then grew up to the Arctic coastline where today there is just Tundra and ice. I’ve linked to this about 12 months ago.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Hey, blith and stu!

    Instead of breathlessly believing mega-angels dancing on pinheads have you yet put your heads outside and checked sea levels for yourselves?

    Like I’ve been urging you to do for years now?

    Where you will discover that there is no SLR based on construction of sea walls built to king tide datum.

    Where you will discover that our ocean beaches are in better condition than they have been for decades.


    Oh, dear!

    Belief, bed-wetting and blithering never beats personal observation.

    But then you would have to agree with Don that nothing much has changed.

    Instead of preferring to believe in the alarmist science that 500,000 drowned cattle can’t be wrong.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Nevertheless, blithnstu, don’t feel lonely. You have plenty of mates. Here’s an article like so many you offer that thinks it proves CAGW but actually proves the reverse.

    Research shows during this time period, known as the Eemian, scorching ocean temperatures caused a catastrophic global ice melt. As a result, sea levels were six to nine metres higher than they are today.

    And yet it all happened as part of natural climate variability, because the fun part is that during the Eemian, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, way lower than it is today (over 400ppm). So it should have been pretty icy during the Eemian according to blithnstu theory. But, as they tell us below, it was hotter:


    High time you both did something about your enuresis.

  • Neville says:

    Good study SD, but you don’t change silly religious fanatics in a hurry. I’ve tried it with the Mormons and JWs and it’s a very sorry task.

    Here a new Lin et al 2018 Taiwanese study shows that cold temps are more dangerous to humans than a warmer environment. This supports the Lancet worldwide study a couple of years ago.

  • spangled drongo says:

    In spite of the lengths of stupidity that true believers like blithnstu extend to, even a greenie like Mike Shellenberger has enough brains to reject the Green New Deal of Ocasio-Cortez:

    • Stu says:

      Ha, ha, such a funny man – NOT. The only “believers” are those in the deniersphere. The rest just accept solid science and physics trumps bullshit every time.

      And did you see this week that even the Republicans on the US House Science committee are now on board with the science. Get used to it, your little base is shrinking.

      “The Science Committee hosted its first climate hearing of 2019 on Wednesday, after two other House committees had already held theirs. In sharp contrast to recent past Science Committee climate hearings, there was bipartisan agreement that climate change is real, human-caused, and harmful. The hearing brought up a number of possible policies to help America reduce and prepare for global warming, and participants aired their differences regarding the best way forward.”

      And that is a refreshing change.

  • Neville says:

    Unusually cold and dry winters in OZ are the cause of much higher death rates. This is the same all around the world, so a little more warming can’t be such a bad thing.
    Here’s the Huang et al 2015 study and those increased winter deaths are very easy find on the graph.

  • Neville says:

    This Axford et al study finds that Greenland temp was much higher in the earlier Holocene and the LIA was the coldest period for the last 10,000 years.
    Certainly there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about Greenland temps today and our slight recent warming ( since 1995) could just be the result of a warm phase of the AMO.

    • Stu says:

      Oh yes, the CO2 Science crowd again. Here is a published review of the credibility or should I say lack of for the organisation.

      “More for the annals of climate misinformation

      19 Aug 2008 | 11:10 BST | Posted by Olive Heffernan | Category: Alicia Newton, Attribution, Climate Science, Communicating Climate Change

      I’m all for a website that distills climate science papers into something easily understood by the general public, especially if it avoids the hype and hysteria all too often employed by headline news.

      Such is the claim of CO2 Science, a weekly newsletter published by the not for profit Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, with issues that include editorials, book and media reviews, and mini-reviews of the recent peer-reviewed literature.

      But rather than its promise of “separating reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change”, on the contrary CO2 Science twists the most recent science, ever so subtly, to suggest that there is no link between carbon dioxide levels and climate change.

      For a case in point, check out the feature entitled “Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week”. This showcases records of temperature or environmental changes during the Medieval Warm Period (aka the Medieval Climate Anomaly). The conclusion is that if the MWP was warmer than present – still debated – obviously CO2 isn’t driving current warming. There is even a list of 576 scientists who have found evidence for the MWP – the thinly veiled conclusion being that they agree that an increase in CO2 isn’t behind the recent climate change.

      FYI scientists – if you’ve ever compiled a climate record for the past 2,000 years, your name is probably there. These folks are thorough.

      However, the most insidious feature of the website are the mini-reviews, where the editors (presumably the board) kindly reinterpret your results for you (beware of this in the MWP tracker as well). Here is their recent description of a 2007 Science paper by Stott et al:

      Stott et al. conclude that the cause of the deglacial deep-water warming ‘does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present be attributed to CO2 forcing.’ And since the rate of deep-water warming after the start of the increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration did not increase (if anything, it declined), there is no compelling reason to believe that the deglacial increase in the air’s CO2 content had anything at all to do with any of the warming that led to the ultimate development of the current interglacial.

      Hmmm…I don’t seem to recall Stott et al. reaching any such conclusion (beyond that directly quoted) in their paper. And technically the above paragraph doesn’t say that they do. But the casual reader would definitely come away with that conclusion. I’m usually willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way that I can possibly conclude that the writer wasn’t trying to imply that a well respected scientist said that atmospheric CO2 has nothing to do with interglacial warmth.

      Although the mini-reviews do tend to highlight papers that show that plants like CO2, and can thrive under elevated CO2 conditions, I can’t imagine that an interpretive review of a palaeoclimate like the one above is an isolated incident. This goes way beyond any healthy skepticism and into the realm of active disinformation.

