How the message gets embedded

By June 26, 2019Other

Somewhere in this or a recent thread an alarmist asked me did I think there was some massive conspiracy involving learned societies, universities and governments, all of whom were missing the points I was making. I said No, I don’t have much truck with conspiracies, small or massive. The notion that the choice was binary — either you thought there was a conspiracy, or you accepted the alarmist position — stuck in my mind, and this essay is a response to that common orthodox position.

First, there has to be a message, and it has to be of some moment, some significance, to involve players like governments. In my view the message came half a century ago, in the form of the environmental movement, which proclaimed that human beings were destroying the one planet they lived on. The message came at the same time as a steady decline in the proportions of people in the Anglophone societies, and in the Protestant parts of Europe, who took organised Christianity seriously. The message was quickly politicised by a new formation, political parties often called Greens, which used the colour as their symbol, and increasingly as their name. The Greens were not part of the liberal/conservative, left/right, Labor/Coalition divide that is familiar to us, though their tendency, being radical, was to the left. The established parties did their best to ignore the Greens, but when in time they reached ten per cent of the popular vote both traditional sides of politics tried to work out how best to counter this new threat.

Second, the party in government will try to avoid doing anything of substance in a new and contested area like this, but it will do what it sees as wall-papering, as John Howard did in setting up the Australian Greenhouse Office in 1998. As time went on, however, the AGO gained more and more functions. In 2004 it became part of a government department, and after Kevin Rudd’s win in 2007 it became part of the new Department of Climate Change. Why did this expansion happen, when Howard tried so hard to downplay ‘climate change’? In part because the AGO’s funding was built into forward estimates, which meant that unless these were changed by the Department of Finance and by Cabinet, it would be there forever. And all department secretaries try to hang on to what they have. So, all over the wide range of the Australian Government there are bits and pieces of the apparatus of State whose function is to proclaim the message that ‘climate change’ is important and we have to do something about it. That applies whoever is in power. It would be extremely difficult for Scott Morrison as Prime Minister to change that message quickly, and laborious (though in my judgment necessary) to do it slowly.

Third, these ‘climate change’ entities in government have money to spend, and they search for allies. Enter the learned academies. In 1990 I was able to persuade my Minister that we should allocate some infrastructure funding to the academies. The Minister though they were a bunch of old guys whose primary purpose was to decide on other old guys to honour. I said while there was some truth in that judgment, the academies provide a more or less neutral source of advice when government needed to get past the legion of urgers who want more money spent on this or that in the world of research, especially in science, social welfare, education and health. Yes, there were other possible sources of more or less neutral advice, but there was no harm in having the academies on side. He agreed, and each of the four received some more core funding. Now, the academies also have their own axes to grind, and they will support any proposal that directs funding to academics who want to do research. It was not long, therefore, before ‘climate change’ money came on to the scene, and the academies did their best to ensure that it was directed to areas that the government wanted research in: ‘human-induced climate change’. I do not think there was any suggestion from any academy that the reach of the funding should be broadened to include sources of natural variation. I stand to be corrected. I am a fellow of one academy and know the others reasonably well. That is my picture.

Fourth, now enter the universities, always hungry for money. Every dean wants to see his or her academic staff busily seeking funding, and all praise to those who are successful. Those who followed the Government and academies line were therefore strongly supported, and the few who criticised it, or pointed out that there were shoddy elements in the research thus funded, were made to become pariahs, and dealt with in a fairly brutal way. What happened to Professors Brady, Carter and Ridd was appalling. Other critics saw the writing on the wall, and shut up. For a young researcher the rule was head down, work on, say nothing. And the shift into work that either supported the CO2 hypothesis or took it for granted, and asked what would happen now, grew steadily stronger.

In time, fifth, other organisations picked up the new theme, some because it made sense financially, some because its board now included people who took the new theme seriously, some because board members were also board members of other organisations where the shift had already occurred. Major international organisations did likewise, so their affiliates in other countries felt some need to follow suit. Little by little the view that the planet was in danger became the theme of the early 21stcentury. Did any of these organisations, anyof them, do the due diligence and go back to square one, examine all the evidence, and come to an informed view? If one did, it has not proclaimed its virtue in this domain. The Royal Society and the Australian Academy of Science set up working parties to prepare the official view, but the official view was already set. The working party had simply to provide the right words. That not all members agreed with the published words is well known. Too bad. They are there, set in what looks to be stone.

None of this required a ‘conspiracy’. None was needed. What we have seen, in the account I have given, which I think is substantially accurate, is reliance on another form of argument: the argument from authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam. When questioned as to your knowledge of the matter, you reply that since the Royal Society or the Australian Academy has already said the words there is no need for you to do anything else. They are the authority. You simply refer to them. If we all agree as to the authority that is a different matter, as we might do in the case, say, of a newly discovered asteroid. Where we don’t agree, the appeal to authority is inherently fallacious.

Who stood out against the tide? Overwhelmingly, retired scientists, engineers and the like, people who could not be disciplined by their former organisations, and disliked the groupthink they could detect. Scientists like Lindzen, Happer, Curry, Kininmonth and Paltridge in our country, and many others around the world, cannot be dismissed as ignorant, so the orthodoxy simply takes no notice of them, as it does with respect to most inconvenient data.

Alarmists are correct to say that they hold the reins, and that no one of importance listens to the sceptics. That does not mean that the alarmists are correct. My guess is that the rising price of electricity, and the associated lack of capacity to power mainstream grids through solar and wind, will cause a slow rethinking of the orthodox position. I don’t think it will happen quickly, because once organisations take up ‘positions’ they are most reluctant to let go of them, as I pointed out in the case of government instrumentalities.

Time will tell.

Join the discussion 390 Comments

  • Stu says:

    Very interesting Don. Looking back to your time at ARC, you clearly would have seen the beginnings (or continuation) of this trend so I take your view at face value. I would only add in your last para “it does not mean the alarmists are incorrect either”.

    Any chance we can get some comment on your essay from one or more of the players from the mainstream side that you include in the piece, ie a CRC, or the Academies. Do any of them follow here?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      I don’t know who the readers are unless they comment, so I can’t help there. But I wouldn’t be surprised to get some new commenters on this one. I agree that it does not mean the alarmists are incorrect, either.

  • JimboR says:

    Some think institutional pressures have acted in the opposite direction….

    “Finally, there is Garth Paltridge’s own book, The Climate Caper. This contains little science at all. It is mainly about the institutional pressures that act on scientists. I agree with much of what Garth says, but my observation is that the pressures have largely acted in the opposite direction, inhibiting communication of mainstream climate science when governments found the implications inconvenient. Thus organisations such as CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology remain muted on the inadequacy of proposals from both sides of politics.”

    http://theconversation.com/rogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Pearman has certainly made up for it since!

    • JimboR says:

      But he had to leave CSIRO before he could say what he really thought. That supports your theory of institutional pressure, but it also supports Enting ‘s theory that the pressure is in the opposite direction to what you and Paltridge claim (at least in this case). Far from the government encouraging them to ramp up the alarm, they’re forcing them to tone it down.

  • JimboR says:

    Ridd is not the first scientist to lose his job for speaking out about climate change:

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/scientists-bitter-over-interference-20060213-ge1qxb.html

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Jimbo, I’m not sure that is the case. As I understand it, he was sacked because he publicly disagreed with the ‘official’ JCU position that the GBR was in imminent danger of destruction, thus imperilling a major source of their funding, not because he had a particular position on climate change.

      • CameronH says:

        I thought that it was his “particular position on climate change” that disagreed with their official position and, if taken seriously, would imperil their funding that got him sacked. You statement does not make sense to me.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          I think you will find that he publicly disagreed with his colleagues on the condition of the GBR. He became persona non grata at JCU, and guess what? University HR departments are about as forgiving as the KGB.

  • chrisl says:

    Follow the money. Add virtue signalling. Mix thoroughly.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Who stood out against the tide?”

    Good question. A few retired academics but many workers whose daily bread has been affected but whose opinion has been overwhelmed particularly by mainstream media that loves nothing better than alarmist news. And they wallow daily in the clamour of climate crisis.

    But here’s one tide that so many academics are in denial of:

    Sea level rise of less than one and a half inches in a century:

    https://principia-scientific.org/worlds-76-best-tide-gauges-show-negligible-sea-level-rise/

    But even with this compelling evidence in full view as in the city of Sydney, built around a harbour displaying this long term sea level stability, Clover Moore has the hysterical capacity to declare a “Climate Emergency”.

    And the mindless stupidity gets attention all around the world:

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2019/06/21/sydney-declare-climate-emergency-face-national-inaction/Sw8ynflphqmD9R3idPEozN/story.html

  • Doug Hurst says:

    To me the facts say that we do not face a climate crisis from human production of CO2 and wind and solar would not solve it if we did. So I am not worried about the fate of my grandchildren. What concerns me now is that facts and reason don’t seem to count much any more, especially in places they should like government and academia. But facts usually do count eventually and when this happens we will face the huge task of unscrambling the omelet.

    Climate change/crisis is now institutionalised and part of the thinking of millions. Even if we have indisputable evidence that I am right, and we do not face a climate crisis, how do we change the legislation, go back to burning coal, re-write the text books, dismantle all the wind farms, convince the masses to stop worrying and basically put everything back as it was before the great scare? I don’t know, but I suspect that proving we are right will only be step one in a very long process of restoration of facts, reason, overall sanity and much reduced influence of noisy fanatics on government.

    • Neville says:

      My point exactly Doug and how many trillions $ have we wasted and for how long? Certainly we know we can’t mitigate any measurable change by 2040 or 2100 or for thousands of years , no matter how many 100s of trillions of $ we care to throw at their so called CAGW. See question 20 RS & NAS report.
      Maths guru Nic Lewis has looked at their claims and finds we might have a change in temp before the thousand year mark but thinks that co2 levels would still remain elevated for thousands of years after a lowering of temp.
      Don’t forget these calculations are only made after we stopped ALL HUMAN co2 emissions today, so we know that their so called mitigation is a complete CON and FRA-D.
      OH and Lomborg calculates that FULL Paris compliance would only get us 1% of the way down the RS & NAS mitigation road. Meanwhile China, India and non OECD couldn’t care less as their co2 emissions continue to soar and OECD emissions flat-line.
      So not even 1% compliance so far and the pollie donkeys, MSM donkeys and deaf and dumb so called scientists tell us we STILL must do something about their so called CAGW?

      • Mike says:

        Skeptical Television scientists and commentators have lost their positions on public broadcasters. David Bellamy was ousted from the BBC for saying climate change alarm was baloney and more recently Clive James hasn’t had a gig in the ABC After resist say demolishing climate change alarm where he likened the players to a house of cards that will come tumbling down but they’ll keep their careers

    • JimboR says:

      “how do we change the legislation”

      I’m not sure what your concerns are there, Abbott demonstrated how easy that is. By far our most complex legislation in this area was Gillard’s carbon tax (ETS or whatever else you want to call it). Abbott went to an election with an “axe the tax” agenda, won the election and ten months later the legislation was repealed. The various RETs and abatement funds that replaced it are largely regulatory so the minister of the day can change the settings there without even a vote.

      Meanwhile Trump has demonstrated how easy it is to pull out of global commitments – so much for UN world domination.

  • Richard S Courtney says:

    Dear Don Aitkin,

    You say,
    “Somewhere in this or a recent thread an alarmist asked me did I think there was some massive conspiracy involving learned societies, universities and governments, all of whom were missing the points I was making. I said No, I don’t have much truck with conspiracies, small or massive.”

    I, too, don’t think there was or is a conspiracy. However, formation of the existing bandwagon did involve concerted actions to usurp learned societies. Those actions only required activities of a few people because very few members of learned societies take any interest in governance of the societies.

    Richard Lindzen published a paper that details those activities. It is an interesting – and shocking – read that names names: it can be read here http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf
    and an updated version (version 4) can be downloaded from here
    https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762

    Importantly, several attempts had been made to start a political scare about anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) global warming (AGW) in the nearly a century following Arrhenius publications on the greenhouse effect. None of these attempts was successful until for purely personal reasons Margaret Thatcher campaigned about AGW it and threw money at publicising it. Her UK political party were willing to support her use of government money to generate the AGW scare because the scare could be used to attack the UK’s National Union Of Mineworkers (NUM) whom they blamed for the 1974 UK General Election result. Then, politicians in other countries supported her scare for economic reasons. I explain all these matters in this item
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/

    It reports how prior to the existence of the AGW-scare I predicted the AGW-scare would occur. In its Introduction I say,
    “I provided my report to BACM near the end of 1980 and they considered it in early 1981 (it is often referred to as my “1980? and my “1981? report, but that is the same report). It concluded that positive feedbacks in the political system would cause ‘global warming’ to become a serious environmental issue whether or not any scientific evidence to support it were to be obtained. Indeed, the political feedbacks were so severe that the issue would become more important than any other ‘environmental’ issue and was likely to supplant most ‘environmental’ issues.”
    and
    “BACM rejected that report saying it was “extreme” and “implausible”. Since then ‘global warming’ has failed to obtain any supporting evidence but has become the major ‘environmental’ issue such that all other ‘environmental’ issues have become subordinated to it.”

    Please note that if you remove all mentions of science from the influence diagrams then political influence continues to power the remaining positive feedback loops that generated the scare.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Richard

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Dear Don Aitkin,

      I made this post yesterday and it is still in moderation. A post I made in this thread today instantly appeared.

      Clearly, some moderation rule has ‘snagged’ this post and I would be grateful if I were told what it is because then I could avoid breaking the rule in future. Thanking uou in anticipation of the info.

      Richard

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      I made this post yesterday. It is still in moderation I am supposing because it contains links. Hence, I post it here without the links and people who want to read the links will need to google to find them.

      Richard

      ————————————————————–

      Dear Don Aitkin,

      You say,
      “Somewhere in this or a recent thread an alarmist asked me did I think there was some massive conspiracy involving learned societies, universities and governments, all of whom were missing the points I was making. I said No, I don’t have much truck with conspiracies, small or massive.”

      I, too, don’t think there was or is a conspiracy. However, formation of the existing bandwagon did involve concerted actions to usurp learned societies. Those actions only required activities of a few people because very few members of learned societies take any interest in governance of the societies.

      Richard Lindzen published a paper that details those activities. It is an interesting – and shocking – read that names names: it can be read here [link redacted]
      and an updated version (version 4) can be downloaded from here
      [link redacted]

      Importantly, several attempts had been made to start a political scare about anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) global warming (AGW) in the nearly a century following Arrhenius publications on the greenhouse effect. None of these attempts was successful until for purely personal reasons Margaret Thatcher campaigned about AGW it and threw money at publicising it. Her UK political party were willing to support her use of government money to generate the AGW scare because the scare could be used to attack the UK’s National Union Of Mineworkers (NUM) whom they blamed for the 1974 UK General Election result. Then, politicians in other countries supported her scare for economic reasons. I explain all these matters in this item
      [link redacted]

      It reports how prior to the existence of the AGW-scare I predicted the AGW-scare would occur. In its Introduction I say,
      “I provided my report to BACM near the end of 1980 and they considered it in early 1981 (it is often referred to as my “1980? and my “1981? report, but that is the same report). It concluded that positive feedbacks in the political system would cause ‘global warming’ to become a serious environmental issue whether or not any scientific evidence to support it were to be obtained. Indeed, the political feedbacks were so severe that the issue would become more important than any other ‘environmental’ issue and was likely to supplant most ‘environmental’ issues.”
      and
      “BACM rejected that report saying it was “extreme” and “implausible”. Since then ‘global warming’ has failed to obtain any supporting evidence but has become the major ‘environmental’ issue such that all other ‘environmental’ issues have become subordinated to it.”

      Please note that if you remove all mentions of science from the influence diagrams then political influence continues to power the remaining positive feedback loops that generated the scare.

      I hope this is helpful.

      Richard

  • Stu says:

    It does not directly address the issue raised by Don but the Peter Hadfield video titled “the evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC” makes a very good case for why the mainstream view is so prevalent in the science world. Of note is the timeline of the CO2 story and the advanced status if the hypothesis long before computers existed and therefore before anyone dreamed up the IPCC to address the issue.

    I am interested in hearing genuine responses challenging the logical structure of Hadfield’s argument and the facts he presents. In other words, people should actually watch the video, all of it, (only 15 minutes) before responding.

    You will find it here:

    https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco

    • Neville says:

      Chris I think there should a small change for a doubling of co2, but the latest calcs find perhaps 1 to 1.5 c increase, Not worth worrying about and the RS & NAS tell us there is ZIP we could achieve anyway. End of story.
      IOW humans could all live in caves for many hundreds of generations and the measurable change in temp and co2 levels would be tiny.

      • Stu says:

        Neville, “but the latest calcs find perhaps 1 to 1.5 c increase, Not worth worrying about“. That is one of the key points frequently misrepresented. 1 to 1.5 C increase in the average is hugely significant, because the high end can get very high (as per Europe this week) and the analysis indicates a doubling of the increase in the Arctic, already the fastest warming area? People tend to think of here and now and that 1.5 increase is trivial, but it is not about here and now, it is about the global average and is a huge jump. Also, the problem is broader and includes the effects of an atmosphere holding and releasing much greater quantities of H2O, once again look at recent rainfall events all around the world causing flash flooding.

        • Neville says:

          So Chris, how would you mitigate your so called problem and what change would we see in co2 levels and temp? And how long would it take? See my comments below.
          Lomborg uses the RCP 8.5 extreme and finds no measurable change to temp by 2100 and that’s after full compliance with the Paris agreement. His one graph exposes the complete CON and FRA-D.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/31/in-one-graph-why-the-parisclimate-accord-is-useless/

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Stu,

          Empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity indicate that feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger.

          Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity (i.e. rise in global temperature induced by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from present levels) is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
          Idso from surface measurements
          http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
          and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
          and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
          http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

          These completely independent determinations each indicates that climate sensitivity is ~0.4°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent.

          Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (because natural climate variability is much larger).

          If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects (observation of its effects would be its detection).

          Richard

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Aha! This post has also gone into moderation so it seems that links dump my posts into moderation.

            I will post it again but without the links which enable readers to check its information for themselves.

            Richard
            ———————————————————
            Stu,

            Empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity indicate that feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger.

            Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity (i.e. rise in global temperature induced by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from present levels) is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
            Idso from surface measurements
            [link to source paper redacted]
            and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
            [link to source paper redacted]
            and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
            [link to source paper redacted]

            These completely independent determinations each indicates that climate sensitivity is ~0.4°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent.

            Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (because natural climate variability is much larger).

            If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects (observation of its effects would be its detection).

            Richard

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Yes, too many links, I think. I fancy two is the maximum allowed, not by me but by Word Press.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Dear Don Aitkin

            Thankyou.

            While you were resolving the issue I reposted my post of yesterday with its links redacted. I write to apologise for my seeming impatience. I was investigating and trying to overcome the automated rule that was putting my posts in moderation.

            If you want to stop the cluttering of this (your) thread caused by my duplicate posts then please feel free to delete the duplicates with redacted links.

            Richard

    • dlb says:

      Pretty slick presentation by Hadfield, basically a fait accompli on his part. What he neglects are the Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns which plague the best predictions of science.

      But we now have some “knowns” from the last 40 years.
      UAH temp change last 40 years 0.52C
      Atmospheric CO2 change 333ppm (1979) to 405ppm (2019)
      Atmospheric CO2 increase has been reasonably linear over this period. Assuming atmospheric CO2 increases at the same rate, a doubling of CO2 from 1979 would produce a temperature increase of 2.4C in 145 years from now.

      Given that global CO2 emissions will probably start decreasing within the next 50 years, and that the relationship of temperature to CO2 is logarithmic (levelling off), I can’t see any calamity ahead. And all this assumes the warming we have seen over the last 40 years is solely due to CO2.