      What’s especially frustrating is the way they veil their agenda in peer-reviewed science, liberally using the names of well respected scientists who probably have no idea this site even exists. The site – which, according to the information page is run by three PhD-level scientists and an additional eight board members –preys upon the casual reader, and exploits the scientific illiteracy of the general public all under the guise of a registered charity that accepts completely confidential donations.”

    • Chris Warren says:


      As you know, when temperatures were high in the past, CO2 was under 300 ppm. The cause of high temperatures was not CO2.

      Today CO2 is over 400 and this is a new human-occasioned cause of unexpected global warming.

      You cannot deny today’s deaths by motor vehicles by arguing that more deaths occurred in the past due to other causes.

      You cannot link past non-CO2 warming with today’s CO2 warming.

      The task for denialists is to show, scientifically, that increased CO2 does not heat the lower atmosphere and does not block heat reaching the upper stratosphere as in the past.

  • Neville says:

    Another recent study ( Liu et al 2017) shows little correlation between co2 increases and temperature. The correlation exists in cities and heavily populated areas because of the Urban heat island effect, but in some remote areas around the world there is no correlation and temps show no trend. Certainly Antarctica seems to show little evidence of AGW since 1950 , even using the much debated PAGES 2 K study.

    Even the Mauna Loa area has no trend according to the study. The UHIE has been referenced by other scientists over the years and ignored by most journos, pollies and MSM.

    Here is the abstract of the study and note the lack of R 2 correlation in the remote non urban sites including Mauna Loa.

    CO2 and temperature records at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and other observation stations show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not significant. These stations are located away from big cities, and in various latitudes and hemispheres. But the correlation is significant in global mean data. Over the last five decades, CO2 has grown at an accelerating rate with no corresponding rise in temperature in the stations. This discrepancy indicates that CO2 probably is not the driving force of temperature change globally but only locally (mainly in big cities). We suggest that the Earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too low to drive global temperature change. Our empirical perception of the global warming record is due to the urban heat island effect: temperature rises in areas with rising population density and rising industrial activity. This effect mainly occurs in the areas with high population and intense human activities, and is not representative of global warming. Regions far from cities, such as the Mauna Loa highland, show no evident warming trend. The global monthly mean temperature calculated by record data, widely used by academic researchers, shows R2=0.765, a high degree of correlation with CO2. However, the R2 shows much less significance (mean R2=0.024) if calculated by each record for 188 selected stations over the world. This test suggests that the inflated high correlation between CO2 and temperature (mean R2=0.765-0.024=0.741) used in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was very likely produced during data correction and processing. This untrue global monthly mean temperature has created a picture: human emission drives global warming.

  • Neville says:

    Another great post from Bob Tisdale showing zero warming in Greenland from 1925 to 2012. This is using Berkeley data and this actually shows a very slight cooling trend.
    Note the climate models are as hopeless in Greenland as they are for most of the world. Yet they still believe we can predict the future in 2040, 2100 and beyond. What a hoot.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “You cannot deny today’s deaths by motor vehicles by arguing that more deaths occurred in the past due to other causes.

    You cannot link past non-CO2 warming with today’s CO2 warming.”

    Poor ol’ blithnstu.

    Their reasoning is absolutely childish.

    Their minds lack functionality.

    It’s called EVIDENCE!!!!!

    When the evidence is observed by all and sundry, we don’t need enuresistic “scientists” to tell us what’s happening.

    When the evidence can only be hypothesised through fake modelling, adjusting and assuming, only the true believer alarmists embrace it.

    As Malcolm Roberts said, try producing some empirical EVIDENCE!!!

  • Stu says:

    You wrote “And while you are at it please supply evidence of your “known causes”.

    Try looking up Milankovich cycles to start with. And note that why they explain the past they dont explain the present. What is your cause of current change? Oh, hang on you are in denial of that also, so dont bother.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Unfortunately responding to a Drongo could be mistaken for the first sign of madness???

      Maybe it is better to use the “reply” link so the thread can be blocked.

  • Neville says:

    More evidence that the models are hopeless in this 2012 post from Bob Tisdale. Well worth the time to understand the graphs and the net forcings of the early and recent warming trends.

  • Neville says:

    The UAH V 6 sat January data shows the NP at minus -0.18 c and the SP at minus -0.05 c. While we know that the SP has not warmed over the last 40 years for this data-set, the NP may be changing as well. Who knows, only time will tell.
    But the trend over the last 40 years is 0.25c/ decade for the NP and that’s the highest trend for the globe.

    But why hasn’t the SP not warmed over the last 40 years?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Try looking up Milankovich cycles to start with.”

    You just don’t get it do you stu? Please don’t you start blithering too.

    Milankovich cycles account for global temp variations of more than 10c. Even the kiddies know about them.

    We are talking variations that are about half the Nat Var per century for the last 80 centuries.

    The next scientist to supply measurable evidence for these causes will be the first.

    This is why cli-sci has to indulge in fakery at the bakery as our BoM is doing today with Acorn 2.

    But if you already know the reason for these causes, please don’t feel shy.

    • Stu says:

      Not shy. I will just rest safe in the knowledge that as you well know my position is supported by virtually all of published and peer reviewed science (go read it for yourself) while you cling to fringe ideas put about by a coterie of mostly unrespected promoters of dodgy research. In fact most of them, like the Idso crowd at CO2 etc just cherry pick, misquote and regurgitate the stuff that is your lifeblood.

      And besides events will overtake the argument before too long. Just one example you have not addressed is the current state of arctic ice, the thermostat for the northern hemisphere if not the world. If you have not noticed there is a distinct lack of multi year ice and the coverage mass and area have shrunk alarmingly. While you talk of temperature in tenths of degrees the situation in the arctic is in the multiple degree anomaly space. The methane plumes are rising, maybe they are your missing element.

      As I posted earlier, even the republicans in the house science Committee in USA are now on board. Post the May election and a decimated LNP we may have a similar situation here. Shuffle the deck chairs my complacent non hero. The old guard are dying off, literally, and being replaced each year by the new young voters who have more at stake in the discussion. But it is ok, your complacency is well recorded for posterity.

      • spangled drongo says:

        I said don’t feel shy if you could supply a reason. Consensual groupthink is not a reason, stu.

        I’ve been reading your published and peer reviewed “science” for years and apart from being all based on assumption-fed GCMs, and other endless modelling providing predictions that have been consistently wrong, the real world is no different to natural climate variability.

        If there is no sea level rise there is no global warming, and no net ice melt.

        For you to be certain rather than sceptical that this consensual groupthink represents the facts, highlights the fact that your reasoning is considerably lacking.

        It doesn’t matter how many people can be brainwashed into believing anything, the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Climate change is the religion of people who think they’re too smart for religion.

        “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered, than answers that can’t be questioned.” — Feynman

        “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire

        Hang sceptical, stu.

  • Neville says:

    Willis Eschenbach looks at the Vinther et al Greenland study of our Holocene. He checked the data and found that over the last 7,000 years temps on Greenland have declined while co2 levels have strongly increased over the same period.
    Fair dinkum you couldn’t make this stuff up, but don’t worry the barking mad believers won’t even notice.
    Some interesting graphs and particularly showing the steep co2 trend while temps declined over that long period of time.

  • Stu says:

    Oh drongass

    “It doesn’t matter how many people can be brainwashed into believing anything, the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Climate change is the religion of people who think they’re too smart for religion.”

    So please tell me how you are not describing your tribe here. The big difference is weight if numbers and oh I nearly forgot, PHYSICS.

    And tell me please do you believe in evolution? Is the worlds fate in the hand of god so no need to worry. If so we can end the dialogue here.

    • spangled drongo says:

      You finally got it, stu-pid.


      But your trouble is that your newfound religion doesn’t apply them and doesn’t have any idea how they apply.

      So they cook the books.

      But maybe you do, hey stu?

      We are all still waiting for your physics.

      But seeing as you admit to embracing consensual groupthink, I won’t hold my breath.

      BTW, physics is not something you vote for.

      Now, give us your physics.

      • Neville says:

        SD,Stu and others here are not interested in the physics that apply to the real planet earth, rather they are only interested in their fantasy planet.
        Dr Rosling, Lomborg, Goklany and others have tried to get them to concentrate on real data and evidence, but it’s a waste of time. Best to leave them to their fantasies and witchcraft and find more recent PR studies that prove them wrong. They won’t listen or understand but at least we’re learning something new every day.

  • JimboR says:

    Don your logic here is flawed.

    First you state: “the proportion of respondents who tell the interviewer that ‘climate change’ is important to them runs at about 7 per cent.” Several of us question it could be that low and even provide evidence from Pew that it is in fact much higher. Next you reveal that in fact “Pew asks respondents what the major issues affecting them are. One in fourteen say global warming or climate change or something of the kind. ”

    You, and you alone (nobody from Pew) changed ‘affecting me’ to ‘important to me’. I can think of countless issues that are important to me but don’t affect me: domestic violence, elder abuse in nursing homes, education standards, youth employment rates, climate change, debt passed on to future generations, environment passed on to future generations.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Jimbo, carelessness on my part. Mea culpa. But I don’t think it makes much difference. I’ll try and find a UN report, global, which came to the same rough figure.

  • JimboR says:

    Indeed, given the question you now cite as your reference, a more accurate statement for your essay would have been “as many as 7 percent claim to be affected by climate change already” instead we get “the proportion of respondents who tell the interviewer that ‘climate change’ is important to them runs at about 7 per cent.” Fake news.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Another change.

    According to Ole Humlum sea level rise is accelerating.

    He calculates sea level rise from 2003 as 3.16 mm yr. Then calculates sea level rise from 2005 as 3.81 mm yr.

    His chart then shows sea level rise at over 4mm yr.

    So it has gone from around a foot per century to a foot and a quarter per century.

    This is a relatively rapid change in rate-of-rise over around 25%.

    As the increase in temp is mainly linear – this change must be due to increased melt of land ice.

    This is corroborated by NASA’s vital signs website.

    Antarctica loosing 127 Gtonne ice pr yr. Greenland loosing 286 GTonne ice per yr.

  • Neville says:

    Another 80 recent studies on SLs that show much higher levels than today.

    • Chris Warren says:


      This is irrelevant – the associated warmer was cause by different Earth’s orbit with respect to the sun and the rise emerged over a long period.

      Today’s catastrophic sea level rise is not caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit.

      Ole Humlum has proven global warming at least for all honest skeptics. Only nicotine denialists are left.

      Which camp are you in?

  • Neville says:

    Dr Humlum has this to say about satellite SL data. IOW it is perhaps a low of 1.7mm/year or a GIA etc ADJUSTED 3+ mm /year.

    Sea-level from satellite altimetry

    Satellite altimetry is a new and valuable type of measurement, providing unique insight into the detailed surface topography of the oceans, and changes of this. However, it is not a precise tool for estimating changes in global sea level due to a number of assumptions made when interpreting the original satellite data.