      • Chris Warren says:

        dlb

        The temp response to CO2 is logarithmic, but the temp response to GHG’s is close to linear.

        The main reason is that warm air holds more water vapour.

        We have been through all this in previous threads.

        I do not think global CO2 emissions will “probably start decreasing” because the population is still increasing and industrial development outside OECD will continue and even accelerate.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          “I do not think global CO2 emissions will “probably start decreasing” because the population is still increasing and industrial development outside OECD will continue and even accelerate.”

          If CO2 is the driver, and you do not expect it to decrease, then mitigation is a dead end, and we should turn our focus to adaptation.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry, my response above is to Stu not Chris. Too busy and too bloody cold this morning. I need more of their Gorebull warming.

  • Neville says:

    Here again are Nic Lewis’s calculations about the long lag for temp and co2 emissions, compared to earlier attempts by the IPCC etc. This is for cumulative co2 emissions or the increase from 280 to 410 ppm, then to 560 ppm.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/11/climate-sensitivity-to-cumulative-carbon-emissions/#more-24552

    • Stu says:

      Currey’s paper is difficult to follow, but I do note she seems to be basing her projections on a steady accumulation of CO2 from current anthropogenic causes, burning of coal, oil, gas and cement and agriculture. But she makes no allowance for the rising levels of methane. The cause of the recent acceleration is apparently not yet agreed but there is mounting evidence of leaking of the Arctic methane hydrates, with the potential of a massive “burp” according to some papers. The latter could be catastrophic if large and sudden.

      • Neville says:

        See above Stu, iow tell us how to mitigate your so called problems?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Why don’t you read up on Holocene tree line change [those old tree stumps are hard to argue with and they sure beat a lone tree ring], warming and sea level rise, stu, and get some understanding of recent history when temperatures were higher, there was much less permafrost [therefore more methane] and CO2 levels were supposedly much lower.

        And then get back to us with your “evidence” of climate crisis.

        • Stu says:

          You did not watch the video, did you?

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Stu,

            You admitted you didn’t read Curry’s paper, didn’t you?

            Frankly, the opinion of someone who admits Curry’s paper is too “difficult” for them to read does not impress me to spend 15 minutes of my life watching a video. And I suspect all sensible people ‘value’ your opinion as I do.

            Richard

      • spangled drongo says:

        According to data from a new study (Sannel et al., 2018), subarctic Northern Sweden has yet to rise out of the range of frigid, permafrost-friendly temperatures coeval with of the Little Ice Age (roughly 1400 to 1900 AD).

        Permafrost still exists today in regions where there was no recorded permafrost during nearly all of the Holocene, when temperatures were too warm (3°C higher than today) for permafrost to form:

        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bor.12276

        As I have been telling you for ages, stu, we are in the lowest quartile of Holocene temps so please stop bed-wetting like all the kiddies are currently doing.

        • Stu says:

          That paper seems to refer to the sub-arctic, a different locale! Find me the same stuff in the Arctic and in the siberian sub-arctic.

          • spangled drongo says:

            There are literally dozens of peer reviewed papers, stu, so stop being in such denial and go and look.

            How does 7c warmer grab you?

            “During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.”

            Abstract

            Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however, appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation, the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover, greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation.

  • Boambee John says:

    The most frightening thing is that the “consensus” is completely impervious to its own failures:

    “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ?eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

    As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday. Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study. ?Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life …”

    UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone. Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis … The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years …

    U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
    Associated Press (30 June 1989)”

    Then there was the “50 million climate refugees” forecast that was also a lemon. And there are plenty more.

    What would it take for the UN and the climate alarmists to accept that their forecasts of climate disaster regularly fail to eventuate?

    • Stu says:

      None of those events have been predicted to have occurred YET. The timelines are to do with taking action to lessen future effects.

      Are you saying none of these things will occur in the future?

      • Neville says:

        Geeeezzzz Stu, if you think all of this is correct, you must also have considered mitigation? So tell us your answer, how, when and by how much? Can’t wait for your response to Lomborg’s graph. Is it 1,000 years, 5,000 years or 7,000 years? And don’t forget temp as well.
        And don’t forget to book your flight to the non OECD countries, I’m sure they’ll welcome you with open arms.

        • Stu says:

          Did you see Currie, the guy not the lady say FEMA spent $450 billion since 2005 fixing climate related damage in USA. That was not including insurance claims. And the figure is accelerating. And he wants to start spending money “before the flood” to reduce damage in the future. This is the worldin which his namesake claims damage from weather induced events is decreasing. Wow

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Not sure what year you think we are in, but the 50 million climate refugees were originally predicted to occur by 2010. From Spiegel:

        “UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees
        Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.”

        Also, note that the other prediction was “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000”.

        This reversal, according to alarmists including you, did not happen. Seems it is all too late now, so eat, drink, and be merry for at an indeterminate time in the future we will all die.

        Predicting disaster somewhere in the indeterminate future if we did not do something by 19 years ago seems inane.

        • Stu says:

          Like most things on the side claiming nothing is happening ( often known as denying facts) posts alleging to be quotes of Tim Flannery can usually be traced to mis quotes of reality.

          For example he said “We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems”. But that has been turned by Bolt et al into “flannery said, the dams will never fill again ” etc, which is far from the truth.

          Oh well, distortion of the facts and misquoting are standard fare in the quackery driven debate.

          Watch the video and come back with objections to the logic of Hadfield’s argument, not standard deny tactics, change the space, distract etc. Oh you can’t can you. Never mind.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            I didn’t mention Tim Flummery, you are just using the standard alarmist (dare I say denialist?) trick of trying to change the subject.

            Incidentally, as well as missing the date of the climate refugees forecast, whidh was by 2010, you also missed the last sentence of the 1989 UN prediction of doom from sea level rise.

            “The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years …”

            Should you be mathematically challenged, 30 years from 1989 is 2019. We seem to have missed much of the 1 to 7 degree rise!

            Part of the reason the message gets embedded is that the alarmists never, ever, recognise or admit to their multiple failures. Perhaps because their reading comprehension is too limited to understand them.

        • Stu says:

          How many of those refugees from Syria are not climate related refugees? It was not just political.

          • Boambee John says:

            Scraping the bottom of the barrel bringing Syria into this!

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Stu,

            Obviously, you are right that people fleeing Syria are climate refugees because people don’t run away from bombs being dropped on them [not].

            Richard

      • spangled drongo says:

        What’s your prediction on Poley B’ars, stoo?

        https://www.thegwpf.org/polar-bear-numbers-could-have-quadrupled/

        • Stu says:

          It is amazing what less hunting will do isn’t it?

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            stu,

            It is even more amazing that alarmists will pretend polar bears are “threatened” when their population has quadrupled in recent decades.

            This, of course, goes to the veracity of the cult and its members (including you) who proselytise their superstitious belief that beneficial global warming is a problem and some claim is an “emergency”.

            Richard

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Well, the 50 million climate refugees were to be by 2010, which I think has already passed, unless alarmists have set up a new calendar.

        The 1989 prediction of vast flooding of low level land predicted temperature increases of (conservatively) 1 to 7 degrees within 30 yests, ie by 2019. The BOM will have to do a lot of homogenising to show that!

        There are other failed predictions also, but showing you were wrong about two is adequate to cast doubt on everything you say.

        As for “Are you saying none of these things will occur in the future?” that question is totally inane.

  • JMO says:

    Every doomster ( climate, religious or other) prediction has failed to materialise. I clearly remember Tim Flannery on ABC saying in September 2006 sea levels may rise up to 4 metres within 10 to 15 years. Also heard in 1989 there will be no snow on the Snowies, lake Jindabyne will be dry and the town will be a ghost town. Well let me assure there is plenti of snow, water and the town is booming. This prediction was updated by a “climate scientist” at Macquarie Uni ( Ithink this the the uni who sacked Prof Brady), she said in 2012 enjoy the skiing because by 2020 no more snow. Well that is next year – I give her ptediction a millionth of a chance, and that is being generous.

    I still remember the diagrams how major seaside cities will look like in 2010, every one of them turned to completely, utterly wrong!. As for the 50 million climate refugees, 1 did claim just that (wow), his claim was dismissed in an Auckland court.

    The failure of every doomsday predictions or prophesy was one influence converting me from an alarmist to a sceptic.

  • Stu says:

    And still no one is willing to challenge the logic and facts underpinning Peter Hadfield’s video. Amazing. Points to the truth. Or has everyone ducked the challenge of actually watching it to the end. Only 15 minutes. Here it is again to save you looking back.

    https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco

    • Chris Warren says:

      Hadfield gives some references but not sufficient. Anyway he makes good points at:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&t=770

      and in the chart at:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&t=780

      The chart seems to show a correlation with TSI until the 1980’s when CO2 reached sufficient levels for global warming to over haul any TSI influence.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Has Hadfield ever produced a paper to support his convenient claim that TSI, when combined with CO2 over that vast paleo period then aligns CO2 with temperatures?

      The assumptions required for that would make current IPCC climate models look downright sagacious in comparison.

      IOW, it’s unmeasurable, unquantifiable blither.

      But sticking to much more recent history, the facts remain that we have warmed less than 1c since records began and that was from the coldest prolonged period of the Holocene. So that still leaves us in the bottom quartile of the global Nat Var warming that has occurred during that 8-10 thousand year period where it is commonly accepted that global temps fluctuated by at least 4c. That paper I showed you suggested up to 7c.

      Now please tell us 1/ how that is in any way any sort of climate crisis? 2/ how you can deny that some, probably most, if not all, of that approx.1c is Nat Var? and 3/ what is happening today climate-wise that did not happen during the last 80 centuries when it was known and shown to be warmer when CO2 was at only ~ 280 ppm?

      You are the one who’s ducking.

      • Stu says:

        A couple of words spring to mind, amplification and feedback. Go and look up the Arctic temperature situation, and the rate of decline of sea ice and arctic snow cover. And by the way, Hadfield makes no pronouncements, he quotes science research, that is the strength of the stuff he puts out, so no he has no paper to point you at.

        Also regarding what I just wrote it seems that the figure for Arctic warming being double the global average is actually even higher as you get nearer the pole, i.e. higher latitude. A bad sign, but wont affect Dubbo for a long time yet.

        • spangled drongo says:

          A “couple of words” aren’t science.

          If runaway warming from those “couple of words” has not occurred in the past when CO2 was more than 10 times current levels, then your reasoning is flawed.

          And with all the screams about the “record” current heatwaves they conveniently forget it reached 127f [53c] in Spain in 1935:

          https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-06-27112859_shadow.jpg

          And just imagine what other historic data conveniently eludes them when the gatekeepers continually cook the books as we have endless evidence of.

          So please answer my questions and stop dodging and weaving.

  • Neville says:

    Stu please tell us how to fix your so called climate emergency? You seem to spend all day, every day yapping about the perils that await us in the future, but run away and hide when we ask you about verifiable mitigation solutions?
    I’ve shown that their so called mitigation is the greatest con and fra-d in the history of the world, but still no response?
    Dr Hansen admitted it’s BS and fra-d as he told the Guardian in 2015 after the fra-dulent Paris circus.
    For a person who seems to be so concerned about our future you have a strange reluctance to face the facts and admit there is SFA we can achieve by throwing endless trillions $ at this mirage either now or into the distant future.
    So come on tell us what you propose to fix your nightmares? This should be easy, unless you haven’t bothered to look at your so called mitigation data or evidence? Even Chris on his better days admits that mitigation will not work, so why not tell us where he’s wrong? Until that time you have no credibility at all.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes indeed Neville. Stu’s non-solution to the likely non-problem from a scientist who has testified before congress on many occasions:

      Apart from the fact that “it is a safe argument that once we quarry the cement required, mine and refine the steel and aluminium, and dig up the rare earth minerals that every wind turbine requires, Industrial Wind Turbines cannot even be considered green.”

      “Where every single one of these installations exists energy to your home cost more than it would without it.

      In most cases this energy costs at least three times more than conventional fossil fuel power plants.

      The homeowner must pay the price for the government’s belief that it is doing something beneficial for the environment or the Earth’s temperature.”

      https://climatechangedispatch.com/wind-solar-costing-you-money/

      • Stu says:

        Nev and SD,
        First can Nev recall just what it was like when CO2 was ten times current levels? It was a very long time ago and was a nasty world and there were no humans around. The causes of change were natural and ultimately fixed by the earths systems rebounding and finding new equilibrium positions each time. Now the problem is not natural, but man made.

        As for Hansen, I think you will find he was disgusted by the paltry effort achieved in Paris (because of the drag effects of the political forces at work). Like Mann he thinks we need to be doing more or we will be truly stuffed in the end.

        So back to where we are. We can sit on our hands and watch the house burn down or we can call for help. In this case the help is science, to keep tabs on what is happening and also to find solutions.

        Just as the cost of solar power has been reduced massively through new technologies and also sheer volume. So it is with the nascent efforts at carbon capture and storage. Not just the stick it in the power station stuff but stand alone systems to suck it out of the air. They exist already in pilot form, but are expensive. Mankind is inventive when faced with problems, it just needs to recognise the problem, allocate resources and work hard. In the current case throw in some luck as well.

        As we will soon be reminded, the US went from a standing start and put men on the moon in a decade. It was a mammoth and staggeringly effective program. With similar commitment the same is possible with our climate problem.

        But we are a long way from having consensus on the problem. If I was in charge (of the whole damn world) I would doing a few things like ramping up more efficient small scale nuclear power systems that pose less safety and security problems than the current megastructures. Next I would pour money into research for renewable energy, better storage, and CCS. To pay for it I would impose (to borrow an idea from Bernie Sanders) a small transaction tax on the global financial system. It is amazing how a few cents on every trade could mount up. Finally I would force the current fossil fuel masters to come clean on their obfuscation efforts of denial and make them stop. That is not quite the right word but is more polite than some others I could use.

        In light of your questions is it possible you are softening your positions just a little? Would be great if so. Cheers and have a nice weekend.

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          stu,

          Neville asked you a series of questions and he quoted Hansen as providing answers to those questions. Neville then asked other questions that arise from Hansen’s words; i.e.
          “So come on tell us what you propose to fix your nightmares? This should be easy, unless you haven’t bothered to look at your so called mitigation data or evidence? Even Chris on his better days admits that mitigation will not work, so why not tell us where he’s wrong?”

          You have replied by asking,
          “First can Nev recall just what it was like when CO2 was ten times current levels? It was a very long time ago and was a nasty world and there were no humans around. ” Then waffling about that irrelevance.

          stu, you need to understand that conversation does not consist of exchanging unanswered questions. Conversation consists of considering the points presented. You have completely ignored what Neville reported and asked, and you have attempted to change the subject by asking,
          “First can Nev recall just what it was like when CO2 was ten times current levels? It was a very long time ago and was a nasty world and there were no humans around. ”
          That has no relation to anything that Neville, reported, and asked. It is irrelevant twaddle.

          Please answer the questions Neville asked because that is how conversation is conducted.

          Richard

          PS To avoid you chasing your own ‘red herring’, I point out that the laws of physics are the same now as they were “when CO2 was ten times current levels”, the laws of physics are not changed by the existence of humans, and the reason you think it was “nasty” is because you are a member of a species (viz. humanity) which did not evolve then. None of which is pertinent to the subject under discussion except to say that the temperature was not elevated to harmful levels by the high CO2 levels: indeed, such high levels of atmospheric CO2 existed during an ice age.

  • Boambee John says:

    From earlier, since mitigation/adaptation have come up.

    Chris at 1356 on 27 June

    “I do not think global CO2 emissions will “probably start decreasing” because the population is still increasing and industrial development outside OECD will continue and even accelerate.”

    If CO2 is the driver, and you do not expect it to decrease, then mitigation is a dead end, and we should turn our focus to adaptation.

    Added now

    So which should we pursue, mitigation (CO2 reduction) at vast expense for minimal return, or adaptation?

    • Mike says:

      No need to pursue either of those options, after all the alarmists want to take our money in exchange for vague promises of better weather in 100 years time

      • Stu says:

        Sorry not better weather, perhaps survival of the species. But never mind, rationality and economic forces will soon take over and these arguments will seem weird, even arcane by the standards of the time. Unless you are a cockroach.

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Stu,

          At last you have provided an explanation for your surreal views and strange beliefs.

          Mike considered mitigation and adaptation options in response to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration and he wrote,
          “No need to pursue either of those options, after all the alarmists want to take our money in exchange for vague promises of better weather in 100 years time”

          You have replied by saying ;
          “Sorry not better weather, perhaps survival of the species. But never mind, rationality and economic forces will soon take over and these arguments will seem weird, even arcane by the standards of the time. Unless you are a cockroach.”

          OK, I get it. You are a cockroach!

          Richard

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu bed-wets and pontificates; “perhaps survival of the species”. Oh, dear!

    Seeing as you climate crisis consensuals are too lazy to put your heads outside and check sea levels, here is Sydney harbour sea levels since the 1880s.

    Sea levels are rising at the frightening rate of 65 mm per century but there is a GPS chip nearby showing a downward movement of similar rate, IOW, almost nothing happening.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140

    And that is verified by the east coast beaches which are in the best condition they have been in for decades.

    Further north in Moreton Bay, SLs are rising 9 mm per century +/- 68 mm per century.

    The tide gauge there was changed nearly 40 years ago but in actual fact king tides there are lower than they were 70 years ago.

    With nothing happening in the SLR dept, stu, there is nothing happening with your climate crisis either so the survival of the species would be a pretty safe bet.

    It’s just a shame that our legislators listen to the bed-wetters, blitherers and brainwashed kiddies instead of checking for themselves before they squander our life savings on this non-problem.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Future investment climate is where the real problem will be:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/06/26/more-madness-from-the-university-of-melbourne/#comments

  • Stu says:

    Spangled Drano, time for you to grasp the fact that this is not about sea levels right now. It is about overall climate, changing conditions for the biosphere and down the track probable major sea level rise in the future. I know you are of the group that thinks we have always had cars, power comes out of poles, our world is how it has always been, and high tide at Manly has not changed, but that is not realistic. The only constant in the world is change and the pace is accelerating, get used to it. Like it or not the settled world you love including coal power, petrol cars, and stable rainfall is changing. We cant stop it and we have to accept facts. Fortunately the rational world, even the corrupted economic/political regime we have is in the bitter end driven by reality. Just look at the write down of the asset value of GE stock who missed the start of the transition to renewables. They have a major problem with the switch from new coal generators. Economics wins in the end. So stick with your name calling, the world has a long history of studying fossils. Or instead get with the program, the change over has started. Join the winning team mate.

    • Mike Burston says:

      Isn’t blaming CO2 (and by direct implication, humanity itself) for every single instance of natural planetary dynamism (above every other known & unknown variable) the grossest oversimplification of all?

    • Stu says:

      And I should have added just think of the business opportunities for first movers in this space. Huge potential for the smart players. Or you could be like the inventor of the digital camera (kodak) or the first big cell phone maker (nokia) or many others who stuck with the core business, and then lost it. Opportunity is for the brave. Laggards fail. That is the story of our economic miracle. The current world never lasts.

      • Mike says:

        You might think the Australian national grid should be providing electricity rather than being a protection racket to reward people for buying uneconomic equipment in the hope of stopping Antarctica from melting.

    • Boambee John says:

      Xtu

      You wrote

      “We cant stop it and we have to accept facts.”

      If you genuinely believe this, and are not just parroting alarmist talking points, then you would abandon the insane pursuit of CO2 mitigation and look to putting resources into adaptation. Reliable despatchable power (not intermittent solar and wind), efficient road and rail transportation, not wasting food in fuel, things like that.

      But I suspect that you are too committed to the alarmist “narrative” to change course.