    One of the assumptions made during the interpretation of satellite altimetry data is the amount of correction made locally and regionally for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). GIA relate to large-scale, long-term mass transfer from the oceans to the land, in the form of rytmic waxing and waning of the large Quaternary ice sheets in North America and North Europe. This enormous mass transfer causes rytmic changes in surface load, resulting in viscoelastic mantle flow and elastic effects in the upper crust. No single technique or observational network are able to give enough information on all aspects and consequences of GIA, wherefore the assumptions adopted for the interpretation of satellite altiometry data are difficult to verify. The GIA correction introduced in the interpretation of data from satellite altimetry depends upon the type of deglaciation model (for the last glaciation) and upon the type of crust-mantle model that is asumed. As a consequence of this (and additional factors), interpretations on modern global sea level change based on satellite altimetry vary from about 1.7 mm/yr to about 3.2 mm/yr.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Very true, Neville.

      Remember Envisat?

      It was showing nothing happening until it had its wrist smacked and then had to be “corrected”:

    • Chris Warren says:


      Unfortunately ground-based tidal guages are not as reliable as global warming is heating the land as well.

      Due to the different specific-heat capacities of land vs water, if both are hit by the same heat – the relative level of water will fall as it expands less than land.

      There is another factor. Sea water circulates, sending heat down into greater depths leaving the top layers with less expansion than otherwise.

      You cannot use tide gauges to address sea-level rise due to temperature unless you adjust for both land movements AND land thermal expansion.

      Satellites give a more accurate picture.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Due to the different specific-heat capacities of land vs water, if both are hit by the same heat – the relative level of water will fall as it expands less than land.”

        What absolute blither, blith!

        Try digging in the ground and see how far down that “warming” goes.

        Go and have a look at Fort Denison where the SLs have risen 65mm in the last century but now they find that most of that is due to settlement of the rock.

        So there is nothing happening there, either.

        Don’t forget the full moon and the king tides on Tuesday and Wednesday!

        Pay attention.

        I’ll be asking questions.

        Your big chance to cure your enuresis.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “According to Ole Humlum sea level rise is accelerating.”

    You mean according to satellite altimetry.

    Which is as flawed as GRACIE’S gravy meter. And for the same reason.

    “Today’s catastrophic sea level rise is not caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit.”

    What a CAGW worshipping bed-wetter you are, blith.

    Instead of standing on street corners wearing your sandwich boards and screaming your religion at all and sundry simply go and check old sea walls that were built to king tide datum of 70+ years ago and check where the king tides come to today.

    There is a beautiful king tide coming up in 2 days time and a slightly higher one the next day.

    Don’t miss it if you want to experience the evidence with your own lyin’ eyes.

    I’ll lay anyone good odds that our blithnstu will quietly avoid this magnificent proof of what is really happening with their climate change religion.

    It will be all too embarrassing for them.

  • Neville says:

    More from Dr Humlum comparing the tide gauge and satellite data. So average increase at tide gauges is about 4 inches to 6 inches per century or 2 inches LESS than 20th century SLR of about 8 inches and the adjusted sat data shows about 12 +inches/ century.
    I’m happy with the lower trend shown by the tide gauge data. That’s at least 2 inches less than 20th century SLR.
    Here’s his summary.

    “Data from tide-gauges suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1-1.5 mm/yr, while the satellite-derived record suggest a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. The rather marked difference between the two data sets has still no broadly accepted explanation, but some of the difference is likely due to administrative changes introduced into the raw data obtained by satellites. Se the paragraph below on temporal stability of the satellite-derived data.

    Another factor that may explain some of the difference between tide-gauge and satellite data is probably that while any temperature-driven volumen expansion is recorded by the satellites, this change is not affecting tide-gauges at coastal locations, as the water depth here decreases towards zero”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Good one, Neville, and just shows to go the results of this propaganda with people who are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

      Such as our own blithnstu.

      Describes them to a “T”.

      Let’s hope they observe and absorb.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Meanwhile, the only change with Arctic sea ice is that it continues to improve:

    • Stu says:

      That is strange. Here is a quote from the Demark Ocean Institute (the same crowd that realclimatescience crowd above claim to quote.

      “ The Frozen Sea
      Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.

      Sea ice is an important element in the understanding of the global climate system. The changes in sea ice extent is closely monitored and analysed by various climate centers around the world.”

      Go figure.

      • Stu says:

        And add to that the fact that the figures claimed in the post are derived from a model. I thought you were totally opposed to models!

      • Don Aitkin says:

        We know that the Arctic was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s, so a comparison from the 1970s doesn’t really inform us.

  • Neville says:

    Labor’s lead starts to sink as their boat deal encouraging the vile people smugglers starts to bite. But surely there’s another few percent who understands what a clueless deal they’re offering voters on their CAGW delusion?

  • Chris Warren says:


    You appear to have misunderstood Curry’s tactic.

    I never said she misquoted Mann, so your comment is irrelevant.

    If you go back you, will see that Curry created a falsification by taking Mann’s comment out of his context of hurricanes hitting the coast and implying it was a comment about sea level rise. Mann was talking about a Hervey-like event or a Sandy-like event.

    Of course Hansen never said: ““That’s the big thing – sea-level rise – the planet could become ungovernable.” This was Curry’s construction.

    Hansen certainly said “the planet could become ungovernable” in a different sentence about population shifts and economic implications. He never presented the comment as manufactured by Curry.

    You can see Curry’s “evidence” here:

    I know there are plenty of others who swoon at the outpourings of denialist bloggists in preference to science, so I am sure if Hansen said as Curry claims, someone will come up with the evidence.

    Curry should simply retract or correct her supposed quotations and stop creating fake straw men to wax her own views.

    Here is another example of another denialist outfit peddling the same fake news.

    One denialist – the echo chamber of another.

    Are they allergic to serious science?

  • Stu says:

    Here is a nasty looking trend line from the same Danish crowd.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Are they allergic to serious science?”

    You wouldn’t know serious science if it bit you, blith.

    If you are really serious about the science of SLR, do as I suggest and check out king tide levels against old, long established, sound sea walls that were built in the past to king tide datum.

    There are many of these sea walls all around the coastline and you can easily find them and see how current king tides compare with those of the past.

    That shouldn’t be too hard even for you and there is no sea level science as accurate as this for the average person to personally observe.

    You can then let us all know what you have seen with your own eyes and whether it confirms your worst suspicions about climate change or otherwise.

    If you check it out and you can show that CAGW is really happening, your cred will improve no end, but if, otoh, you see nothing to worry about, it will still be to your advantage as well as everyone else’s.

    What have you got to lose?

    The full moon is almost upon us and the king tides are tomorrow, Wednesday and even Thursday.

  • Stu says:

    Here is very well structured piece on the state of play by Thomas Musselman on the Quora site. Note that Quora is a proper science oriented site not like many others out there in the ether.

    “Science advances in fits and starts. Climate change is no simple matter, so there is always going to be 2 of 1000 indicators saying it isn’t occurring. But like other sciences a consensus has emerged. A consensus does not require 100% of every scientist on the planet. This is the hottest year on record; last year was the hottest before this one. The southern ocean is warming. The world’s glaciers are melting, as is the ice cover of Greenland and the sea ice north of Canada. The CO2 concentrations have soared in the last 150 years to FAR higher than in the last 600,000 years. There are no frauds or lies, just exaggerations by the deniers. Exxon, which financed climate change denial for decades, sat on its own scientists’ reports that the climate was warming and caused by burning of fossil fuels, keeping them secret. The climate change denier who the Kochs financed from their climate-deniying Heartland Institute hid the source of his funding; that was dishonest. There has been no dishonesty among the science community who have concluded that the climate is warming. You have been reading too many right-wing propaganda sites and sources. Think about it: the only people opposed to the climate change consensus are right-wing politicians, oil company magnates, right-wing conspiracy websites like zerohedge, right-wing editorials in the Wall St. Journal….you get the picture. [And the bulk of folk here on the DA site] The opposition is not about science, but about right wing politics, which doesn’t like any collective solution to any problem, and which want to continue the oil and gas industry subsidies that we have been paying out since the early 1900s. The Koch Brothers themselves have rec’d more than $190 million since the 1990s, so of course they want to keep feeding at the trough and oppose any effort for us to use solar and wind power instead of oil, coal and gas.

    In short, there is nothing wrong with carefully examining claims made in any one piece of research. But EVERY single one of the claims of the deniers has been carefully dissected and rejected by the community of world scientists including the Royal Society, the National Academy of Science, and the science bodies of every country that has one, none of which are in countrys where it is in the countries’ interests to stop burning oil, coal, and gas (the US is the world’s #1 oil producer; it is very inconvenient that we need to use renewable sources of energy).“

    And as mentioned previously Exxon is now being exposed in the Californian courts for deception, hiding internal science results and promoting denialist organisations. The NSW Rocky Hill coal mine decision is going to reverberate and probably be amplified in the near future. Wonderful eh!

    • Chris Warren says:


      That is how things stand. “But EVERY single one of the claims of the deniers has been carefully dissected and rejected by the community of world scientists including the Royal Society, the National Academy of Science, and the science bodies of every country that has one”.

      Unfortunately it may take a page of explanation to debunk just a short sentence from a denier and expose their tricks.

      • Stu says:

        How true and how sad really that people can be so entrenched in such illogical thought processes. Can you imagine these guys in any mainstream science blog. People would be falling about in derisory laughter at some of the stuff they post. And of course one after the other we get the standard denier claims, “no empirical evidence, climate is always changing, plants like carbon, it was hotter before with less CO2, it is the sun, 1.5 degree change is trivial, they do it for the money, it is a fraudulent conspiracy, the sea was higher in the past, etc, etc. tiresome in the extreme.
        My approach with deniers I know is to get them to commit in writing or video that climate change is a furphy and not human related. For the guys here it is simply a case of archiving the posts. Soon it will be accounting day. Not the end of days churchy kind but the “told you so” realisation of fact. Their descendants will be horrified. On the other hand, if we are wrong, it will be high fives, drinks all round and what great news. You cant say the same for the other guys and anyow the weight of evidence is stacked so high against them it is no contest.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Please archive the Bureau of Meteorology Pacific Sea Level monitoring Project:
, that shows no significant sea level rise for any Pacific Island nation (except Samoa), since the early 1900s. If you all believe in the BOM’s temperature data, why do you refuse to acknowledge their sea level data? Because it doesn’t fit your narrative?

          Don, nice to see you back, and in such fine (intellectual) form. May it continue.

          • JimboR says:

            Bryan, your link didn’t work for me, but I did find:


            “shows no significant sea level rise for any Pacific Island nation (except Samoa)”

            What do you consider “significant”? The orthodox view is that SLR is currently running at about 3mm / year. I drew a line through the green (mean) plot for Tuvalu and came up with 4mm / year.

            Are you disputing that Tuvalu is seeing that much rise, or are you saying that much rise is not significant?

  • Boambee John says:

    I see the battle of the peer reviewed papers continues. Yawn.

    The real battle should be about the practicality, or even the value, of the proposed remedies. Let’s have a discussion on what has been achieved with the billions spent on wind and solar.