  • bb says:

    A conspiracy? As you explained Don why there are large numbers of people who push the argument we are all doomed and it is our fault is quite a complex one. For many it very much has the trappings of religious cults. I have been impressed over the years with the pitifully futile proposals from the doomsday cult as to what should be done. The catch cry is renewable energy from many and yet the world has 1% of that and it is expected to grow to 4% by 2050. In the last few years some leading lights in the environmental movement have realized the futility of renewables. If we need energy the only emission free possibility is nuclear. Horror upon horror the cultists say how could that be proposed! Humanity has many within it that will believe in strange things and push for others to believe as well. It is a function of the way humans operate. The belief itself is not that important what what is important is it makes you part of the group. One of my brothers was well into the cult and could have been classified as a deep ecologist. This is a belief system that wishes to change the world to be centred around ecology rather than humans. They have a manifesto which advocates a world population of around 500 million. Also an end to industrialization. I could go on but essentially it would mean reversing back into the 1600s. It is interesting that many of the things environmentalism wants is also an attack on our economy. I am sure as in any religion most of the followers don’t see this as the endgame but certainly it seems someone does. Being classified as a ruinous virus I certainly will oppose it at every turn.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Very true, good summary bb.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      bb,

      You write,
      ” If we need energy the only emission free possibility is nuclear. Horror upon horror the cultists say how could that be proposed! Humanity has many within it that will believe in strange things and push for others to believe as well. It is a function of the way humans operate. The belief itself is not that important what what is important is it makes you part of the group. One of my brothers was well into the cult and could have been classified as a deep ecologist. This is a belief system that wishes to change the world to be centred around ecology rather than humans.”

      Yes, and we have an example of the application of that ideology because it was applied by Pol Pot in Cambodia. The death toll was horrific as the country was de-industrialised.

      I have repeatedly stated the following explanation to supporters of the anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) global warming (AGW) scare.

      Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) notably carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions requires reducing the use of fossil fuels, but the use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture.

      All human activity requires energy supply. Prior to the use of fossil fuels the total energy supply available to humans was limited to energy obtainable from wind, passive solar, animals and slaves. Human activity increased immensely when the much greater energy obtainable from fossil fuels became available to do work initially by use of the steam engine.

      More than 80% of energy now used by humans is provided by fossil fuels.

      Removing the use of fossil fuels would require return to reliance on the energy obtainable from wind, solar, animals and slaves together with great adoption of nuclear power. This would kill at very least 3.8 billion people (and probably many more than that).

      Anyone who doubts the death toll would so high should ask a farmer what his food production would be if he had to replace his tractor with horses (answer to that question provides adequate explanation of the matter which is a little more complicated than that).

      Simply, the carnage from cessation of fossil fuel usage would be so great that it would pale into insignificance the combined atrocities of Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Pol pot.

      I tell all environmentalists that if they are successful in ending fossil fuel usage but they and I survive the resulting carnage then I will accept them as my slaves but I will fight to not be their slave. And many others will fight with me because in that circumstance many will join with me in shouting, “I am Spartacus !”

      Richard

  • Neville says:

    Stu everything you propose will not change the climate or weather by 2050 or 2100 and beyond. Lomborg told us this many years ago and he has the heavy, maths, stats, economic and science studies to back up his conclusions.
    His team includes real Nobel laureates and numbered about 23 ( that’s total, not all are Nobel Laureates) at last count. As I’ve shown using the RS and NAS calcs it still wouldn’t make any difference if we stopped all human co2 emissions today. Anyway that’s the story from the alarmist side of the ledger.
    The only answer is adaptation and more ONGOING R&D and in the meantime we should be building new HELE coal plants in OZ ASAP. Dr Hansen told us the truth , S&W are just BS and fra-d, akin to believing in the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy.

  • Neville says:

    It seems that even Wikipedia are starting to catch up. You’ll see here that they now list OZ as 1.08% of global co2 emissions and their graph on China’s emissions is nearly vertical since about 2000.
    Just a pity they didn’t show the near flat-lining of the developed OECD countries emissions over the same time period, i.e. from 1990 to 2017.
    Don’t forget that OZ population increased by about 47% from 1990 to 2017. As I said , we should be building new HELE coal plants ASAP.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

  • spangled drongo says:

    The huge volume of undeniable evidence is that all the predictions from the Climate-Doomsday-Religious-Cultists have ALL been WRONG!!!!

    What makes the stu-pids of this world think their present, persistent, panicky, prognostications will be any different?

    Yet they feel this need to ignore reality and rationality and shout even louder to terrify the little kiddies in order to get the attention they crave.

    Not to mention those lovely govt grants.

    • Stu says:

      No point replying to the above nonsense really. However it is one of those very rare times when a biblical phrase comes to mind. Jeremiah 5:21
      : : : Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

      But never mind, events will have you eat your words, sadly before too long. But then again, with your head so deep in the sand you will not hear or see anything I guess. End of story.

      • Neville says:

        We’ve shown you the data and evidence, so why not show us your so called climate emergency and then tell us how to fix it? But please no more silly religious dogma.

        • Stu says:

          No point, you don’t ever listen. Goodbye.

          • spangled drongo says:

            We are dying to hear and listen , stu, if only you had something to tell us other than your baseless panicky prognostications.

            Rational people like us are always on the lookout for real problems so we can be prepared, but doomsday scenarios that, historically, have been shown to be totally baseless, are not real problems.

            Just bed-wetting blither.

            Bye-bye once again [or is that just another hand wave?]

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes, stu, we have eyes, ears and minds but you simply fail to provide any facts.

        So remind us now, which of your doomsdays has actually been right?

        • Boambee John says:

          Well, the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 wasn’t, and the (conservative) UN estimate of a 1 to 7 degree temperature increase by 2019 certainly seems to be in major doubt.

          As I wrote earlier, if Stu really believes that “We cant stop it and we have to accept facts”, then adaption is the only rational course of action, and wasting trillions on intermittent, unreliable, ruinables is the greatest disservice to future generations that could be imagined.

          But Stu is utterly comitted to that course of action.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        stu,

        You want a Biblical quotation that fits the narrative of your climate scare-cult? OK. It Is
        “mene mene tekel upharsin”.

        These words are the origin of the phrase “The writing on the wall” which is used to describe a forecast of disaster for someone. The Book of Daniel, Chapter 5, says these words were writing that appeared on the wall at a feast hosted by Balshazar and says their translation is,

        You have been weighed in the balance and found to be wanting.

        Richard

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Palaeontologists must have deserted this argument in terminal frustration. Everyone agrees that both temperatures and Carbon dioxide levels were much higher in the past, but the earth did not become uninhabitable. The fossil record shows that life flourished. It did not die out, and start again from scratch, and despite alarmist forebodings, will not do so in the future.

    Chris Warren, please do not ask me for references. Go to your local library, and ask for some basic textbooks on Geology.

    • Chris Warren says:

      No references – just lazy denialist stuff I presume.

    • JimboR says:

      End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost

      Known as “the great dying”, this was by far the worst extinction event ever seen; it nearly ended life on Earth. The tabulate corals were lost in this period – today’s corals are an entirely different group. What caused it? A perfect storm of natural catastrophes. A cataclysmic eruption near Siberia blasted CO2 into the atmosphere. Methanogenic bacteria responded by belching out methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Global temperatures surged while oceans acidified and stagnated, belching poisonous hydrogen sulfide. “It set life back 300 million years,” says Schmidt. Rocks after this period record no coral reefs or coal deposits.
      Credit: JAIME MURCIA / MELBOURNE MUSEUM

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        From the Canada museum website:

        Speculated Causes of the Permian Extinction
        Although the cause of the Permian mass extinction remains a debate, numerous theories have been formulated to explain the events of the extinction. One of the most current theories for the mass extinction of the Permian is an agent that has been also held responsible for the Ordovician and Devonian crises, glaciation on Gondwana. A similar glaciation event in the Permian would likely produce mass extinction in the same manner as previous, that is, by a global widespread cooling and/or worldwide lowering of sea level.

        The Formation of Pangea

        Another theory which explains the mass extinctions of the Permian is the reduction of shallow continental shelves due to the formation of the super-continent Pangea. Such a reduction in oceanic continental shelves would result in ecological competition for space, perhaps acting as an agent for extinction. However, although this is a viable theory, the formation of Pangea and the ensuing destruction of the continental shelves occurred in the early and middle Permian, and mass extinction did not occur until the late Permian.

        Glaciation

        A third possible mechanism for the Permian extinction is rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations produced by concurrent glaciation events on the north and south poles. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones, glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred.

        Volcanic Eruptions

        The fourth and final suggestion that palaeontologists have formulated credits the Permian mass extinction as a result of basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia. These volcanic eruptions were large and sent a quantity of sulphates into the atmosphere. Evidence in China supports that these volcanic eruptions may have been silica-rich, and thus explosive, a factor that would have produced large ash clouds around the world. The combination of sulphates in the atmosphere and the ejection of ash clouds may have lowered global climatic conditions. The age of the lava flows has also been dated to the interval in which the Permian mass extinction occurred.

        No CO2, no high temperatures, no Russian collusion. LMAO

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        JimboR,

        Bryan Roberts has just wiped the floor with you (an easy thing to do) so I write to ask if you intend to demand his CV as you demanded my CV when I wiped the floor with you in the previous thread?

        The reason I ask is because I enjoyed playing with you struggling on that ‘hook’ of your own making and I would get much pleasure from watching Bryan Roberts having similar fun.

        Richard

      • JimboR says:

        Richard, I can see I really touched a nerve when I asked about your formal qualifications. You started a post with “I am a scientist”, I quoted that and asked for further details by way of formal qualifications, you respectfully declined, I accepted that and we moved on. Well, at least most of us did. Methinks the scientist doth protest too much.

        I’m pretty sure Bryan is a scientist, and I vaguely recall he’s even mentioned which maths units he took in his degree, but I can’t recall him ever starting a post with “I am a scientist and….”. He doesn’t need to defer to such authority, he lets his comments speak for themselves.

        As for the Permian Extinction, Bryan copy-and-pasted stuff from the Canada Museum and I did the same from the Melbourne Museum, neither of us provided any original content, and neither of us needed to claim to be scientists. I’m more than happy to let the museums duke that out, I’m not qualified to adjudicate. Perhaps you’re also a palaeontologist and can shed further light?

        I did hear a good anecdote from Martin Van Kranendonk, who also thinks the Permian Extinction was caused by huge amounts of volcanic CO2 causing a thermal maximum. It was along the lines of.. if two geologists go into the field they’ll always come back with three opinions.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          “I’m pretty sure Bryan is a scientist“

          Thank you. You are correct, but I have no intention of elaborating on this.

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          JimboR,

          I see you are still wriggling on the line. Excellent!

          So long as you spend time trying to defame me you are not looking for lies that could dupe people into thinking your AGW-cult may be right. Therefore, I will keep ‘tugging on the line’ so long as you remain stuck on the ‘hook’ you made yourself.

          And my reminder of the fun I had at your expense has obtained something of value.
          You have admitted you don’t provide any real information but ‘copy and paste’ untrue anecdotes from others. That was obvious, of course, but I intend to remind of your admitting it when you next post nonsense.

          As for your suggestion that your smears and lies “touched a nerve”,
          don’t be silly and stop flattering yourself.

          I would not have resurrected the matter if that suggestion were true but I intend to repeatedly remind people about it until you crawl back under your bridge. I am inoculated against pathetic attacks like yours because I have been suffering the “slings and arrows” (yes, I can quote Bill W, too) from your ilk for decades.

          You seem to have forgotten I admitted to you that I am “the spawn of the Devil”. Perhaps you don’t believe in my evil powers but, of course, I can no more prove they exist by words on a web page than I can prove anything else about me that way. Are you really willing to take on my demonic powers which have more effect than the global warming you say you fear?

          Richard

        • JimboR says:

          So you are a palaeontologist as well; you’ve managed to break the deadlock between the views of the two museums. Excellent. Flip this guy an email and explain to him where he went wrong…

          https://www.bees.unsw.edu.au/martin-van-kranendonk

          I’m sure it’ll make his week.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            JimboR,

            Neither Bryan Roberts nor I said either of us is a “palaeontologist” (Bryan may be but I don’t know and I don’t care if he is or is not).

            Nobody here has “managed to break the deadlock between the views of the two museums” and I see no evidence that anybody here has tried to do that.

            I do see that you claimed to know the cause of a particular event and Bryan demonstrated beyond doubt that such certainty does not exist: there is a variety possible causes. Your reliance on choosing authorities to “believe” induced you to claim knowledge that nobody has but one museum asserts (this is the same mistake you make when asserting there is evidence for AGW).

            See, my demonic powers have again overpowered you!
            Or is it merely that you are too thick to consider what you have written before you press the Submit button?

            Richard

          • JimboR says:

            “and I see no evidence that anybody here has tried to do that.”

            How about….

            “don’t provide any real information but ‘copy and paste’ untrue anecdotes from others.”

            Here are his actual words….

            “But it turns out the most extreme event that wiped out 95% of species on Earth was caused by a thermal maximum. And that’s a long time back in the geological past, but at that time, there was a huge amount of volcanism that the Earth went through, and… So, we think of the Earth as this sort of planet that just sort of bubbles along, but it goes in waves and pulses. And at that time, there was this big pulse of volcanic gases that belched out CO2, and it changed the atmosphere. And it changed it so fast that the species could not keep up, and 95% of all species on Earth went extinct.”

            Take it up with the professor….. no doubt your qualifications well out-gun his. Let us know how it goes.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            JimboR,

            I don’t need to rely on any other when confronted with someone as intellectually challenged as you.

            The issue is clear for all to see.
            1.
            You claimed a single explanation exists for ‘The Great Dying’ and provided a quote saying “Credit: JAIME MURCIA / MELBOURNE MUSEUM”
            2.
            Bryan Roberts demonstrated there are several possible causes of the ‘The Great Dying’ and proved his point by quoting another museum (i.e. the Canada museum website).
            3.
            I pointed out that Bryan Roberts had “wiped the floor” with you (an easy thing to do), and I asked if that meant you intended to demand his CV as you had demanded my CV when I had wiped the floor with you.
            4.
            You responded to my enquiry with bluster so I continued to ‘pull your leg’ about your silly behaviour (and I don’t intend to stop).
            5.
            You continue your bluster about “qualifications” (that are not relevant) and this post is me continuing to ‘yank your chain’.

            I always enjoy poking objectionable and anonymous trolls, and I will continue to enjoy this exchange with you until you crawl back under your bridge.

            Richard

          • JimboR says:

            “and I don’t intend to stop”

            Knock yourself out! You’re not even making a dent.

            1. Bryan and I each copy-and-pasted two different museums’ position on an issue (neither of us can take credit for either)

            2. you clearly preferred one over the other with comments about floor mopping and “‘copy and paste’ untrue anecdotes from others”

            Which were the “untrue anecdotes” btw? If I knew that I might at least have a clue what you’re on about.

            3. when I congratulated you on being able to choose the right answer (something I freely admitted I was unqualified to do) and suggested you share your wisdom with the professor, you denied you had and now shift the argument to:

            “You claimed a single explanation exists”

            No, I showed an explanation held by the Melbourne Museum (and the UNSW Professor). I made no comment as to to whether there were alternate views – indeed I’d be surprised if there weren’t. But since this view contradicted Bryan’s original assertion it seemed relevant to the post.

            It’s a ridiculous proposition that somebody attaching a scientific view to a thread has an obligation to attach all known views. I attached the one I knew about. Bryan did the same.

            Perhaps your beef is with Melbourne Musuem (and the UNSW professor) for settling on one view while Canada Musuem leaves open the possibility of four? Neither Bryan nor I can take the credit or blame for that. Take it up with the museums and or professors.

            Is this really as good as you’ve got?

          • JimboR says:

            I certainly won’t be climbing under any bridges (whatever that means), but I can imagine I might get bored with arguing with someone of so little intellectual rigour. If your goal is to just bore me out of the discussion, you’re almost there.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            JimboR,

            You say,
            “If your goal is to just bore me out of the discussion, you’re almost there.”

            Great!
            You are thinking about running away. A few more nudges and you may be gone.

            Of course, dealing with you provides similar revulsion to scraping something unpleasant from the bottom of a shoe, but it is worth doing and for the same reason, and your message encourages me to complete the job..

            When you go you can console yourself that – like other trolls who have returned to hiding under a bridge – you will still be a legend in your own lunchtime.

            Richard

  • Chris Warren says:

    What sort of message should denialists get embedded into their skulls now?

    It looks like the climate message is becoming well embedded in new northern hemisphere heats records. New Delhi has just recorded it hottest June Day, and in France;

    “The mercury reached 45.9 degrees Celsius (114.6 Fahrenheit) in Gallargues-le-Montueux in the Gard department in southern France, according to the French national weather service Météo-France.

    This is 1.8 degrees higher than the previous record from 2003. ”

    This is just the start – tough luck for their grandchildren. They will probably hate you once you are dead.

    • Boambee John says:

      This, of course, is climate. The recent very cold period in north America, naturally, is weather.

      • Boambee John says:

        BTW, Chris, having said above that you

        “do not think global CO2 emissions will “probably start decreasing” because the population is still increasing and industrial development outside OECD will continue and even accelerate.”

        Do you deny that, if CO2 is the driver, and you do not expect it to decrease, then mitigation is a dead end, and we should turn our focus to adaptation. Starting with stopping wasting billions on unreliable and intermittent renewables and even more on batteries for storage, and focus instead on adaptation to what you and Stu regard as the inevitable?

        • Boambee John says:

          Or will your grandchildren hate you when you are dead for wasting money on a failed CO2 mitigation program instead of using that money and human ingenuity to adapt to the change you have already proclaimed to be inevitable?

          • Chris Warren says:

            No they will feel the inter-generational love and thank the stars for science, reason, and august scientific institutions that gave humanity the means to extract itself from an otherwise dystopian future.

            The denialists will be remembered as the laughing stock they are today.

          • Boambee John says:

            So you don’t think that CO2 emissions will decrease because population is increasing and industtial development outside the OECD will continue and even accelerate, but if per capita emissions decrease we are all saved.

            But if population continues to increase, and industrial development continues, then reducing per capita emissions will simply slow the build up of CO2. It is unlikely to reverse it.

            If absolute levels of CO2 matter, as you keep telling us, then decreasing per capita emissions while population increases will not solve the problem.

            And you gave the gall to call me a denialist, while you build a future on wishful thinking!

        • Chris Warren says:

          CO2 will decrease if per capita CO2 falls (as is true for some states) and the population stabilises or better starts to fall.

          Adaption is impossible – fools errant.

          Are denialists, fools as well?

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Your words were that you “do not think global CO2 emissions will “probably start decreasing” because the population is still increasing and industrial development outside OECD will continue and even accelerate.”

            Now you say that it will.

            Which is it?

          • Chris Warren says:

            Try thinking a bit more….

            What does the word “if” mean to you????

          • Mike Burston says:

            Chris, one could say if only science could be funded from a sort of blind trust so government wasn’t effectively the only customer for science climate wouldn’t be political any longer

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            You are betting the future on a combination of reducing per capita emissions and a hope for a stabilising or reducing population. Clearly, you do not see the issue as being urgent, because these desiderata will not happen overnight.

            “If” is a small word with major implications. You are building your hopes on wishful thinking.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris warren,

      You say,
      “It looks like the climate message is becoming well embedded in new northern hemisphere heats records. New Delhi has just recorded it hottest June Day, and in France;

      “The mercury reached 45.9 degrees Celsius (114.6 Fahrenheit) in Gallargues-le-Montueux in the Gard department in southern France, according to the French national weather service Météo-France.