    What percent of nominal output do they deliver over a year? What is the additional cost of “poles and wires” to deliver energy from widely dispersed renewable generators to users?

    Is there any realistic possibility of running hospitals, shopping centres or even traffic lights solely on renewables, much less any form of industry? If we go fully electric on transport, can renewables provide the energy to distribute food around the nation?

    And, if it is as serious a situation as claimed, why are we not ibstalling nuclear power stations?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Note that Quora is a proper science oriented site not like many others out there in the ether.”

    Yes, stu, we noticed:

    Their generosity is overwhelming:

    “Climate change is no simple matter, so there is always going to be 2 of 1000 indicators saying it isn’t occurring.”

    Just take your mate blith and go and check the king tides and learn that the real indicators may not be on your side at all.

    But that’s only if you want to know about true facts.

    • Stu says:

      But then again Sitejabber is not universally acclamed. In fact I found this quote, pretty strong stuff libellous if not backed by some facts I would think.

      “Most of the user believe that the result that these reviews sites shows are original, but the platforms like Sitejabber take advantage of this user persona and try to harm others business by posting fake reviews on their site (Sitejabber) and after that they demand a huge amount to the business owners to remove those fake reviews.

      I’m familiar with sitejabber cheap business modal because they try to harm two of my clients business by posting fake negative reviews. So, never trust on sitejabber.

      Sitejabber Business Modal

      Post fake negative review for any individual business website
      Demand money to remove negative reviews
      After getting money from the website delete those negative reviews” – Patrick Austin April 2018

      • spangled drongo says:

        And when Quora says; “so there is always going to be 2 of 1000 indicators saying it isn’t occurring”, you really can’t see that they lack balance?

        When sea levels alone negate your whole alarmist theory?

        And your whole alarmist theory is based on warming of about half the rate of Nat Var?

        Oh dear!

        The very fact that the two of you have expressed no interest whatsoever in assessing coming king tide levels relative to historic ones proves what a frail grip of reality you both have.

        And that the real world is the last thing you want to engage with.

  • Neville says:

    SD they couldn’t care less about data or evidence, but rather live for their crazy cult.
    Here’s Willis’s recent study focusing on Church& White’s study where they combine the sat and tide gauge data to deliver an increased trend to further muddy the waters.
    These BS merchants will try anything to try and fool us and sadly the cultists just lap it up every time.
    He calls his post “Inside the ACCELERATION factory”, just unbelievable but true. These characters have no shame at all.

    • Stu says:

      Please explain your obsession with tide data . If you actually were involved with tides as I am every week you would not crap on about it. Many things influence the daily tide. Assessing SLR is another thing and quite complex. Your King Tide rant is just smokescreen. There is much more at stake,here at least, than the sea level in the immediate future. It is just one of the indicators.

      How about moving on to some of the many dozens of other climate indicators, that specialist scientists have been researching , but you seem to dismiss outright.

      As said before, this field is extremely complex and from what I discern, no-one in this blog is competent to seriously critique. All we can do is quote others. And a few of us here rely on the respected mainstream publishing climate scientists rather than a grab bag of hangers on that appear to have multiple ulterior motives, (read money), and a lack of credibility.

      Your arguments have no cred except in this somewhat jaundiced echo chamber of denial.

      But keep it up, I am having fun.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Please explain your obsession with tide data . If you actually were involved with tides as I am every week you would not crap on about it.”

        Ah, so you actually know what tides are then, stu?

        Or maybe you don’t.

        The Highest Astronomical Tide of the year is the best and possibly only indicator of whether SLR is going to affect us.

        Floods, storm surge etc are always variables.

        King tides are the only way the average person gets to observe for themselves whether there is any global warming.

        Global temperatures are virtually unknowable and existing data that has been highly adjusted, is, for so many obvious reasons, very doubtful.

        King tides are the only indicator that we have to confirm the blither that we are being fed.

        Now, stu, if you are as involved with tides as you claim, it is not hard to find old sea walls built to king tide datum and simply see for yourself what the latest HAT is, in relation to those old walls.

        Based on normal barometric pressure my latest comparisons are;

        40 year old walls, currently about similar.

        50 year old walls, currently lower by up to 300mm.

        70 year old walls, currently lower by up to 250mm.

        There are naturally variations due to changes in hydrology in local areas but if you use walls in deep areas of bays and harbours closest to the ocean, you will get the best results. I have been doing this for the last 6 – 8 years and it gives me the best indicator of real sea levels that are available.

        You can start with the king tides that are happening for the next three days.

        And report back.

  • Neville says:

    Less than 10 years ago NASA said that the Sun + clouds, particles etc were the primary driver of CC, but that page has now disappeared and the main culprit is now human co2 emissions.
    Thanks to the wayback machine that page can be retrieved , so everyone can see how they chop and change to suit the ongoing narrative.
    Access denied indeed.

    • Chris Warren says:


      You denialists do not have the ability to probe these issues.

      The sun + clouds etc are the primary NATURAL drivers of the Earth’s climate and natural climate change. So what. As the Nova troll highlighted: According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.

      This is entirely correct.

      Nova then jumped over the NASA paragraph starting with the word “However…..” which then looked at HUMAN drivers.

      Guess what she skipped; Here it is;

      However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface..

      Now when CO2 levels were higher by about 30 percent above pre-industrial levels, it was reasonable to consider whether:

      “clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”

      But thankfully scientists have now found that increases beyond 30% do not suggest that the Earth has any chance of cooling. In fact every measurement indicates the EXACT OPPOSITE.

      When things become clearer – it is entirely APPROPRIATE for changes to be made to websites.

      The only legitimate reason to howl and cry about it, is if you believe that:

      Each of clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.

      OR you (and Nova) think this should be NASA’s view because you are such pure geniuses and know so much more than all the world’s scientists.

      Any sane person will retract statements suggesting that the world will cool as CO2 climbs to and through 30%. We are now heading to 420 ppm which is 45% high and if present trends continue the next generation will suffer near 600 ppm.

      Will we still have Neville-Nova-nutters claiming that clouds etc are cooling the planet?????

      • Neville says:

        Geeezzzz and this from the bloke who still thinks that upside down Mann is a credible source ?
        You’ve got to be joking?

  • Neville says:

    Dr Judith Curry now makes her living in the private sector working for private clients and companies.
    These people want to know what the future weather /climate will be like. She also provides the best data for these clients on the paleo history of climate over many thousands of years.
    Today she starts her post about storms, hurricanes etc. Since the 1970s/80s we have the sat record to help with tracking these hurricanes and before that time many non land occurring hurricanes were missed other than in the regular shipping lanes.
    Certainly there were many worse periods over the last 1500 years and many thousands of years BP. The BOM shows that cyclones have decreased since then for our east coast since 1970.
    Here’s her summary and link.

    3.4 Conclusions

    “Analyses of both global and regional variability and trends of hurricane activity provide the basis for detecting changes and understanding their causes.

    The relatively short historical record of hurricane activity, and the even shorter record from the satellite era, is not sufficient to assess whether recent hurricane activity is unusual for during the current interglacial period. Results from paleotempestology analyses in the North Atlantic at a limited number of locations indicate that the current heightened activity is not unusual, with a ‘hyperactive period’ apparently occurring from 3400 to 1000 years before present.

    Global hurricane activity since 1970 shows no significant trends in overall frequency, although there is some evidence of increasing numbers of major hurricanes and of an increase in the percentage of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

    In the North Atlantic, all measures of hurricane activity have increased since 1970, although comparably high levels of activities also occurred during the 1950’s and 1960’s”.

  • Chris Warren says:


    There is no point crying about Church& White’s study. You just copy-pasted it without reading.

    Tide gauges need careful assessment and adjustment for land movement and the balance between thermal expansion of land and water.

    Limestone and granite expand only at a rate of 4% compared to the expansion of water but iron rich minerals will have different expansions.

    Satellite measurements cancel out any such problems.

    In any case even Ole Humlum has found that sea level has accelerated and is now over 4mm.

    Is Humlum part of your acceleration factory?????

    • Neville says:

      I’ve shown you the relevant Dr Humlum quotes and if you can’t understand it don’t blame me.

    • Boambee John says:


      I’m sure it is because you are so busy posting links that you have not yet responded to my questions from yesterday.

      Here they are again

      “I see the battle of the peer reviewed papers continues. Yawn.

      The real battle should be about the practicality, or even the value, of the proposed remedies. Let’s have a discussion on what has been achieved with the billions spent on wind and solar.

      What percent of nominal output do they deliver over a year? What is the additional cost of “poles and wires” to deliver energy from widely dispersed renewable generators to users?

      Is there any realistic possibility of running hospitals, shopping centres or even traffic lights solely on renewables, much less any form of industry? If we go fully electric on transport, can renewables provide the energy to distribute food around the nation?

      And, if it is as serious a situation as claimed, why are we not installing nuclear power stations?”

      Waiting, waiting …

  • Neville says:

    Here is the BOM data for trop cyclones in OZ region since 1970, showing a decreasing trend for about 50 years.
    And Dr Nott’s paleo studies show that the last super cyclone hit the NE coast over 200 years ago. Let’s hope it stays that way.
    Also we don’t get the cyclones/storms as far south in NSW as were observed in the earlier 20 th century.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks, Neville. Yes, we have never had it so good cyclone-wise, for the last 50 years.

      Ocean front houses in Hedges Ave on the Gold Coast that I spent many nights sandbagging [I had a job to go to in the daytime] 50 years ago were being washed out to sea yet today have huge beaches in front of them and change hands for tens of millions.

      When a storm occurs today you hear people on TV news say, “I’ve lived here 20 years and never seen anything like it.”

      “It’s unprecedented!!!”


      Who does it remind you of?

      So now, blithnstu, try not to be so ignorant and use these king tides to educate yourselves and give us all a break.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Please look up the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project. If, as is claimed, sea level in this area has been rising at 4mm/year, over the 25 years of its operation, sea level should have risen by 10cm. As the graphs clearly show, it has not. You can believe the claims, or you can believe the data.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Bryan Roberts

      If you checked Ole Humlum’s chart you will see no claim that sea level has been rising at 4mm/year over 25 years.

      This is your straw man falsification.

      Who else has claimed 4mm/yr over 25 years ?????????????

    • JimboR says:

      That’s what I see in the green (mean) plot of this graph:

      Now I haven’t tested that it’s linear growth, but certainly the average growth over the interval is 4mm/year and yes Bryan the graph does actually show it’s gone up by 10cm over the interval.

      Keep in mind 10cm is just 0.3% of the dynamic range of that y-axis, and only 2% of the dynamic range of just one grid. You’ll struggle to spot it at that scale, but re-plot it on a y-axis of say 1.6m to 2.3m and it sticks out like dog’s balls… even with all the high frequency chatter trying to obscure it.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Satellite measurements cancel out any such problems.”

    What absolute blither!

    Satellite measurements can show any result the operator requires as evidenced by ENVISAT, until it was consensually brought into line.

    Please try disregarding all the fake evidence cooked up by people with known motives and try putting your head out the window.

    Now is your big chance but if you do not take it we can only assume you prefer enuresis to facts.