      This is 1.8 degrees higher than the previous record from 2003. ” ”

      So what?
      The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age (LIA) by warming intermittently for the last 300 years.
      Of course we get hotter temperatures now than were common at similar times in the last 300 years.

      Record recorded temperatures are inevitable at this stage of recovery from the LIA because we have only been measuring temperatures in many places in recent decades (Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (1686-1736) invented the alcohol thermometer in 1709, and the mercury thermometer in 1714. In 1724, he introduced the temperature scale that bears his name).

      The warming that is recovery from the LIA started before the industrial revolution and long before the 1950s when the IPCC says
      (a) rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) reached levels that may have affected global climate
      and
      (b) the global temperature entered the 30 year cooling period that caused the ‘sulphate emissions are causing global cooling’ scare.

      Considering the above, I ask you,
      Can you provide any evidence that the natural and beneficial warming which is recovery from the LIA has yet reached the global temperatures experienced in the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods?

      Richard

  • Chris Warren says:

    Is the message embedded yet????

    “Monthly and all-time temperature records were broken Wednesday in parts of Germany, Poland, France, Spain, and the Czech Republic. At least two people died from the heat in Spain. Clermont-Ferrand, France reported a record high of 105.6 degrees Fahrenheit. ”

    Is that tears of denialist frustration I see falling from your eyes, or just sweat from global heat?

      • Boambee John says:

        Might we expect that thd air con has now permanently been switched off at the SMH offices?

        Oh, sorry, it is only the proles who should switch off. Important people should continue in comfort.

    • Boambee John says:

      Checked out the extreme cold in north America recently.

      Oh, sorry, that is weather, not climate.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      Has reality embedded ye????

      I repeat my question to you.

      Can you provide any evidence that the natural and beneficial warming which is recovery from the LIA has yet reached the global temperatures experienced in the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods?

      Richard

      • Chris Warren says:

        Silly, silly question from a denialist;

        Obviously current temperatures are higher;

        https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Moberg_Hockey_Stick.gif

        Good science dowses flames from bad denialists.

        https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Chris Warren,

          Silly, silly graph.

          It has all the same faults as MBH98 that has been refuted by a mountain of evidence and pubic enquiries over the decades since its initial publication. I objected to MBH98 within a week of its first publication and as I reported on this blog at http://donaitkin.com/thinking-about-things/#comment-58965 the deplorable Michael Mann wrote an email (leaked by Climategate) which purported to be dispute of my objection.

          My criticism objected to the MNH98 ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison. The Moberg reconstruction you link (https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm ) has the same fault: see the different colours.

          Simply, the Moberg reconstruction says nothing about the Minoan and Roman warm periods and provides an indication that its analysis does NOT provide any indication of recent temperatures being warmer than temperatures of the Medieval warm period.

          And you will always fail in your propaganda campaign when relying on sks for your data. That is the blog of a cartoonist whose knowledge of climate is no more than your own.

          Richard

          PS I still have not noticed any affect of the apparent threat Mann makes against me in his email. But it does show how deluded JimboR is to think I am going to stop ‘pulling his leg’ for his attempts to smear me: JimboR is not in the same league of warmunists as the Mann.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The message might get embedded, blith, when you tell us how far back their “records” go.

    Kiddie stuff, 2 people died, hey? Wow!

    How about 200,000 in 1821 and some serious droughts during the MWP:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019_05_11_06_53_48-down.png

    And it was even much hotter in Spain in 1935 at 127f:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-06-27112859_shadow.jpg

  • spangled drongo says:

    The truth is always the best way to embed your message but some people [like Michael Mann] spend most of the time telling congress how clever they are:

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/27/truth-in-testimony-and-convincing-policy-makers/

  • spangled drongo says:

    And following that, the best he could come up with was dodging the facts and attacking and harassing his opponent:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/28/is-there-not-a-single-climate-scientist-out-there-who-will-call-this-out-as-improper/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Embedding the message of history:

    “The northern limit for grapes during the Middle Ages was about 300 miles above the current commercial wine areas in France and Germany.”

    https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/HistoryEcon.html

  • Chris Warren says:

    This guy’s a nutter ….

    I tell all environmentalists that if they are successful in ending fossil fuel usage but they and I survive the resulting carnage then I will accept them as my slaves but I will fight to not be their slave. And many others will fight with me because in that circumstance many will join with me in shouting, “I am Spartacus !”

    • Boambee John says:

      Didn’t someone running for the Demorat nomination for 2020 recently proclaim “I am Spartacus”? Is this the same one?

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        Boambee John,

        I don’t know, but I said it in this thread (at http://donaitkin.com/hoew-the-message-gets-embedded/#comment-59259 ).
        I am not an American (I am an English left-wing socialist of the old-fashioned English kind).

        Perhaps you are thinking of someone called Peter Courtney?

        Richard

        • Boambee John says:

          Richard

          Thanks, actually I found your post a bit after posting the above. The Demorat concerned was Cory Booker, who seems unlikrly to make the cut.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Boambee John,

            No problem.

            In fact, I am grateful when somebody (in this case you) draws attention to facts, reason and argument that are so unassailable that some warmunist (in this case Chris Warren) wants to refute them and can’t so is reduced to throwing silly personal abuse such as “nutter”.

            If the poor little warmunist had some response to my comment other than a lachrymose temper tantrum he would have refuted it in a reply to it. Your query of whom diddums meant gives me an excuse to link to my comment which I now repeat
            http://donaitkin.com/hoew-the-message-gets-embedded/#comment-59259

            All donations (in this case of publicity for my comment) are gratefully received.

            Richard

  • Chris Warren says:

    Neville

    Why ask:

    “So Chris, how would you mitigate your so called problem and what change would we see in co2 levels and temp? And how long would it take?”

    You have already been told that all we need is for per capita emissions to fall (which can be done) and population held constant or fall (which can be done).

    You only need to balance sources with sinks.

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      “You have already been told that all we need is for per capita emissions to fall (which can be done) and population held constant or fall (which can be done).”

      But achieving these desiderata will take significant periods of time. Reducing population growth to zero, and reducing total population numbers, in particular, will take many decades (unless, of course, you are proposing what might euphemistically be termed “active measures”).

      Yet most climate alarmists adhere to the line that immediate action is required to reduce not just CO2 emissions, but absolute quantities of atmospheric CO2.

      Which is it? Immediate action or measured progress?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don’t let denialists disrupt consideration of science by gratuitous comparison with medieval or Roman or Minoan.

    These events were not caused by increased CO2 and naturally reversed. There is no possibility of that now.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      You demand,
      “Don’t let denialists disrupt consideration of science by gratuitous comparison with medieval or Roman or Minoan.”
      Say what!?

      That is madness which cannot be cured by your equally insane assertion saying,
      “These events were not caused by increased CO2 and naturally reversed. There is no possibility of that now.”

      OK. We agree that “”These events were not caused by increased CO2 and naturally reversed”, but if that is true then there is no reason to suppose the present warming will not “reverse”.

      Your demand to ignore past climate behaviour and your idiotic justification for that demand are merely additional display of your complete ignorance of what science is and how it is conducted. So I write to inform you of a fundamental scientific principle that refutes your demand; viz. the Null Hypothesis.

      The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
      The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

      In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

      Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. In science there is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed (this differs from statistics where any ‘null hypothesis’ can be adopted to be tested).

      However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.

      In the case of global climate in the Holocene, no recent climate behaviours are observed to be unprecedented so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.

      Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable.

      Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI) that probably distorts global temperature ‘measurements’. Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

      Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect (e.g. it probably distorts global temperature estimates). Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

      The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
      Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. As I said above in this thread at http://donaitkin.com/hoew-the-message-gets-embedded/#comment-59060 , this is indicated by the studies of
      Idso from surface measurements [see link for original paper]
      and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data [see link for original paper]
      and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data [see link for original paper]

      Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

      It is an absolutely certain fact that CO2 DOES does cause some warming of the atmosphere. But to date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree, and that is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

      Richard

      • Chris Warren says:

        Richard S Courtney

        Null hypothesis is a statistical test based on data.

        You have produced no data. I use data.

        Current warming will only reverse if the cause reverses.

        The cause is the scientific fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation which warms the biosphere which then causes outgassing of CO2 from land and sea water.

        Lookie, lookie here Richard:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/06/11/san-francisco-soars-degrees-record-heat-wave-torches-california-west-coast/?utm_term=.3be3c3016f6d

        Lookie, lookie here Richard:

        https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

        Poor Richard – the data monster is coming to bite him. Run Richard, run.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        Chris Warren,

        It seems that you probably misheard someone who said you needed “reading classes”: they were NOT talking about a new pair of spectacles.

        I clearly stated that I was explaining the scientific Null Hypothesis which “differs” from a statistical null hypothesis (see Footnote 1).

        And, dear boy, your inability to read is also demonstrated by your writing,
        “I provided data” (about the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods)

        NO, you did not.
        You “provided” (i.e. linked to) the Moburg reconstruction which I pointed out doesn’t cover the times of the Minoan and Roman periods and overlays onto the reconstruction different (and not comparable) data for recent times.

        You could have “provided” more and similarly relevant data by linking to the New York Telephone Directory for 1940: it also says nothing about relative global temperatures of the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Present warm periods.

        Read what I wrote, look at the graph, and then dry your eyes.
        Life is good and it will get better when you escape your cult and its beliefs so you can embrace reality.

        Richard

        FOOTNOTE 1
        I wrote,
        “Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. In science there is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed (this differs from statistics where any ‘null hypothesis’ can be adopted to be tested).

        However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.”

        You have replied,
        “Null hypothesis is a statistical test based on data.”

      • JimboR says:

        Richard, you are using scientific methods intended for use in controlled environment lab experiments to investigate something as chaotic, multivariate and uncontrollable as the climate. It’s unsurprising you get the results you do.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Well, jimb, you get the prize for getting it bass ackwards.

          You and your mates are arguing that there is a major change in that “chaotic, multivariate and uncontrollable” system.

          Richard is merely asking you for evidence.

        • Boambee John says:

          Jimbo

          You are recommending controlling a single part of a system as “chaotic, multivariate and uncontrollable as the climate.” Dream on!

          It’s unsurprising that you tie yourself in knots the way you do.

          But at least you are coming to recognise the impossibility of what you are proposing.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            spangled drongo and Boambee John,

            Thanks guys.

            The anonymous troll attempts to demean people who hinder the spreading of the AGW-cult’s beliefs, and I am trying to stop those attempts by ‘getting rid’ of the troll. On this occasion the troll did not smear anybody but tried to behave properly by disputing what I had written (although – as you have observed – the point the troll tried to make was wrong and stupid).

            I could not care less about the troll’s silly attempts to demean me. In fact, I am having fun swatting the troll whose attacks cannot hurt me (my career is over, my future is limited, and I have a thick skin).

            However, trolls who attack people need to be swatted because their behaviour could dissuade others from ‘putting a head above the parapet’.

            I am willing to desist from my attempts to get rid of the troll if he/she/they/it stops attacking people and, instead, tries to debate things people have said. But, your answers to the troll’s attempt to dispute something I wrote demonstrate there is – as yet – little indication that the troll is capable of correcting its behaviour by making real points.

            Richard

          • JimboR says:

            BJ I didn’t make any recommendations or proposals. I pointed out why Richard’s analysis gets the result it does. He’s using the wrong scientific tool for the job.

            As for those who do make remedial recommendations, AFAIK they’re not recommending we control the climate, or even control a small part of the climate. They’re recommending we control what we inject into the climate. Regardless of what you think of the merits of that, that clearly is in our control. Regardless of whether or not we do that, the climate will always be uncontrollable. The best they can hope for is to influence its long term trajectory. There’s no contradiction there with what I wrote.

          • JimboR says:

            Richard, can you remind me again who I attacked please? Preferably with a direct quote in inverted commas of what I wrote, rather than your interpretation of what I wrote. And while you’re quoting me, I’m still waiting for you to highlight where I “‘copy and paste’ untrue anecdotes from others.”

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            JimboR,

            You assert,
            “I pointed out why Richard’s analysis gets the result it does. He’s using the wrong scientific tool for the job.”

            NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

            The scientific Null Hypothesis cannot be the “wrong scientific tool” because – as I explained – it applies to any and every scientific appraisal. (You would know why this is if you understood how science is conducted.)

            As I told you,
            “The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.”

            This follows from the principle of parsimony which is sometimes called ‘Occam’s Razor’.
            This principle says that in any scientific consideration the explanation which requires least assumptions is probably correct.

            The Null Hypothesis adopts only one assumption; i.e. the system’s behaviour has not changed because the system has not changed.

            Any other explanation for unchanging system behaviour adopts at least two assumptions; i.e.
            (a) something did alter the system’s behaviour
            but
            (b) that alteration to system behaviour is masked and/or negated by another (and simultaneous) alteration to the system’s behaviour.

            Hence, as I said,
            “Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable.”
            And I explained that by using UHI for illustration.

            Very importantly, I concluded my explanation saying,
            “It is an absolutely certain fact that CO2 DOES does cause some warming of the atmosphere. But to date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree, and that is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.”

            I know this is difficult for non-scientists to understand and impossible for members of the AGW-cult to accept, but it is so fundamental to the practice of science that scientists just use it and rarely give it a thought.

            Richard

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            JimboR,

            Don’t pretend you don’t know what you did. You repeatedly attempted to smear me by suggesting I am unqualified.

            Demands for personal information are not acceptable if only because nobody can prove what they write about themselves on a blog. I tried to demonstrate that truth by saying I am willing to admit I am the spawn of the Devil.

            Personal information about me has no relevance to the correctness of anything I have written here. And – as I said – I learned long ago that engaging in discussion of me allows slimey trolls like you to to destroy a thread (there is a reason why even Prisoners of War are only required to provide ‘name, rank and number’; i.e. personal identification.)

            An apology would be accepted but only improvement to your behaviour can correct the matter.

            Richard

          • Boambee John says:

            Jimbo

            “As for those who do make remedial recommendations, AFAIK they’re not recommending we control the climate, or even control a small part of the climate.”

            You need to check the more fevered (that is, most) of tge recommensations from the alarmists. Talk of controlling the earth’s thermostat features in many.

          • JimboR says:

            BJ,

            “Talk of controlling the earth’s thermostat features in many.”

            Tell ’em they’re dream’n.

          • JimboR says:

            Richard, pasting the same stuff a second time isn’t going to make it any more convincing. You’re using the wrong tool for the environment you’re working in.

            As for your other nonsense I think you’re being a bit paranoid. I asked your for your qualifications as a result of you starting a post with “I’m a scientist”. I do that for anyone who starts off with that claim. I asked precisely once, you declined, we moved on. But still it seems to be an issue for you.

            Paste the exact text in inverted commas that you think I need to apologise for and I’ll consider it, but I’m pretty sure you’ll fail to find it.. it’s all in your head.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            JimboR,

            You write,
            “pasting the same stuff a second time isn’t going to make it any more convincing. You’re using the wrong tool for the environment you’re working in.”

            I did NOT post “the same stuff”. I referred back to my statements you had ignored, and I gave further explanation of them. It is not my fault that you are too thick to understand my original words nor my further explanation of them.

            But I will repost my words you have – yet again – ignored despite my additional explanation of them.

            I told you,
            “The scientific Null Hypothesis cannot be the “wrong scientific tool” because – as I explained – it applies to any and every scientific appraisal. (You would know why this is if you understood how science is conducted.)”

            If you still think the scientific Null Hypothesis is “the wrong tool” then perhaps you could say what “tool” you think should be used. Perhaps it is it a sledge hammer, or maybe a crystal ball?

            You are completely failing to be “convincing” when attempting to dispense with the scientific method by wittering about the “wrong tool” but not stating what you think would be the right tool.

            Richard

            As for me being “paranoid”: DON’T BE DAFT. You asked me what you had done and I reminded you. My having given you a slap, the troll who posts a ‘stu’ is trying the same silly misbehaviour.

  • Neville says:

    Thanks Chris and I accept you now admit that co2 levels cannot be reversed by 2100 or for thousands of years.
    That’s certainly what the alarmist scientists have told us ( see RS & NAS report) and Nic Lewis seems to think that is the case.
    But how can facts and truthful data/evidence emerge when you have a fool like Mann as the chosen spokesman for the clueless Dems?
    Judith Curry lists all the porkies this fool got away with at this hearing. All true believers should read her summary and then ask yourselves why anyone would ever believe anything he says about their so called CAGW.
    It just proves how corrupt some of these people are and how ready they are to believe so called evidence without any proper data or analysis.

    • Chris Warren says:

      By 2100, sad to say, it is unlikely there will be any reversal but actions taken today will reduce the rate of increase, potentially down to zero? New technologies are not out of the question provided funding and research increases now.??A zero population growth, plus per capita emissions falls embedded in all national infrastructure plans will ensure a safe ecological future for future generations even if they want to plant vines in Greenland, timber I Antarctica and scuba dive at the north pole. They will have to fund rebuilding the Sydney Opera House, moving theFukushima nuclear plant, and relocating British Houses of Parliament. Venice will be memory and all the population of Bangladesh will be squabbling for space in a much reduced India sub continent. Finally Australia will regain its inland sea.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        So you believe that measured progress is the way, no need for panicky reactions of the kind favoured by Stu.

        Glad you nominated the end of the century, even with robust population control policies it will take most of that time to stabilise and start getting noticeable reductions in total world population.

        Waiting for research into more mature technology, rather than pouring billions into the black hole of current solar, wind and battery technology also is sensible. Ingerently stable nuclear, a breakthrough in CO2 capture, and we can have reliable, uninterrupted electric power for the future.

        Great work!

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      The crying need is to prvent CO2 levels reaching over 600 ppm by 2100, so we need to push fools like Curry and clueless Liberals out of the way. Humanity does not need such corrupt people who prefer belief over science and sprout dogma without any proper data or analysis.

      Unlike realists who use data such as this:

      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

      And use such data to understand the current heatwave setting record temperatures across Europe and America

      The epicenter of broiling conditions is California, where records have fallen from south to north. San Francisco Airport soared to a record high of 100 degrees Monday, which is its earliest instance hitting the mark and its hottest June temperature, by two degrees.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/06/11/san-francisco-soars-degrees-record-heat-wave-torches-california-west-coast/?utm_term=.3be3c3016f6d

  • spangled drongo says:

    Poor ol’ enuresistic blith is in denial that there is nothing happening today that didn’t happen with bells on during the earlier Holocene when CO2 levels were below 300 ppm.

    How much does he deny?

    Let me count the ways:

    He denies hot Holocene history.

    He denies that Europe, like Australia, the US etc., all fake their temperature data by cooling the past and warming the present.

    He denies that IPCC GCMs are based on assumption-based GIGO.

    He denies that natural climate variability happens anymore.

    He denies that our current warming of ~1c since the beginning of the Industrial Rev and the end of the LIA still leaves us in the bottom quartile of natural global warming that has occurred for the last 80 centuries.

    He denies that consensual science is completely unscientific.

    Just a few for starters. Please feel free to add as more denials arrive.

  • spangled drongo says:

    More Nat Var facts that the climate consensuals are in denial of and refuse to embed:

    “When the Great Lakes water levels were unusually low from approximately 2000 through 2012 or so, this was pointed to as evidence that global warming was causing the Great Lakes to dry up.

    Take for example this 2012 article from National Geographic, which was accompanied by this startling photo:

    The accompanying text called this the “lake bottom” as if Lake Michigan (which averages 279 feet deep) had somehow dried up.

    Then in a matter of two years, low lake levels were replaced with high lake levels. The cause (analysis here) was a combination of unusually high precipitation (contrary to global warming theory) and an unusually cold winter that caused the lakes to mostly freeze over, reducing evaporation.

    Now, as of this month (June 2019), ALL of the Great Lakes have reached record-high levels.