    Prove us wrong!

  • Ian MacCulloch says:

    Good to know you are with this world in more ways than one, Don .

    Since 150,000 years BP there have been two peaks above the current sea level. The highest of these was 15 metres and the next was at 6,000 years BP where the peak was 6 metres. I did spend some of my youth drilling both onshore and offshore beach sands for heavy mineral deposits. There is ample evidence of rapid advance and retreat of sea levels. Far greater rates per annum have been in operation than what we see to day and of course completely unrelated to atmospheric CO2 behaviour patterns. So if you are doing any sort of coastal planning then 6 metres should be high on the list as the benchmark for consideration. Of course, there are some alleged correlations with glacier movements but these occurred over a fairly small area of the planet and certainly none in the last cycle appeared on the Australian continent. So universal isostasy to explain huge sea level movements is just not a viable explanation. However, there is enough active warping and plate movement to create a dynamic environment that can create variable rates of sea level changes. It is only 500 million years before NZ docks at Bondi – it should be worth the wait. So the discussion on current sea level changes by all parties is rather nonsensical because the short term influences that every one is trying to measure today are greatly outweighed by the far more vigorous activities that have occurred globally from as recently 13,000 years ago.

    As always a lively debate amongst the protagonists. Great stuff indeed.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks, Ian. This is what is known as natural climate variability which has been happening for the history of the earth and puts current “climate change” in its proper perspective.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Please see this link including my discussion with Neil White of Church and White re sea levels:

  • Stu says:

    Next you will tell me that the king tide height is the same every time. KT height can give an indication of what happens as SSL rises but is not itself used as the base line for measurement of SSL

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Next you will tell me that the king tide height is the same every time.”

      Only a stu-pid could come up with a conclusion like that.

      Highest astronomical tides are the highest the sea level gets and they vary slightly from year to year for all sorts of reasons.

      As I said above, one thing they have to be corrected for is barometric pressure which is currently below normal here and causing extra height, and with today’s king tide there is a large swell being generated by an off-shore cyclone which also has a rising effect.

      Why don’t you go and check it out for yourself instead of blithering?

  • spangled drongo says:

    In 1974 we had a cyclone coinciding with a king tide and that king tide was 1.5 METRES above normal BP, fine weather king tide height.

    The storm surge washed right through a Gold Coast tourist theme park.

    Just imagine the screams of climate change alarmism if that happened today.

  • Boambee John says:

    From stu on 13 February

    How is calling her a “denialist” an ad hominem attack. It is simply a factual statement. She is known for denying the propriety of generally accepted science fact, which is why she resigned from her university post.”

    Does this make Galileo an orbital “denialist”? The scientist who discovered the link between a bacterium and stomach ulcers a “stress denialist”?

    The term “denialist” is childish rubbish, indicating a lack of logical arguments.

    • Stu says:

      Ok then let us settle for the title “people who hold an extreme minority view against the evidence and prevailing view”. And FFS don’t try and equate Currey with Galileo. After all he was not challenging science so much as the dogma of a stone age cult being dragged into the era of enlightenment. Malcolm Roberts tried that with his (now appatently defunct) Galileo Movement. He did not found it but was Project Leader. Somewhat akin to the reactionaries in the LNP calling themselves the Menzies group.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Like Malcolm, we are also still waiting for your empirical evidence, stu.

        When you can’t provide it and you insult the requester rather than apologise, do you possibly think that is telling you something?

        • Stu says:

          There you go on the circular argument. Anything I post on”empirical evidence” will be dismissed by you as wrong or irrelevant, so what is the point. And by the way, what is your expertise in this complex area of science? I happily admit I have very little in the arena of climate science but I don’t profess to know it all. I simply rely on the evidence and published work of the experts.

          If you are serious you can find the information out there all over the place. You dont need me to regurgitate it. Oh and by the way we now have a legal decision quoting the CO2 climate change issue in killing the Gloucster coal mine. Maybe you write to the judge and/or read the evidence and decision.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Anything I post on”empirical evidence” will be dismissed by you as wrong or irrelevant, so what is the point.”

            Nothing circular at all. The point is, is that it would be the first time anyone has ever posted any empirical evidence of CAGW based on CO2 emissions.

            It would be ground-breaking stuff.

            And the reason you can’t post it is because it doesn’t exist, yet it doesn’t stop you from calling sceptics “deniers” simply because you have never come up with the goods other than by assumption, modelling and nonsensical claims that the science is settled.

            Whereas sceptics can easily show that any current warming is well within the bounds of natural climate variability.

            And that the earth has many, many times been warmer than now with lower CO2.

            And that warming produces CO2, not the reverse.

            One person with empirical evidence can prove the rest of the world wrong.

            But the catch is, you gotta supply it.

      • Boambee John says:

        And the “consensus science” on ulcers? Another stone age cult of doctors dragged into the enlightenment?

        Using “denier” was always a sleazy attempt to link with Holocaust denial. Utterly cowardly.

        • Stu says:

          I think that is called science at work. The prior consensus view looked at the evidence and the results and accepted the science.

          That is what is currently missing in the AGW sphere. There is a general rejection by the publishing scientists of the alternative views, but of course there is quite a lack of scholarly papers published in reputable journals from that argument so it remains a somewhat one sided argument in real science circles. Of course as stated previously if someone has a really good case for “natural cycles only” they would be in line for a Nobel prize. A bit like Trumo really, do you know someone to nominate.

          As for the link of “denial” and holocaust I think we can make the counter argument. You are using a tragic and well proven story for perfidious ends. Shame on you.

Leave a Reply