    Time To Change The Story”:

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/great-lakes-water-levels-record-highs/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Climate catastrophists really want to head the way of Venezuela:

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/06/green-lunacy-at-the-parkville-asylum/

  • Peter E says:

    You nail the learned academies. There are also public administrators, of whom the late and unlamented Maurice Strong may be seen as an example, who are experts at presenting Ministers with dangers that must be faced, so requiring new staff, sections and branches and Divisions and Departments and ultimately the empires we now see around us, built on taxpayer funds. Some issues are so pressing that nothing will avail except massive subsidies of these taxpayer funds. Then you get into the mendicant class, the developing countries who require massive aid and also the businessmen who can help if only they get a leg up from the government. The demand grows and it doesn’t pass un-noticed by the revolutionaries longing for a cause that there is something in this for them; here is a way to change the world, a giant plan for the future. And all can appeal to authority, the experts who have laid down the law. But as someone pointed out recently, there are scientists who are calculators with computers and logarithms capable of seeing far into the future, something that previously was only possible for gipsies with crystal balls. Then there are scientists who do research and through measurement seek the truth. Let us pray!

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    I think you will find that he publicly disagreed with his colleagues on the condition of the GBR. He became persona non grata at JCU, and guess what? University HR departments are about as forgiving as the KGB.

  • BoyfromTottenham says:

    Wow, Don – your post generated a lot of comment!
    My 2 bob’s worth:
    In 1850 Karl Marx wanted to overthrow global capitalism and replace it with ‘the dictatorship of the proletariate’. And by 1920 or so Lenin had succeeded in doing that in the USSR, with disastrous results for the citizens until the USSR imploded 70 years later.
    The UNFCCC wants to overthrow global capitalism and replace it with ‘the dictatorship of the climatariate’. See the difference? Expect the result to be any different? No, I didn’t think so!

  • spangled drongo says:

    “But it’s real.”

    Poor ol’ blith. He not only is a blatant denialist but he even denies he denies.

    He is in denial of the manipulation and fabrication of temperatures that the gatekeepers have been doing since records started.

    And he quotes John “97%” Cook as an authority on historical Holocene temperature fluctuations who shows ~ 0.4c historic max variability.

    I wonder how that tiny bit of increase led to 4 metre SLR and huge tree line changes during that period?

    Get real, blith.

    How does 7c warmer grab you?

    “During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.”

    Abstract

    Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however, appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation, the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover, greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation.

    How many papers would you like me to produce to prove your flawed blither?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Mike Burston

    Hot weather is not climate disruption. Continuing “record breaking” hot weather is climate disruption.

    Unseasonal cold weather is unseasonal weather. Continuing “record breaking” cold weather would also be evidence of climate change.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      You say,
      “Hot weather is not climate disruption. Continuing “record breaking” hot weather is climate disruption.”

      But there is no ” Continuing “record breaking” hot weather” so according to you there is NO “climate disruption.”

      That is good to know, It is on a par with your contention (above) that there is no tropospheric Hot Spot.

      Richard

      • Chris Warren says:

        Richard S Courtney

        Here is more continuing heat records being broken, for you to deny!

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/01/alaska-heat-wave-record-heat-fuels-wildfires-melting-sea-ice/1616992001/

        Good facts dowse bad flames from Courtney and Co.

        • Chris Warren says:

          More facts to throw at the feet of denialists.

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171108155504.htm

          • Chris Warren says:

            Don’t let denialists prattle on about some tropospheric hotspot.

            This is a trick they pull. The facts are:

            From Steve Sherwood [https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-meme-debunked-tropospheric-hot-spot-found/]

            My colleague Nidhi Nishant and I have now analysed the radiosonde data yet again, and we found a tropical warming profile even closer to that expected. The fastest warming was at an altitude of about 12 km, and averaged 0.25C per decade – much faster than at the surface (0.14C per decade).

            This means that the troposphere is warming around 70-80% faster than the surface. So, far from being absent, this tropospheric warming is at least as strong as predicted by the average climate model, which predicted that the troposphere would heat 64% faster than the surface.

            Moreover, our data show that the tropical troposphere has warmed at a more or less constant rate since widespread balloon launches began in 1958, which is a bit puzzling given the ocean-surface hiatus since 2000 or so.

            More Evidence

            This result comes hot on the heels of a new University of Washington study which overcomes one of the key obstacles to obtaining an accurate satellite-based record of atmospheric warming. The problem is that temperatures vary during the day, and when a new satellite is launched (which happens every few years), it observes the Earth at an earlier time of day than the old one (since after launch, each satellite orbit begins to decay toward later times of day).

            This means that over time, if you don’t know the daily cycle of temperature very accurately over the whole planet, you are going to get an errors in the long-term warming trend when you piece the different satellite records together. The University of Washington group has come up with a way of estimating this temperature cycle from the satellite data themselves while at the same time accounting for other effects such as calibration changes.

            The result is that they now find mid-to-upper tropospheric warming that is just as strong as predicted by models, in line with both of the new radiosonde studies. The troposphere was warming all along – it’s just that the warming is very hard to see when other things are happening to the instruments over time.

            One remaining puzzle is that the radiosonde data do not show a “hiatus” in atmospheric warming, but the satellite data do. Another is that the surface warming rate over oceans has been somewhat weaker than predicted by most climate models, even going back well before the “hiatus.”

            This could be due to the models being too sensitive, but would be more easily explained by the existence of some influence on climate that has up until now been partly offsetting the greenhouse effect, and has not been properly accounted for. Thus climate scientists still have important puzzles to solve — but it looks like the “missing hot spot” has finally been found.

            Steve Sherwood is Director, Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW Australia.

            ********

            So denialists want to deny the tropospheric hot spot too.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Wow! all that record heat!

          You don’t think it might just be media-talk?

          That must be why the Peterman Glacier has grown nearly 10 klm since 2012, hey?:

          https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/growth-of-the-petermann-glacier-since-2012-2/

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Chris Warren,

          Not content with being unable to read the words of others, you now fail to understand the words you wrote yourself!

          You said,
          “Hot weather is not climate disruption. Continuing “record breaking” hot weather is climate disruption.”

          A record broken in one place on one or a few days is NOT “Continuing “record breaking” hot weather”
          (not unless you have invented a new meaning of the word “continuing”).

          Stop denying reality. Accept reality and be free of your superstitious fears.
          There is no “Continuing “record breaking” hot weather”; none, zilch, nada.

          And if there were “Continuing “record breaking” hot weather” then, so what?
          I have told you that hotter temperatures are now more likely than at any time in the last ~
          300 years because the world has been recovering from the Little Ice Age for the last~300 years and there is no evidence that this completely natural intermittent warming has ended.

          Richard

          • Chris Warren says:

            Richard S Courtney

            You are playing silly, silly word games.

            The only way you can get a new record is if previous records are broken.

            If, and as, CO2 accumulates this will CONTINUE.

            C o n t i n u e

            Past records are being broken – the record breaking continues.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Chris Warren.

            To quote a tennis player, “You cannot be serious!”

            YOU wrote,
            ““Hot weather is not climate disruption. Continuing “record breaking” hot weather is climate disruption.”

            I did not write that, YOU DID.

            I pointed out that
            (a) There is NO “Continuing “record breaking” hot weather”
            because
            (b) “A record broken in one place on one or a few days is NOT “Continuing “record breaking” hot weather”
            (not unless you have invented a new meaning of the word “continuing”).”
            and I repeatedly told you
            (c) “And if there were “Continuing “record breaking” hot weather” then, so what?
            I have told you that hotter temperatures are now more likely than at any time in the last ~
            300 years because the world has been recovering from the Little Ice Age for the last~300 years and there is no evidence that this completely natural intermittent warming has ended.”

            Your response is to accuse ME of “playing silly, silly word games”.

            The ONLY “word games” are yours. You attempt to excuse your silly, silly word games by writing,
            “The only way you can get a new record is if previous records are broken.
            If, and as, CO2 accumulates this will CONTINUE.
            C o n t i n u e
            Past records are being broken – the record breaking continues.”

            But I had answered those “word games” each time I wrote,
            “hotter temperatures are now more likely than at any time in the last ~300 years because the world has been recovering from the Little Ice Age for the last~300 years and there is no evidence that this completely natural intermittent warming has ended.”

            Unless, of course, you are claiming somebody was measuring temperatures long before 300 years ago?

            Stop panicing. There is no evidence of any “climate disruption” and no evidence of any “climate emergency” while there is much evidence that CO2 is not having any effect on these matters.

            The dogma of your cult claims the lack of evidence for your fears does not matter. IT DOES.

            Richard

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Chris Warren,

          The Hot Spot is not there. Anybody who looks at the data can see the Hot Spot is missing. If the data showed the Hot Spot then the Hot Spot would be obvious because it consists of warming at altitude that is between two and three times the warming at ground level.

          You report that some warmunist says he has “analysed” the data which shows the Hot Spot is missing, and he says he has found it. He is wrong and he probably knows he is wrong.

          The Hot Spot is missing. Stop denying reality and live with the reality that the Hot Spot is missing.
          Unchain yourself from your fears. The truth will set you free.

          Richard

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Chris Warren,

            I add that your concerns about the Hot Spot are like concerns about The Man On The Stair; i.e.

            One day while walking up the stair
            I met a man who wasn’t there.
            He wasn’t there again today.
            I wish that man would go away.

            Richard

          • Chris Warren says:

            Your crooked lies illustrate an old tale.

            There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
            He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
            He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
            And they all lived together in a little crooked house.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Chris Warren,

            I suppose you mean ‘truth’ when you talk about my “crooked lies”.

            Your fears of the climate “disruption” and climate “emergency” are mistaken because climate “disruption” and climate “emergency” DO NOT EXIST. At very least they don’r exist to a discernible degree.

            If you have any evidence that either or both of them does exist then publish it because you will certainly get two Nobel Prizes (Physics and Peace) and possibly a third (Chemistry) for finding what many scientists around the world have been seeking for decades without any success.

            Richard

  • spangled drongo says:

    Introducing some reality into “France’s hottest evah” temperatures:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/29/frances-new-hottest-recorded-temperature-ever-is-in-question-guess-where-it-was-measured/

    And they don’t tell you about France’s 50c in 1930:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-06-29154219.png

    Just like our own BoM. After wiping the slate of all our old records, their new ones are a lot cooler.

  • spangled drongo says:

    A new paper showing almost nothing happening WRT SLR [ mean of 0.34 mm/y] from 76 of the best tide gauges:

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/20/worlds-76-best-tide-gauges-100-years-of-data-show-a-mean-0-34-mm-yr-rise-negligible-acceleration/

  • spangled drongo says:

    More message that needs embedding.

    The joys, satisfaction and virtue signalling of EV ownership:

    First comes high prices, 2/ big taxpayer subsidies, 3/ short range, 4/ long waiting times for recharge, 5/ high battery replacement cost, 6/ non-payment of their share of road usage, [did I miss anything?], now this.

    With brilliant solutions to the climate “problem” like this, what’s not to like?

    Electric vehicles in Germany account for more CO2 emissions than diesel ones, according to a study by German scientists:

    https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/55602/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-german-study-shows/

  • Chris Warren says:

    More denialism from Courtney

    “he Hot Spot would be obvious because it consists of warming at altitude that is between two and three times the warming at ground level.”

    Fake.

    • spangled drongo says:

      More denialism from blith:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/

      But when your mates keep adjusting and kriging those tens of thousands of radiosondes you will always convince yourself that you were right.

      But check the actual measurements anyway:

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/hotspotmodelpredicted.gif

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      Please give credit where it is due.

      I was merely citing the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when I wrote,
      ““he Hot Spot would be obvious because it consists of warming at altitude that is between two and three times the warming at ground level.”

      This is, you say, “denialism” and it is “fake”. You need to take up those strong words with the IPCC.

      The accusation of fakery is yours: I did not make it and I do not support it.

      The Hot Spot is fully described in Chapter 9 of the so-called “scientific” WG1 report of IPCC AR4 that you can download from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf

      The Hot Spot is shown Figure 9.1.

      It is on page 675 and is titled,
      “Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
      (a) solar forcing,
      (b) volcanoes,
      (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases,
      (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
      (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
      (f) the sum of all forcings.
      Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa
      (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a)

      The Hot Spot is the big red blob that is only in plots (c) for wellmixed greenhouse gases, and (f) for the sum of all forcings.

      As you can see, in the Figure the blob is warming of between 2 and 3 times the warming near the surface beneath it.

      Furthermore, the plot is of predicted temperature rises “from 1890 to 1999” and the measured temperature rises are for the latter part of the period (since 1958 for the balloon data and since 1969 for the satellite data). Thus, warming measured by balloons and satellites was for when “wellmixed greenhouse gases” were at their highest.

      Therefore, if the effect of wellmixed greenhouse gases is as predicted in Figure 9.1 of IPCC WG1 AR4 then the measured warming in the Hot Spot should be MORE THAN 2 to 3 times greater than warming measured near the surface beneath the Hot Spot.

      Also, the Hot Spot is predicted by Santer et al. who have ‘previous’ for “fake” findings (remember the infamous Chapter 8 scandal). So your accusation that the predictions of warming are “fake” must have some credibility.

      However, I make no comment on your accusation of fraud, and I leave that for you to defend if Santer et al. take action against your accusation.

      Richard

      • Chris Warren says:

        Richard S Courtney

        I hoped you had better than that.

        The oft-quoted diagram is not a prediction of a “hot spot”, and this word is never used. It is denialist fakery.

        It is modelling from 1890, so to test its accuracy, you need to know what the atmospheric zonal temperatures were in 1890’s.

        The suggested temp variations are in the order of tenths of degree and not multiples 2-3 times etc. To explain for slow-learners, – if the surface warmed one degree – the model does not imply upper warming of 2-3 degrees. It suggests upper atmospheric warming of 0.4 C per century ie to reach 1.4C.

        You have misunderstood the science. A linear increase, from a small base, results in multiples but this is not the mechanism and cannot be touted as such.

        The best way to understand this modelling is to start with the first date we have sufficient zonal data, and go from there.

        If you look at panel f, you will see a modelling suggestion of warming at 8-12 km height (near equator) of less than 1C over a century.

        Good luck on your researching – you are going to need it.

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Chris Warren,

          I have to admire you for your gonads!

          You write of the Hot Spot as it is described in Chapter 9 of the so-called “scientific” WG1 report of IPCC AR4 ,

          “It is denialist fakery.”

          WOW!
          I thought I was a critic of the IPCC but even I have never accused the IPCC of publishing “denialist fakery”.
          And I have to say that my own studies of climate model performance refute your accusation.

          I agree with the IPCC AR4 which says (AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 Page 674 ),
          “The ability to distinguish between climate responses to different external forcing factors in observations depends on the extent to which those responses are distinct (see, e.g., Section 9.4.1.4 and Appendix 9.A). Figure 9.1 illustrates the zonal average temperature response in the PCM model (see Table 8.1 for model details) to several different forcing agents over the last 100 years, …”
          and
          “The major features shown in Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models. ”

          As I said, you can download the document from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf .

          As usual, your cult is wrong. However, in this case, the IPCC is right.

          Richard

          PS I dare you to ask me to report my work and Kiehl’s work on model performance. It adds to the egg that is already on your face.

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    You have posted your objective target of CO2 in the atmosphere:

    “Chris Warren
    July 1, 2019 at 7:58 am
    Neville

    The crying need is to prvent (sic) CO2 levels reaching over 600 ppm by 2100”

    You have also posted your proposed policy to achieve this outcome:

    “Chris Warren
    June 29, 2019 at 2:53 pm
    CO2 will decrease if per capita CO2 falls (as is true for some states) and the population stabilises or better starts to fall.”

    What you have not explained is how this policy is to be implemented. Do you propose a one child policy? Even with the full force of a totalitarian state, China had problems with its version of this. If not a compulsory policy, what do you propose?

    On per capita emissions, one way to reduce the rate of total emissions growth is to ban immigration from low per capita emission nations to high per capita nations. Do you propose this?

    Coming closer to home, one way to reduce Australia’s total emissions would be to stop all immigration, as new migrants, particularly those from low per capita emission states, inevitably increase their emission rates as they adopt our higher per capita emission lifestyle. Do you support this course of action?

    Another way to lower Australia’s total and per capita emissions would be to construct new HELE coal fired power stations, which have a significantly lower emission rate than current stations. Do you support this?

    So many questions, this is enough for the moment. I look forward to your response.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Who does blith remind you of?

    Plenty of passion but denies reality:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48531019

  • Richard S Courtney says:

    Chris Warren,

    I, too, much prefer science and analysis over beliefs and dogma. And it pleases me that you are starting to learn that science is about displacing beliefs with dogma (if nothing else, I can take pleasure in knowing my explanations on the previous thread have taught you this).

    The analysis you need to read is this
    https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/
    See? Your worries have all been disproved so you can sleep peacefully tonight.

    Richard

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      CORRIGENDUM

      I wrote
      “science is about displacing beliefs with dogma ”
      Sorry.
      Of course I intended to write
      “science is about displacing beliefs and dogma with empiricism”

      mea culpa

      Richard

    • Chris Warren says:

      Richard S Courtney

      You seem to be very ill informed or slow.

      I have already addressed the edberry trash over a year ago – in my post of:

      May 27, 2018 at 1:28 pm

      So unless it has been published ina reputable journal then it is fit for denialists only.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        Chris Warren,

        Ed’s paper that reports his excellent work is in process of being published in a “reputable journal”.
        You were told this in the previous thread. Importantly, his paper is superb (which is why you cannot dispute it).

        Anyway, in science what matters is empirical evidence and NOT where something is published and by whom. There are many examples which demonstrate this, but I provide you with one because you are too thick to find one for yourself.

        Orville and Wilbur Wright were two brothers who sold new and used bicycles. They learned simple mechanics to enable them to repair bicycles, but other than that their education was very limited, and they had no training or qualifications in science. However, they wanted to build a ‘heavier than air’ flying machine, so they devised and built a small wind tunnel which they used to experiment with models as a method to discover the problems of ‘heavier than air flying’. ‘Mainstream science’ claimed that ‘heavier than air flight’ was not possible because a more powerful power engine was needed. The Wright brothers ignored that and continued to conduct real science while developing a light-weight motor which they knew would be inadequate according to ‘mainstream science’. Their work revealed that inadequate power was not the main problem preventing ‘heavier than air flight’. Their scientific investigations showed the main problem was need for varying geometry of lifting surfaces to provide aeronautical stability. They then combined the knowledge provided by their science with their mechanical skills to construct a flying machine and they tried to publish their science. But no “reputable journal” would publish their paper so they published where they could.: thus, the seminal work on aeronautics was published in a magazine about bee-keeping.

        The value of the science conducted by the Wright brothers is demonstrated by, for example, the existence or Airbus Industrie. The value of their science is NOT indicated by who they were, their education, their qualifications, the refusal of ‘mainstream science’ to agree their work, or where they published their work. The same is true of all science (including the excellent scientific work of Ed Berry).

        Richard

        • Chris Warren says:

          So from all that, can I assume that eberrry’s paper will appear in a Beekeeper’s Magazine?

          All denialists swarm together.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        Chris Warren,

        It does not matter where Ed’s paper is published. It only matters that you cannot dispute it because it is excellent.

        And please don’t try to be clever. You can’t do it (because if brains were dynamite you lack sufficient to dislodge your wig).

        Richard

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    On the face of it, the idea that a fraction of a degree rise in average ‘global’ temperature, and a similar miniscule (millimetric) increase in sea level could spark a worldwide panic, on which national governments would spend billions to control the climate and avert supposed catastrophe one hundred years hence, is simply absurd. Deeper analysis reveals that it is actually ridiculous (deserving of ridicule). When it can be shown that humans CAN control the climate, reduce glacial melting, and lower sea levels, it might be worthwhile revisiting the discussion. Until then, forget it. Spend the money improving life for those already here. Our progeny will engineer their own salvation. If they cannot, we could not have done it for them.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Bryan Roberts wrote,
      “When it can be shown that humans CAN control the climate, reduce glacial melting, and lower sea levels, it might be worthwhile revisiting the discussion. Until then, forget it. Spend the money improving life for those already here. Our progeny will engineer their own salvation. If they cannot, we could not have done it for them.”

      SECONDED! HEAR, HEAR!

      Richard

  • Neville says:

    Another interesting article from the GWPF. How they fiddle the data again and again, again.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/man-made-warming-how-climate-scientists-fiddle-the-data-again-again-again/

  • Neville says:

    Thanks for the link Richard. BTW Dr Roy Spencer shows why the recent hot spell over parts of Europe is not unusual and lists 3 facts to make his case.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/

    And Dr Pat Michaels explains why their so called CAGW fantasies are built on faulty climate model projections. The one model that is the closest to the observations is the Russian model. Why is it so?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/02/climate-models-are-fudged-says-climatologist-video/

  • Neville says:

    Earlier historical heatwaves were much worse for France and some other European countries.
    The death toll during the 1911 heatwave was over 40,000 and much earlier heatwaves caused the death of 100,000s of people.
    Today our much higher populations can reduce heatwave deaths by a huge factor with regular, sensible hydration and the use of air conditioning.
    Of course cold spells are the far larger killer and moderate cold is a factor as well. See recent Lancet study.
    Oh and co2 levels in 1911 were about 300 ppm and the earlier extreme killer heatwaves occurred when co2 levels would have been about 280 ppm.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/france-1911-heatwave-41000-deaths/

  • Neville says:

    There were also very bad heatwave conditions in London and the UK during the long hot summer of 1911.
    Probably more Saharan heat and blocking highs, certainly not their so called climate emergency or climate change or Gorebull warning or any other delusional nonsense.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/great-british-heatwave-1911/

  • spangled drongo says:

    The warmists will be thrilled by the June temps but now that el Nino has finally gone I think we will see some cooling:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2019-0-47-deg-c/#comments

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    Still no response to my questions posted at 1925 yesterday?

    I had hoped that you might have some clear responses on how your desired policies might be implemented. Seems practical matters are not your style?

  • Neville says:

    More hospital visits and an increase in hypothermia cases plus deaths because of much higher electricity prices.
    What have elderly Aussies done to deserve this criminal abuse in their twilight years? And the clueless Andrews Vic Labor govt appear to be hell bent on closing another coal fired power station ASAP.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/sacrificed-for-the-renewables-religion-electricity-doubles-cold-deaths-up-one-third/

  • Stu says:

    Chris,
    You should follow my lead and drop out of the “conversation”, they live in a pseudo science world and will never be convinced of reality.

    I have noted some discussion regarding the science quals or otherwise of RS Courtney. You can get some back ground via Sourcewatch.org (which is a very useful site for checking many of the claims in this blog). Another site lists him with a BA and a DipPhil but no Ph.D and no science. Here is a link to an article he wrote in 2004 which is good for a laugh. The style and approach still function today in the alternate universe.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20040925101826/http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20040802/courtney.shtml

    Cheerio once more.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      From the Oxford University website.

      A DPhil is the Oxford equivalent of a PhD.

      Both ‘PhD’ and ‘DPhil’ are abbreviations for ‘Doctor of Philosophy’, which is an advanced research qualification usually involving independent research to write an original thesis.

      Stu, please take the time to google things before you make yourself ridiculous.

      • Stu says:

        No, back in your box. The site referenced explicitly says DipPhil that is Diploma not Doctorate. Then to further complicate things his ref is to Cambridge not Oxford. And neither claims to have a DipPhil anyhow. Maybe that is why he does not quote it himself. Further he does not appear at all under Google Scholar so appears to have not published anything scientific or otherwise in a peer reviewed place.

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          stu,

          If you had anything to say that is of worth or is of interest then you would say it.

          You are wasting your time by trying to make me seem interesting because, sadly for me, I am not interesting.

          Your apparent interest in me is flattering, but it wastes space in the thread because it is not relevant to anything being discussed here. So, just be a good little troll and crawl back under your bridge until you can find something to say that is of worth and/or is of interest

          Richard

          • Stu says:

            “sadly for me, I am not interesting.” quite correct, I agree completely.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            stu,

            It pleases me that you agree I am not interesting.

            I have no idea who you are or what you look like so your interest in me was causing me to fear to bend over near strangers.

            Of course, I still need to take care because the perversions of anonymous trolls such as you should not be ignored, especially when one of them becomes fixated on somebody they claim is not interesting.

            Richard

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu surfaces briefly, sees his own shadow, and crawls back into his hole.

      • Stu says:

        RSC, As stated I was merely responding to the discussion regarding your quals or lack of. You put up the link to a dodgy old video. Yet you imply but wont confirm a science background. That lead to some searching, which is not hard. But some people here have a hard time following posted links as evidenced by the lack of source checking rubbish from wattsup etc. for example the silly and debunked
        story about the French record temperature site. Secondly, I was only online again to warn Chris it was time to bail out and leave the space to the barbarians. And while at it to give a little more of your background. Or are you not that RS? If so, sorry, my mistake.
        Cheerio

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          stu (or perhaps I should call you Perve),

          OK. I see your fixation on me continues. I can’t stop it but I can profit from it.

          Perve, I have an old, unwashed pair of underpants,
          How much will you pay for me to sell them to you?

          Richard

          • Stu says:

            I think you just totally shot yourself in the foot. What is wrong with you, apart from senility?
            Hooroo.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu has had more farewells here than Dame Nellie Melba had.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            stu AKA Perve,

            Won’t you offer a fair price for my underpants? I promise I have not washed them.

            It seems that your fixation with me makes you think I will give you things for nothing.
            I am keeping personal information to myself (including the health problems you are now asking about).

            But you can have the underpants for a reasonable price.
            We can both benefit from your buying them.

            What is wrong with you? Are you a cheapskate that you won’t offer a fair price for the underpants?

            Richard

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Most humanitarian crises in history (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) have been initiated in the interests of a better life for people’s children. That didn’t work. Now we have children telling their parents how to live so that they can have a better life. Is that going to work any better?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Antarctic ice collapses.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116

    Also:

    https://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20NHandSHandTOTALiceExtension12monthRunningAverage.gif

    But shocking of all is the fact that even these facts were printed in “The Australian” albeit in a small report on page 3.

    But the key point is that these trends will continue while ever CO2 emissions exceed CO2 sinks.

    Denialists be damned.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      The short term sequestration processes for CO2 can easily sequester the total annual emission (both natural and anthropogenic) each year. This is clearly demonstrated by the dynamics of the seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 each year.

      The continuing trivial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (from 0.03% to 0.04%) has been completely beneficial; i.e. it has provided ~20% increase to agricultural production and has no observed harmful effects.

      This CO2 rise occurs because there is a residual of the seasonal variation each year. And this residual is probably an effect of the changing equilibrium state of the carbon cycle that is induced by the global temperature rise which is recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA). The delay of the CO2 rise after temperature rise is about 50 years and is not surprising because some processes of the carbon cycle have rate constants of decades.
      (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

      The recovery from the LIA began about 300 years ago and before the industrial revolution.

      Your assertion that “Antarctic ice collapses” and ” will continue while ever CO2 emissions exceed CO2 sinks” is meaningless twaddle.
      What does “collapses mean”?
      And what mechanistic connection are you claiming exists between the asserted collapse of Antarctic ice and CO2 emissions and sinks?

      Richard

  • Neville says:

    Just had a look at the latest from UAH V 6 Sat data. In May S Polar was MINUS -0.26c and in June MINUS -0.39c and of course no warming for SP from Dec 1978 to end of June 2019.

    And latest Sat data for SP LAND was MINUS -0.48c for May and MINUS – 1.63 c for June ’19. Overall global warming for UAH V 6 is 0.13 c decade since Dec 1978. Mostly from NH 0.15 c dec and N Pole.

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

  • Chris Warren says:

    Why do denialisms get everything so wrong all the time?
    Good example from Richard Courtney
    “The short term sequestration processes for CO2 can easily sequester the total annual emission (both natural and anthropogenic) each year. This is clearly demonstrated by the dynamics of the seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 each year.”
    FALSE Each year the quantity rise after seasonal variation

    “The continuing trivial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (from 0.03% to 0.04%) has been completely beneficial; i.e. it has provided ~20% increase to agricultural production and has no observed harmful effects. “
    FALSE : The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

    “…residual is probably an effect of the changing equilibrium state of the carbon cycle that is induced by the global temperature rise which is recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA). “
    FALSE – no evidence and rate of increase is beyond anything to do with LIA recover.

    “The delay of the CO2 rise after temperature rise is about 50 years”
    FALSE: This relates to feedback out-gassing not fossil fuel emissions.

    “The recovery from the LIA began about 300 years ago and before the industrial revolution.”??IRRELEVANT???In short Robert Courtney sprouts “meaningless twaddle”. The so-called “mechanistic connection” is the flow of heat. Heat melts ice.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      Why do you refuse to learn?

      I told you the the short term sequestration processes can easily sequester all the emission (~96%natural and ~4% anthropogenic) each year. And I cited our peer reviewed publication which explains the matter in detail.

      You have replied with a non sequitur,
      i.e. “FALSE Each year the quantity rise after seasonal variation”

      Say what!? How is that possible?
      The atmospheric CO2 concentration does NOT jump up after seasonal variation has completed.
      The variations of atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa are shown here https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

      Anybody can see the Mauna Loa data (as all similar measurements elsewhere) shows that, as I said,
      “This CO2 rise occurs because there is a residual of the seasonal variation each year. ”

      Our paper I cited gives explanation of the dynamics of the sequestration. Here, I merely point out that the Mauna Loa data does NOT show the seasonal fall in atmospheric CO2 gradually decreasing as sinks fill. The seasonal variation ‘drops like a stone’ before reversing.

      And I pointed out,
      “The continuing trivial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (from 0.03% to 0.04%) has been completely beneficial; i.e. it has provided ~20% increase to agricultural production and has no observed harmful effects. “

      You respond saying “FALSE : The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, ,,,,”
      and you quote what some alarmist says may happen.

      No, dear boy, what I wrote is TRUE, and that is why you do not dispute it. What may (probably won’t) happen does not change that.

      If that response from you were not sufficiently idiotic, you attempt to outdo it by quoting me and writing,
      ““…residual is probably an effect of the changing equilibrium state of the carbon cycle that is induced by the global temperature rise which is recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA). “
      FALSE – no evidence and rate of increase is beyond anything to do with LIA recover.”

      Those words I wrote are true.
      I agree with you that your words in reply to them are “FALSE” and, as you say, you have provided “no evidence” for them.

      You continue your raving by writing,
      ““The delay of the CO2 rise after temperature rise is about 50 years”
      FALSE: This relates to feedback out-gassing not fossil fuel emissions.”

      YES, my words do relate to “outgassing” (from the oceans), but your words I was refuting were about “CO2 emissions” and NOT “fossil fuel emissions”. Emissions of oil, gas and coal are something else, and CO2 emissions from all human activities (including fossil fuel usage) are less than 4% of CO2 emissions (to the air).

      And you reach a climax of weirdness by writing,
      ““The recovery from the LIA began about 300 years ago and before the industrial revolution.”??IRRELEVANT???In short Robert Courtney sprouts “meaningless twaddle”. The so-called “mechanistic connection” is the flow of heat. Heat melts ice.”

      We are supposed to be discussing a post that I made. I had a phone call with my brother last night: he assures me that, contrary to your suggestion, he has said nothing about this matter.

      There has been – and probably still is – recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA), and it consists of intermittent warming for about 300 years. It is silly to suggest that warming is “IRRELEVANT” when you claim a “mechanism” is “flow of heat” that “melts ice”.

      Importantly, melting has little to do with glacier loss which is mostly a result of greater sublimation than precipitation.

      Your nonsense I have answered here does not include any answers to my questions to you. They were and are,
      ” What does “collapses” mean?
      And what mechanistic connection are you claiming exists between the asserted collapse of Antarctic ice and CO2 emissions and sinks?”

      I have given you the courtesy of refuting all you wrote. Perhaps you can give me the courtesy of answering my questions because – without those answers – your original post is still meaningless twaddle.

      Richard

    • JimboR says:

      “There has been – and probably still is – recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA)”

      Richard, what precisely do you mean by “recovery from the LIA”? It’s not like climate is a spring, returning to its neutral position after something compressed it. If nothing had changed, we’d still be in the LIA and we’d probably be calling it a BIA by now. Clearly something has warmed us up since the LIA. The most obvious candidate is increased solar activity but that hasn’t been increasing much for a while now and yet still we warm. You’d also expect that to warm the stratosphere but its not warming.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Jimb, do you deny that the LIA was the longest and coldest cold period during the Holocene?

        There is plenty of evidence to support that.

        When there were natural climate temperatures of at least 4c higher [some scientific papers claim almost double that] why would you not think it is natural for climate to move back to – and either side of – its average?

        And having warmed ~ 1c since records began that still leaves us in the lowest quartile of natural climate temperatures during the Holocene.

        If we warmed at least another 2 – 3c during the Holocene with CO2 levels at under 300 ppm, please show how our 1c warming since the LIA is proof of anything other than natural climate variability?

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          spangled drongo,

          Thankyou for your clear and accurate post that refutes the nonsense JimboR addressed to me.

          I see no reason to add to your response, but this post thanking you for your fine response demonstrates I am not avoiding anything.

          Richard

  • spangled drongo says:

    I received this email today and what is interesting here is that in spite of the slight rise up to 2014, the MSL has dropped 7 cm in the last 5 years:

    Daniel Fitzhenry – Hydrographic Surveyor

    Capt. Daniel Fitzhenry – CPHS1 Hydrographic Surveyor – Registered Surveyor – Dip. Environmental Studies (Macq.)
    Steven Fitzhenry – B.Eng. (Civil) Sydney – MIE Aust. – Maritime Civil & Structural Engineer – Project Manager
    Capt. Adam Fitzhenry – B. Eng. Honours (Civil) Syd, MBA AGSM – Maritime Civil & Structural Engineer – Oceanographer
    Ellie Fitzhenry – B.Sc (Sydney) – Marine Biology & Ecology – Marine Science
    Capt. Paul McGaw – ROV Operations Manager – Electrical & Mechanical Engineer
    Tracey Hay – B.A (Macq) – Project Coordinator – IT, Statistics & Research Manager
    Rising Sea Levels – The Climate Debate
    The seas and oceans to the east of Australia forms the largest body of water on Earth. This broadly connected vast body of water presents a genuine sea level. The Sydney Fort Denison Recording Station provides stable, accurate and genuine mean sea level data. The following table shows mean sea levels at 10 year intervals and these levels are related to Chart Datum which is at the lowest spring tide level.
    100 YEARS OF MEAN SEA LEVELS AT FORT DENISON, SYDNEY:
    1914 – 1.11 metres
    1924 – 0.98 metres
    1934 – 0.98 metres
    1944 – 0.97 metres
    1954 – 1.00 metres
    1964 – 1.09 metres
    1974 – 1.09 metres
    1984 – 1.02 metres
    1994 – 1.04 metres
    2004 – 1.08 metres
    2014 – 1.12 metres
    2019 – 1.05 metres
    Accordingly, the mean sea level at Sydney in 2019 is 6 centimetres lower than the mean sea level at Sydney in 1914 when the Bureau Of Meteorology commenced recording Mean Sea Level.

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    Your general posts about CAGW convey an air of deep concern, if not panic, at the rate of warming you expect from increasing CO2 emissions. However, your proposed actions, reducing per capita emission levels, and stabilising and then decreasing population levels, do not seem to match that level of concern.

    In particular, stabilising and then reducing world population will be the work of many decades. Unless, that is, you are thinking of what might be euphemistically described as “active measures”.

    What actions do you propose to first stabilise, and then reduce, world population?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Richard S Courtney

    It sounds like you need to do a lot more research before commenting further.
    It is obvious that all CO2 emissions are not being sequestered. That is why CO2 accumulation is increasing at over 2ppm per year.
    If you think responding to you is a non-sequitur, then this just reflects on the totally confused and mixed-up rants you are posting. You are the source.
    The rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is not “trival”. This is just a fantasy of denial.
    The benefit to vegetation of enhanced CO2 cannot be maintained, and does not offset the loss of species, coastal environments, and disrupted weather that will accompany continuing global warming.
    You do not understand the so-called “hot spot” IPCC modelling.
    The LIA confusion is a deliberate denials trick as the rate of CO2 rise, and the level has no equivalent in LIA temperature variation. Denialists only resort to this because their previous attempts to trick people based on now debunked “pause” and debunked “sunspot”theories have been shown to be pure fakery and are now thrown into the trash where the LIA canard should follow.
    The core issue is fossil fuel emissions, not outgassing emissions. The latter is a feedback. There is no way fossil fuel emissions can be feedback. It seems you have no knowledge of feedbacks.
    You asked for some vague “mechanistic connection”. You were given this as we all know that heat melts ice. You seems t have great difficulty reading because, even after this, you say:
    “And what mechanistic connection are you claiming exists between the asserted collapse of Antarctic ice and CO2 emissions and sinks?”
    So as you are such a slow learner I will tell you again. Collapse of ice is due to heat from global warming due to imbalance between emissions and sinks.??Please print this out and place it under your pillow.
    No-one cares what phone calls you make.
    The loss in land ice volumes is much greater that could be achieved by (so called) sublimation which may well accelerate as air temperatures rise due to global warming. Land ice does not sublimate as does dry-ice (frozen CO2).
    So far with all your hyper-activity – you have not made any useful point.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      You say to me,
      “It sounds like you need to do a lot more research before commenting further.
      It is obvious that all CO2 emissions are not being sequestered. That is why CO2 accumulation is increasing at over 2ppm per year.”

      It is clear to everyone that you don’t have a clue about this subject to which I have made some small contribution in the peer reviewed literature.

      It is obvious that alterations to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere result from the altering equilibrium state of the carbon cycle. That is why the concentration goes up and down like a fiddler’s elbow (see https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ) . And the dynamics of this seasonal variation demonstrate that the annual variation is NOT because the ‘sinks’ are saturated. The short term sequestration processes can easily sequester ALL the total CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic) each year but they don’t because the carbon cycle continues to adjust to longer term changes (e.g. the temperature rise from the LIA).

      This changing equilibrium is why the apparent accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere does not relate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission. If the extra emission of human origin was the only emission, then in some years, almost all of it seems to be absorbed into the sinks, and in other years almost none. Furthermore the slow change to the equilibrium condition also provides an explanation of why the apparent accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere continued when in two subsequent years the anthropogenic CO2 flux into the atmosphere decreased (e.g. the years 1973-1974, 1987-1988, and 1998-1999).

      The rest of the twaddle which is the rest of your email is also wrong. That twaddle is all based on your assertions I have here refuted so I need say nothing more in answer to it.

      Richard

      PS
      The apparent accumulation of over 2 ppmv per year is an increase of ~0.0002% in atmospheric concentration per year.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Richard S Courtney

        If anything you said was true then the annual variations due to seasonal fluctuations of emissions-to-sinks would produce a long run horizontal trend that would always be below 300 ppm.

        I was stunned to see a denialist actually reference reputable data. So presumably you know that CO2 emissions have been exceeding available sinks since the 1850’s. Data (spreadsheet) is here: https://www.icos-cp.eu/GCP/2018

        And https://www.icos-cp.eu/sites/default/files/inline-images/s45_Global_Sources_and_Sinks_newcm.png

        The underlying increase in CO2 is the adjustment in the carbon cycle and has nothing to do with the LIA, sunspots, or planetary cycles such as Southern Oscillation.

        The accumulation in the atmosphere is not “apparent”. It is real.

        Your so-called “anthropogenic CO2 flux” lacks rigor. CO2 emissions are from fossil fuels and cement with some adjustment due to deforestation.

        They always increase every year except for a very few instances such as the El Nino year 1998.

        Every other instance you cited was FALSE.

        In 1973 emissions (fossil fuels and cement) were 4.611 GT and increased to 4.619 in 1974

        In 1987 they were 5.708 GT and increased to 5.917 GT in 1988

        They fell in 1998-99 but this was a strong El Nino period.

        In every year you cited the amount of CO2 flowing into the atmosphere exceeded the amount being reabsorbed by natural sinks by over 2.5 GT (1970’s) to over 3 GT (1980’s). Some of this is the feedback “out-gassing” from warming water.

        Your statement that “apparent accumulation of over 2 ppmv per year” was mischievous, as the rate is not apparent and is increasing. The data from Mauna Loa is:

        2008 385.60 ppm
        2009 387.43
        2010 389.90
        2011 391.65
        2012 393.85
        2013 396.52
        2014 398.65
        2015 400.83
        2016 404.24
        2017 406.55
        2018 408.52

        Naturally you had no reply and could only stick your head in the sand in shame. You do not understand that there are feed backs and probably have never accessed the CDIAC.

        Consequently you are well and truly floundering in the dark. A rate of 2.3 ppm over the remaining lifetimes of todays youth will see CO2 levels exceed 500 ppm with associated temperature increases.

        The real issue is the extent warming is due to each of CO2, methane and water vapour and the capacity of a turbulent warming atmosphere to hold more water vapour.

        Please no more false facts and denialist tricks.

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Chris Warren,

          I take umbrage to your saying to me,
          “I was stunned to see a denialist actually reference reputable data. So presumably you know that CO2 emissions have been exceeding available sinks since the 1850’s. Data (spreadsheet) is here: https://www.icos-cp.eu/GCP/2018

          Firstly, I always provide “reputable data” usually with links.

          Secondly, you proclaim that accurate information in an IPCC report is “fakery” while proclaiming that IPCC reports present real science.

          Importantly, you make daft assertions, for example, you assert that “emissions” are more than “sinks” as though that were some great revelation. YES. THAT MUST BE SO BECAUSE THE CO2 IN THE AIR IS INCREASING.

          I have tried to explain to you WHY the CO2 in the air is increasing. And I have provided several reasons why we know (yes, KNOW) it is not because the anthropogenic CO2 is accumulating in the air.

          READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN FOR YOU AND TRY TO LEARN.

          Importantly, APOLOGISE for your fatuous assertions saying to me,
          “Naturally you had no reply and could only stick your head in the sand in shame. You do not understand that there are feed backs and probably have never accessed the CDIAC.”

          I have refuted each and every point you have made, and my refutations are clear and full explanations (n.b. not daft and unsubstantiated assertions such as you provide)

          Not only do I “understand there are “feedbacks”, my post in this thread at http://donaitkin.com/hoew-the-message-gets-embedded/#comment-59060 ) begins by saying,

          “Empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity indicate that feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger.

          Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity (i.e. rise in global temperature induced by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from present levels) is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
          Idso from surface measurements
          and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
          and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data”
          and it provided links to each of these three completely independent determinations.

          You have yet provide anything to substantiate your ill informed and erroneous twaddle, and I am losing patience with your attempts to pretend that abuse of people information and journals is an acceptable alternative to scientific discourse..

          Richard

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      “Collapse of ice is due to heat from global warming due to imbalance between emissions and sinks.??”

      What is the average temperature in the area of collapse?

  • JimboR says:

    Richard, what precisely do you mean by “recovery from the LIA”? What recovered and why did it recover? And why is it still recovering?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Poor ol’ jimb.

      Like blith. Determined to live in a fool’s world.

      Lots of things in heaven and earth other than hockey sticks, jimb.

      Including Nat Var:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/cosmic-rays-seeded-clouds-during-the-last-geomagnetic-reversal/

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      JimboR;

      You ask me,
      “Richard, what precisely do you mean by “recovery from the LIA”? What recovered and why did it recover? And why is it still recovering?”

      When you first put that question to me in this thread it was answered in this thread by spanglewd drongo at http://donaitkin.com/hoew-the-message-gets-embedded/#comment-59589 .

      As anybody can see, I then wrote,

      “spangled drongo,
      Thankyou for your clear and accurate post that refutes the nonsense JimboR addressed to me.
      I see no reason to add to your response, but this post thanking you for your fine response demonstrates I am not avoiding anything.”

      What part of that did you not understand?
      Or are you trying to pretend I have avoided your silly question?

      For additional clarification, I add that whatever caused the LIA is the probable cause of the recovery from the LIA.

      One thing can be said with complete certainty; i.e.
      CO2 has no part in the natural variation around a mean temperature state which in recent centuries is observed as recovery from the LIA.

      Richard

      • JimboR says:

        That doesn’t sound like science to me.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Richard S Courtney

        It is no use referring to anything the drongo posts as I have a filter that blocks its posts.

        I only see the drongo drivel when I log in using a computer in a library or public wifi.

        I feel very sorry for the rest of you.

        Statements such as: ” I add that whatever caused the LIA is the probable cause of the recovery from the LIA.”

        show your complete incompetence.

        • Boambee John says:

          “It is no use referring to anything the drongo posts as I have a filter that blocks its posts.”

          Good to see someone with a completely open mind!

          • spangled drongo says:

            BJ, our blith has applied that same filter to current sea levels as well as Nat Var.

            Now he just draws the curtains and avidly follows the cli-sci of little Greta and AOC.

            Life is so easy these days.

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Chris Warren,

          In answer to your posing a question that had already been answered in the thread by spangeled drongo (SD), I linked to the reply of SD and quoted the agreement with that answer I had posted in the thread. And I added,

          “One thing can be said with complete certainty; i.e.
          CO2 has no part in the natural variation around a mean temperature state which in recent centuries is observed as recovery from the LIA.”

          You have replied to that addition saying in full,
          “That doesn’t sound like science to me.”

          IT IS SCIENCE
          A scientific dispute of my statement would have asked me to say
          (a) the information providing the “complete certainty”
          and/or
          (b) mechanisms I consider may “cause the observed natural variation around the mean temperature”

          As I told you in a previous thread,

          “Science is a method that seeks the closest available approximation to ‘truth’ by searching for information that refutes existing understanding and amends or rejects the existing understanding in response to discovered information that refutes the existing understanding.

          Pseudoscience is a method that adopts an existing understanding as being ‘truth’ and seeks anything (e.g. information, consensus, celebrity endorsement, etc.) which bolsters that existing information while creating excuses to reject or ignore anything that refutes the existing understanding.”

          Furthermore, it your very next post after the one reporting you don’t know what science sounds like, you have written saying in full,

          “Richard S Courtney
          It is no use referring to anything the drongo posts as I have a filter that blocks its posts.
          I only see the drongo drivel when I log in using a computer in a library or public wifi.
          I feel very sorry for the rest of you.
          Statements such as: ” I add that whatever caused the LIA is the probable cause of the recovery from the LIA.”
          show your complete incompetence.”

          THAT IS PURE PSEUDOSCIENCE.

          And, yes, I proclaim you are right when you say I am “incompetent” at pseudoscience.

          You and your AGW-cult are trying to destroy the advancement to humanity provided by the Enlightenment. In this thread at
          http://donaitkin.com/hoew-the-message-gets-embedded/#comment-59259
          I explained the terrible consequences that would result if you were to be successful

          I have addressed every scientific question you have put to me but I still await your answer to the question I put to you; viz.

          “If you still think the scientific Null Hypothesis is “the wrong tool” then perhaps you could say what “tool” you think should be used. Perhaps it is it a sledge hammer, or maybe a crystal ball?”

          Richard

  • spangled drongo says:

    When are these “scientists” ever going to grow up.

    Like our blith and co here, they refuse to look outside.

    They are calling for restrictions on carbon dioxide, but objective evidence shows coral have thrived under much more warming and cooling than is presently occurring, and coral continue to thrive today:

    https://www.cfact.org/2019/07/02/science-digest-gets-caught-pushing-a-coral-reef-myth/

  • JimboR says:

    So Richard, to summarise, it was really cold once, you’re not sure why, but no matter how warm it gets now and no matter how high the CO2 levels get now, it’s because it was really cold once. I’m beginning to think you really do believe in a big elastic band in the sky.

    • Neville says:

      Jimbo I don’t know what caused the LIA either, but it could be the sun or slightly more clouds or volcanoes, or longer ocean oscillations or a mixed combination etc. Who knows?
      Tony B of Climate Reason has looked at all available records and was able to find warming spikes during that much colder period as well. We know from the archives that deadly heatwaves also occurred through Europe during that period and we had similar heatwaves in Sydney in the 1790s. See Watkin Tench observations and records. Streams dried up and thousands of birds dropped dead and fouled waterways around that area of Sydney.
      Co2 levels would have been around 280 ppm then so we know it wasn’t the driver. But overall the period between about 1300 to 1850 was much colder than today ,but also had much warmer, short fluctuations as part of the record.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        Neville,

        Thankyou for your good answer to the silliness from Chris Warren. The silliness was aimed at me so, for the record, I am writing to state my complete agreement with you fine answer.

        I would like to add one of the possibilities that exist in your “etc.” because I think it is the most probable.
        Slight variation to ocean currents could alter global temperature because
        (i) radiative balance maintains itself
        and
        (ii) radiated energy is proportional to the fourth power of the emitting surface.
        (Richard Lindzen and I each completely independently calculated this).

        Richard

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          CORRIGENDUM

          (ii) radiated energy is proportional to the fourth power of the emitting surface’s temperature.

          (I am surprised that this typo. existed for days without Chris Warren demonstrating his superior scientific knowledge by doing me the favour of pointing out it needed correction)

          Richard

  • Mike says:

    I agree with Clive James who said Alarmists have always profited from their insistence that climate change is such a complex issue that no “science denier” can have an opinion worth hearing. For most areas of science such an assistance would be true. But this particular area has a knack of raising questions that get more and more complicated in the absence of an answer to the elementary ones. One of the elementary questions is how man made carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate change if the global temperature has not gone up much over the last 20 years but the amount of man made CO2 has. If we go on to ask a supplementary question say, how would carbon dioxide raise temperature when the evidence of ice cores indicates the temperature has always raised CO2 we will be given complicated answers, but we still haven’t had an answer to the first question except for the suggestion that the temperature, despite observations, has really gone up, but the extra heat is hiding in the ocean

    • Boambee John says:

      Mike

      “the extra heat is hiding in the ocean”

      And if some of the alarmists are to be believed, hiding well down in the ocean where it cannot be detected.

      Apparently this hideen heat is so powerful that it manages to defy the rule that hwat rises, in order to sink deep into the ocean, and doesn’t warm the surface water on the way through.

      Amazing stuff, this anthropogenic heat!

    • Chris Warren says:

      Mike

      What observations are you using.

      The science is elementary. You would not find much over 20 years, but who says this is the relevant time scale?

      Why pick 20 years?

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        You are quite correct. Climate scientists tell us that 30 years is the relevant period.

        However, if not much has happened in 20 years, it will all have to happen in a rush over the final ten, won’t it?

        PS, any thoughts on the practical measures needed to achieve your required population stabilisation, and ultimately, reduction?

        • Mike says:

          John, yes, if emissions of CO2 had had proved to be as influential as claimed there wouldn’t be any need to re-brand global warming firstly as Climate Change and more recently Climate Disruption.
          Whether it’s known by any of those terms or even “climate justice” it’s really just predatory economics. It’s an exhibition of mankind’s inherent capacity for raising opportunism to a principal: the enabling condition for fascism in all its varieties, and often an imperative mindset among high end frauds.

          • Boambee John says:

            Mike

            Your reference to “fascism in all its varieties” is why I keep asking Chris what measures he proposes to achieve his policy of first stabilising world population, and then reducing it.

            He never responds.

  • Neville says:

    But Chris I’ve provided you with a timescale of thousands of years and that estimate is provided by alarmist scientists via the combined RS and NAS report. Here’s their QUESTION 20 q&a AGAIN and maths guru Nic Lewis also calculated there would be a lag of thousands of years. Even if we stopped all human co2 emissions today.
    Certainly planting trees and BLUE carbon projects around the world would be much better and a lot cheaper than trying to reduce emissions by regulations. And voters wouldn’t buy these useless schemes anyway.

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/

    Here’s the more detailed graph of Zigfield et al study.

    https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig9-large.jpg?la=en-GB&hash=8A44DB48554B7B2E358FDF37C97CD90A

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      “timescale of thousands of years and that estimate is provided by alarmist scientists via the combined RS and NAS report”

      Clearly just a bunch of dastardly denialists!

    • Stu says:

      Can’t help myself and have to comment. The two papers you refer to highlight the problem you refuse to see. Yes the damage we have already done is irreversible in our timescale. But we can pull back and prevent a further degradation of conditions if we work to reduce future emissions. Even now, although you knock renewable energy, it’s development has actually done a lot already to limit emissions while powering global growth. At least now you seem to be opening the door to recognizing that we have a problem.

      And SD, yes they would build resort. Those kinds of places are built with only a short term lifespan in mind. Plenty of examples of that.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “while powering global growth”

        Renewables have certainly powered growth in China. They have also increased costs and decreased reliability in other countries. I suppose throwing out food ruined by power failure leads to purchasing more food, so that might count as “powering global growth”!

        PS, back again? When is your next farewell?

      • Boambee John says:

        BTW, Stu, what do you think of Chris’ “solution” of lowering per capita emissions, and first stabilising, then reducing, world population? Will it be timely enough and sufficient to “prevent a further degradation of conditions”?

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Plenty of examples of that.”

        Give us one.

        • Stu says:

          SD, Right now I am back in good old Canberra. Everywhere you look government and private buildings constructed since the 1960’s have been or ate being replaced. As for the Maldives, that story was done to death here weeks and months ago.

          And BJ, I am back while the conversation stays polite and sensible, you start abusing again and I am gone, up to you.

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Stu AKA Perve.

            You write.
            “And BJ, I am back while the conversation stays polite and sensible, you start abusing again and I am gone, up to you.”

            Say what!?
            In this thread YOU are so fixated on me that you have been rudely and stupidly demanding that I give you personal stuff!

            I have made a fair offer in response to your impolite and silly demands for me to give you personal stuff, but you are refusing it because you expect me to hand over to you for free what is mine.

            BE POLITE AND BE SENSIBLE. I have said I will pander to your fixation by letting you have some of my old and unwashed underpants if you pay for them but you refuse to pay.

            Richard

          • spangled drongo says:

            Please stop hand waving, stu, and give me a specific example.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Perhaps you might ask your colleague Chris to reduce the number of “denier/denialist” slurs he slings about?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Check this luxury resort where I am staying and tell me if you think they would have built it if they believed in the alarmist view of sea level rise:

    https://www.theaustralianplus.com.au/competitions/win-a-luxurious-five-night-getaway-to-the-maldives

  • JimboR says:

    Richard, not knowing the cause of the LIA is fine, but not knowing the cause of the LIA while attributing to it all (or most) of the warming and CO2 rise since, is an act of faith not science.

    Now may we all join hands in prayer to praise the Almighty Rubberband in the sky. (Is there a tax exemption with that?).

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      JimboR,

      Try not to be silly.

      You are claiming something has changed. I am making no such claim.

      I am saying that the recovery from the LIA started before there was any possibility of AGW. That is an observation.
      And I am saying there is no evidence that the recovery has stopped. That is a fact.

      YOU are saying – with no evidence and no reason – that the recovery from the LIA has stopped so something else is now continuing the intermittent warming. That is an assertion of superstitious faith.

      How did you obtain your superstitious idea that the LIA has stopped?
      Did autistic Greta hear it from her ‘voices’, or did some other ignorant fool tell you?

      Richard

    • JimboR says:

      My point is there is no inherent “recovery” mechanism, there is no elastic band. If nothing changed, we’d still be in the LIA. Something warmed us up from the LIA. It is pure faith to assume that warming process has been the same for the entire period There’s no more faith required in assuming it was the same forcing all that time, as is needed for a different forcing over time. If you see me head off at 60km/hr you can assume I complete my entire journey at 60km/hr, or you can assume I changed my speed; both require faith. A better approach would be to take measurements… but you need to fix your Null Hypothesis problem before you can get to them.

      Now, I’m off to a wedding for the weekend…. let me know how you get on with your homework.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        JimboR,

        The climate system has NOT changed. Its variation remains within its range of the holocene.

        I know you climate change denialists like to claim nonsense like this,
        “If nothing changed, we’d still be in the LIA. Something warmed us up from the LIA. It is pure faith to assume that warming process has been the same for the entire period There’s no more faith required in assuming it was the same forcing all that time, as is needed for a different forcing over time.”

        That is illogical twaddle. Parsimony suggests that what is happening is caused by whatever caused it previously.

        The system continues to drift as it always has. Weather changes as it always has, and climate is the integral of weather. So can be expected to vary as it always has.

        Your basic assumption says all change to climate is driven by change to radiative forcing. And it is very important to recognise that this assumption has not been demonstrated to be correct. Indeed, it is quite possible that there is no force or process causing climate to vary. I explain this as follows.

        The climate system is seeking an equilibrium that it never achieves. The Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input/output is never in perfect equilbrium.

        The climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). And the Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans. Therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it.

        Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And, importantly, the length of the oscillations could be harmonic effects which, therefore, have periodicity of several years. Of course, such harmonic oscillation would be a process that – at least in principle – is capable of evaluation.

        However, there may be no process because the climate is a chaotic system. Therefore, the observed oscillations (ENSO, NAO, etc.) could be observation of the system seeking its chaotic attractor(s) in response to its seeking equilibrium in a changing situation.

        Very, importantly, there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Minoan Warm Period (MWP), then the Ancient Cool Period, then the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the AWP to the RWP and recovery from the DARC to the MWP. And the ~900 year oscillation could be the chaotic climate system seeking its attractor(s). If so, then everything you assert is based on the false premise that there is a force or process causing climate to change when no such force or process exists.

        Richard

        • JimboR says:

          “Parsimony suggests that what is happening is caused by whatever caused it previously.”

          Richard, that could well be the most damaging statement to your street cred as a scientist yet. Part 2 of your homework is to reflect on that and tell us why. And if you plan to rely on Occam’s razor, do so very carefully.

          I see you’re still struggling with part 1. I gave you a clue in my very first rebuttal of it. Your Null Hypothesis approach is suitable for designing and testing an experiment IN LABORATORY CONDITIONS.

          I’ve got a plane to catch. You’ve got an entire weekend to get or your homework done or risk flunking the class.

          • Boambee John says:

            Jimbo

            It is fashionable to ask this, so I will ask you.

            What are your science qualifications?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Jimb’s cli-sci qualifications are all based on the strict belief that Nat Var is cooling ONLY!

            And all warming is down to ACO2.

            How can he go wrong in this modern world of endless, exaggerating, empty, eccentric, egotistical, elitist, excitable, enurisistic “environmentalists”.

            How’s your aspergers coming along, jimb?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Our jimb is in complete denial of the fact that since the end of the LIA a considerable amount of the warming occurred before CO2 could be blamed [ up to the 1930s].

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            JimboR,

            I am drooling at the thought of the great scientific education you are going to give me. I can add it to all I learned while obtaining a living being employed as a research scientist doing government work throughout my adult life.

            I don’t intend to do any homework before you provide my first lesson because you quote me saying,
            “Parsimony suggests that what is happening is caused by whatever caused it previously.”
            and assert
            “Richard, that could well be the most damaging statement to your street cred as a scientist yet.”

            I am shocked that I may lose some “street cred” because I did not know I had any, and losses are greatest when one doesn’t recognise a loss until it is gone.

            Importantly, my ignorance is so great that I don’t understand why my simple statement of fact could damage my “street cred” or anything else. Therefore, I see no purpose in doing “homework” until you remove the veil of ignorance which you say is preventing me understanding the great mysteries you are trying to reveal to me.

            Richard

  • JimboR says:

    Richard,

    “If you still think the scientific Null Hypothesis is “the wrong tool” then perhaps you could say what “tool” you think should be used.”

    I assume you meant to direct that at me, not Chris. You’re a scientist, work it out. Have a look at what tool climate scientists use before they apply the Null Hypothesis, and whole boat load of statistical tests. Think about why you might need to do that first. If you’re still stuck in a day or two I’ll give you some clues.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      JimboR,

      NO! Read what I told you. You are still confusing the scienmtific Null Hypothesis with the statistical null hypothesis.

      And, importantly, you arre claiming the scientific methid is the “wrong tool” so say what “tool” you think should be used. Is it you.

      Richard

    • JimboR says:

      Yes, I appreciate the distinction. I said the Null Hypothesis AND a whole boat load of statistical tests.

      not

      the Null Hypothesis AND a whole boat load of OTHER statistical tests

      Neither of those can be undertaken until you’ve performed another important step that you’ve missed. Your assignment is to work out what that is.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        JimboR,

        Your attempt to confuse the scientific Null Hypothesis with the statistical null hypothesis is failing as a method to obfuscate your inability to say what you think is the “tool” that should be used instead of the scientific method.

        I have TWICE told you in this thread,
        “In science there is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed (this differs from statistics where any ‘null hypothesis’ can be adopted to be tested).

        However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.”

        But you are still trying to confuse the scientific Null Hypothesis with the statistical null hypothesis.

        YOU are claiming the scientific method is the “wrong tool” to consider the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

        There fore, YOU have a duty to say what “tool” would be the right one (or more).

        Say it or crawl back under your bridge.

        Richard

  • Richard S Courtney says:

    Friends,

    The paper “Human CO2 Emissions have little Effect on Atmospheric CO2” by Ed Berry has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

    Therefore, some readers of this thread may want to know that on July 4, 2019 it was published in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences, of the Science Publishing Group.

    It is an open access paper, so its PDF can be downloaded at no cost from
    http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13

    Richard

    • Chris Warren says:

      The Science Publishing Group is outed on Wikipedia.

      You only get published there if you have been refused by decent journals.

      The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing. In an experiment, university professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication. Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, in 2014 pseudonymously published a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics. The article contained an alleged proof of Buddhist Karma.

      They publish nonsense and no doubt attract denialists like moths to the flame.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Try shooting the message for a change, blith.

        A bit beyond you, hey?

      • Boambee John says:

        “decent journals” means” journals that produce results that Chris likes?

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        Chris Warren,

        You have sunk to a new low even for you.

        Unable to find fault with the message, and unable to ‘shoot the messenger’, you try to besmirch the paper the message is printed on.

        Sad, very sad.

        Richard

  • Stu says:

    Somebody, I forget who, gave a reference to a paper by Ed Berry. It seems it has been published in a journal with a low reputation. And there are questions about the veracity of the paper which lead to the difficulty in publishing. It seems that paying to be published is now flourishing. There are several places where it is referred to which are quite interesting to read.

    This is a good one . https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/02/idiocy-from-ed-berry-phd.html

    There are several others also.

    There are some interesting commenters there also which make it worth reading. Have fun

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    I see that Jo Nova has listed some climate scientists who are not quite so panic stricken about the Antarctic ice “collapse” as the Gruaniad

    • Stu says:

      One of the best things about websites like Jonova is reading the comments there. Some of the folk there are way more rabid than here. That is the real give away about the lack of veracity of the “science” she quotes, which often as not is merely a rehash of newspaper articles. And we all know about “fake news”.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Perhaps you might explain how the commenters at Jo Nova being, in your opinion, “rabid” detracts from the veracity of what she posts.

        Still, it is good to see that you recognise the prevalence of “fake news” in the press. The Grauniad is a good example of a purveyor of “fake news”.

        • Boambee John says:

          PS, what are your science qualifications?

        • Stu says:

          Clearly you have never read the comments there or on similar sites such as wattsup etc. I gave you a compliment. You guys at least try and stick to science, most of the time, and not the demented ravings of some (I did not say all) of the comments in those places, they attract nutters.

  • Neville says:

    The so called scientist that the DEMS call most of the time is “upside down Mann.” Whenever the DEMS need to BS about their so called CAGW this is their go to joker. Unbelievable but true.
    In the recent hearing he used himself most of the time as the source of his claims, while the real scientist Dr Judith Curry used the IPCC reports as well as other reputable sources to support her arguments.
    Maths & stats guru Steve McIntyre invented the “upside down Mann” tag for this fool after he was caught out using data upside down to try and support his case in some of the studies.
    But never fear this is the type of go to joker that some of the bloggers here and elsewhere use to try and support their dubious claims.
    BTW here is the latest article from Matt Ridley about the greening of the world over the last 30 years. Amazing trace gas co2 when just 0.01% increase in the total atmosphere can be so beneficial for our biosphere in so short a time.
    Don’t forget the world’s economy has doubled in size over that same period of time and yet some left wing loonies are still telling us we have only a very short time before we reach the apocalypse.
    See AOC, Bernie, Greta, the Pope, Gore etc and my Labor candidate at the recent election who claimed we had only “3 more years to take action on climate change”. This lunacy would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious. And yet this Labor donkey still received about 30% of the 2PP vote. Can you believe it? Oh and Wikipedia now tells us that OZ is responsible for a whopping 1.08% of global co2 emissions. SARC

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/global-greening-is-happening-faster-than-climate-change-and-its-a-good-thing/

    • Stu says:

      There is countervailing evidence that the higher CO2 is degrading the nutrient value of crops like rice and even pasture grasses for cattle feed. I am traveling this weekend so cannot give the reference now. But can later to satisfy the doubters.

      • Boambee John says:

        Evidence or opinion?

        BTW, rice is grown in paddy fields. I wonder how much methane bubbles up in those fields?

      • spangled drongo says:

        “I am traveling this weekend so cannot give the reference now. But can later to satisfy the doubters”

        You can spare us the agony if you like, stu.

        We know how reluctant your alarmist heroes are to admit that ACO2 is such a friend and benefit to humans but the concept is relatively simple; plants take in carbon to build their tissues, and if there is more carbon around, they have an easier time.

        Leaves take in air through tiny openings called stomata, but in the process the stomata lose water; with more carbon available, they don’t have to open up as much, conserve moisture and grow faster and better.

        But your enuresistic mates insist that it is much more complicated than that because pests will also thrive in those improved conditions and consume those benefits.

        And we already know that.

        Never happened before in the life of farming, hey stu?

        But strangely, even while experiencing huge pest invasions, farmers have developed such better strains of rice etc to produce enormous increases in yields.

        And the extra CO2 will be a huge bonus as plants are fundamentally CO2 and water.

        But when you are in serious denial of the great benefits of this extra CO2 you shouldn’t tax your tiny mind on the bleedin’ obvious.

      • Stu says:

        BJ and SD,
        Here is that reference, I just knew you would be doubters.

        https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaaq1012.full

        It is one of the journals from the US AAAS.

        Abstract
        Declines of protein and minerals essential for humans, including iron and zinc, have been reported for crops in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, [CO2]. For the current century, estimates of the potential human health impact of these declines range from 138 million to 1.4 billion, depending on the nutrient. However, changes in plant-based vitamin content in response to [CO2] have not been elucidated. Inclusion of vitamin information would substantially improve estimates of health risks. Among crop species, rice is the primary food source for more than 2 billion people. We used multiyear, multilocation in situ FACE (free-air CO2 enrichment) experiments for 18 genetically diverse rice lines, including Japonica, Indica, and hybrids currently grown throughout Asia. We report for the first time the integrated nutritional impact of those changes (protein, micronutrients, and vitamins) for the 10 countries that consume the most rice as part of their daily caloric supply. Whereas our results confirm the declines in protein, iron, and zinc, we also find consistent declines in vitamins B1, B2, B5, and B9 and, conversely, an increase in vitamin E. A strong correlation between the impacts of elevated [CO2] on vitamin content based on the molecular fraction of nitrogen within the vitamin was observed. Finally, potential health risks associated with anticipated CO2-induced deficits of protein, minerals, and vitamins in rice were correlated to the lowest overall gross domestic product per capita for the highest rice-consuming countries, suggesting potential consequences for a global population of approximately 600 million.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Yeah, thanks for the blurb, stu.

          There are at least 100 papers to the contrary.

          Just answer a simple question.

          If we have been growing those same grain crops since CO2 levels were 280 ppm are you saying that they are similarly reduced in quality?

          In case you had not noticed all crops have increased enormously in quality and quantity during that period.

          Generally speaking, nitrate fertilisers are all that is needed to make up any deficiencies.

          When you increase quantity enormously just by adding CO2 you are naturally always going to lose some quality without more additions. But even so, the gains still far outweigh the losses.

          I thought you’d be a wake up to that and would be pushing the “plague and pestilence” barrow instead.

          But you obviously don’t know much about a farmer’s daily grind.

          • Stu says:

            SD “There are at least 100 papers to the contrary.”

            Really. Can you provide some links that say the nutritional value of crops has increased with CO2 and not just that they grow faster/bigger etc.?

          • spangled drongo says:

            When you answer the question I asked;

            “If we have been growing those same grain crops since CO2 levels were 280 ppm are you saying that they are similarly reduced in quality?”

            You will likely find your answer.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Did you read Neville’s link on global greening, above, stu?

          “This greening is good news. It means more food for insects and deer, for elephants and mice, for fish and whales. It means higher yields for farmers; indeed, the effect has probably added about $3 trillion to farm incomes over the last 30 years. So less land is needed to feed the human population and more can be spared for wildlife instead.”

          I see this every day. The increase in my wet sclerophyll and rain forest is enormous.

          The place looks like the Vale of Tralee even in the drought!

          So I have handed over even more to the wildlife.

          What a climate crisis we are facing.

  • spangled drongo says:

    This could improve your education no end, stu:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Some blith fakery upthread:

    “This is fake as glaciers do not sublimate.”

    Here is a photo of Dr Lonnie Thompson standing next to an ice spire on Kilimanjaro. Notice any meltwater pools nearby? You won’t, because they aren’t there.

    The glacier ice sublimated:

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/070601_thompson1_vmed_1p-grid-4×21.jpg

    Here is Phil jones in the Climategate emails on Lonnie Thompson and his private opinion on the Kilimanjaro glacier:

    “I’ve heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can’t pin anything down. They are going though.”

    Lonnie’s email is “Lonnie G. Thompson”

    The removal of surrounding forests over the years has reduced the moisture at the mountain top and snow and ice no longer form there.

    Lonnie and Ellen Thompson both served as advisers to Al Gore in the making of “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    Says it all really.

    Naturally, like blith, they don’t want to admit the real cause of the missing ice publicly.

    • Stu says:

      Jeez a rare event, I agree with the sparkling drongo. Yes glaciers can sublimate and Kilimanjaro is a good example, due to the very dry air there. Wow, cheers mate.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        stu (AKA Perve),

        You should tell Chris Warren about glacial sublimation because – being the naughty little denialist that he is – he has misunderstood a triple point diagram and says it doesn’t happen.

        For some reason (which he does not state) he is incapable of understanding anything I write.

        You may be able to help him understand the unimportant truth that glaciers sublimate.
        Also, he may buy you my old underpants as a ‘thank you gift’ for getting him to learn something.

        Richard

    • Neville says:

      Like Stu I have to agree with SD about Kilimanjaro , big reduction of trees at the base , but little warming trend and of course sublimation.
      Lomborg included all this in his book “Cool It “many years ago. Just a pity Lonnie T lost his nerve when Steve McIntyre pursued him over some of his other silly claims and ultimately refused to provide Steve with the data. Of course he wasn’t the only so called scientist to run and hide when Steve challenged them.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Neville, you’ve got a better memory than I have. I had forgotten a lot of the saga of those days.

        It showed the warmists up, even then, for the science deniers they were but now they are doing it in spades [and shovels].

      • spangled drongo says:

        Mind you, Stephen Schneider, Paul Ehrlich et ors used a shovel back in the ’70s and earlier.

        There’s just happens to be a lot more shovelling today:

        https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/sad-experts-say-we-starved-to-death-in-1975/

      • Chris Warren says:

        Neville

        Sublimation cannot occur at air pressures found at Kilimanjaro.

        You only have ablation of ice and evaporation of melt-water.

        Phase change from solid to vapour only occurs at pressures below the triple point of water.

        • spangled drongo says:

          You better reverse your selective-ignorance machine, blith, so you can see this picture.

          Then you can learn what happened to the ice on Kilimanjaro.

          Even Lonnie Thompson’s colleague, Doug Hardy said of the disappearance of the Kilimanjaro ice;

          “Dryness, not warming, is what’s causing the glaciers to recede,” says Hardy, “the amount of water from glacier melt is relatively insignificant, because most of the ice is “sublimed” — it evaporates immediately, bypassing the liquid phase.”:

          https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/070601_thompson1_vmed_1p-grid-4×21.jpg

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      spangled drongo,

      I write to respectfully ask why you call Chris Warren ‘blith’.

      I do not intend to be impertinent by asking, and I understand it may be improper to answer my question if the matter is a personal reason or joke between you and him.

      I ask because newcomers may not understand of whom you speak (I was not instantly aware).

      Richard

      • spangled drongo says:

        Thanks Richard.

        I call him “blith” as a friendly way of saying “blitherer-in-chief”. Or even blitherer number one, seeing as there are a few other blitherers here.

  • Stu says:

    I was just looking back over some old material and found this interesting post from 2008. You will see it confidently predicts 20 years of cooling due to low solar activity. (That did not happen). But the best bit is the collection of comments after the post on Wattsup.

    “But his analysis of the sun’s cyclical activity and global climate records has led him to the view that we are entering a period of up to two decades in which reduced solar activity may either flatten the upward trend of global temperatures or even cause a slight and temporary cooling. In a paper given in 2005 to a ”soiree” hosted by then president of the Academy of Science, Professor Jim Peacock, McCracken said the sun was the most active it had been over 1000 years of scientific observation. This made it inevitable that its activity would decrease over the next two decades in line with historically observed solar cycles.“

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/26/former-head-of-csiros-division-of-space-science-says-global-cooling-may-be-on-the-way/

    Have fun

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      stu AKA Perve,

      You say, “Have fun” as the conclusion to a post that has no relevance here.

      I have been having a lot of fun trying to gain something from your kinky fixation about me. I take it that your comment I have quoted is encouragement for me to continue pandering to your fixation. OK, I will.

      My offer is still available to you, so please say how much you are willing to pay for my old and unwashed underpants.

      Richard

  • Neville says:

    Dr Jennifer Marohasy will be speaking at the Maroochydore Surf Club on Sunday the 14th July at 2 pm. Here’s part of her post and the link.

    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/07/sea-level-fall-at-the-great-barrier-reef/

    “I will show some evidence of past cycles embedded in the local Sunshine Coast landscape, including when Maroochydore was underwater because of higher sea levels just 120,000 years ago.

    Everyone is welcome at the Surf Club. I will speak for about 1 hour … beginning at 2pm on Sunday 14th July on Level 3 which is the Conference Room, 36 Alexander Parade, Maroochydore.

    I hope to see you there”.

  • Stu says:

    This has to rank as one of the weirder outcomes of a warming world. Oil companies re-freezing the permafrost (Which is melting around them) so that they can continue drilling.
    https://www.ecowatch.com/alaska-permafrost-melting-oil-drilling-2577458683.html

    • spangled drongo says:

      You must think you are on a winner here with a duplicate comment, hey, stu?

      I would have thought the penny would have dropped with this opening remark:

      “Yarmak said he had been selling the tubes to oil companies since the 1970s,”

      IOW, you just don’t get that when you are working in the frozen ground that always melts in the season of best working conditions, [ie summer] heavy machinery needs a solid base to work on and like the ice roads of the far north, the ground needs to be kept frozen to provide that functional base.

      And could it possibly be that a huge increase in that heavy machinery has created more slush on the worksites?

      You don’t understand much about the real world, hey stu?

      What a pathetically feeble, evidence-free, argument.

      But so typical of current kiddie klimate culture.

      • Stu says:

        And you are such a polite, courteous debater, the whole world is impressed, well done.

      • Stu says:

        I will grant you some of that pushback. But now explain the buildings collapsing and roads buckling in Alaska due to melting of permafrost that was thought to be “permanent”. Towns are having to be moved.

        • spangled drongo says:

          About 25% of the northern hemisphere is covered with permafrost and during the Holocene it has come and gone at a great rate.

          As evidenced by the changing treelines which have been much further north than currently.

          It’s called Nat Var, stu.

          But not to worry.

          The melting gives off nitrous oxide and that laughing gas should prevent enuresis.

          • Stu says:

            You put a lot of faith in natural variation. Tell us the normal and maximum rates of change over the Holocene and how they compare with now, when things are changing rapidly?

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, I have answered that [good] question a dozen times. But are you seriously denying that temperatures have changed during the Holocene?

            When CO2 supposedly was always below 300 ppm?

            Denying that high lat tree lines have changed?

            Denying that sea levels have changed?

            Denying that the LIA was the longest, coldest period in the Holocene?

            Denying that Nat Var during the Holocene occurred over a wider temperature range than is happening now?

            And while you are pondering that you might like to tell us just what exactly is happening today, climate wise, that did not occur during the Holocene?

            You know, that question I have asked you many times but which you are yet to answer.

        • Stu, it depends if the melting is local around the buildings and roads or extending further afield

  • spangled drongo says:

    More current kiddie klimate culture.

    Here is science in straight out denial of temperatures preceding CO2 and building models based on the reverse assumption:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/06/more-reactive-land-surfaces-cooled-the-earth-down/

  • Neville says:

    More evidence that the MWP occurred around the world before a retreat into the much colder LIA. But even the LIA had warming spikes before the start of the modern warm period.

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/06/medieval-climate-anomaly-now-confirmed-in-southern-hemisphere-on-all-four-continents/

  • Neville says:

    Here is Dr John Christy’s recent talk to the GWPF and you have to wonder how long their CAGW fantasy can continue.
    He lists all of their projections over the years and explains where they have failed.
    Plenty of graphs, charts, history etc and although it is a long read it is fairly easy to follow. He puts their so called CAGW to the test and it fails miserably.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/

  • Stu says:

    SD,
    I am not denying those things. But you show me how that changes the fact that we now have escalating changes in global weather and all the experts are saying it will get worse. For all but the last few thousand years we have not had large scale, settled civilization. So what happened before that is irrelevant in terms of coping now with what is occurring. 1.5 or 2 degrees change does matter and is already having serious consequences. All the things you quote end up as “so what”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “…we now have escalating changes in global weather and all the experts are saying it will get worse.”

      Is that your answer to my question?

      If it is, please show how those “escalating changes” are any worse or in any way any different [except where they involve ever increasing populations which we all accept] than they were when CO2 was below 300 ppm?

      Up to early 1900s.

      You seem to be saying the “problem” is simply the population [ and I am inclined to agree] but that is a completely different problem altogether.

      And that different problem is not about changing climate unless you can demonstrate how climate is different today to the Holocene pre early 1900s.

      Which you have yet to do.

      • Boambee John says:

        SD and Stu

        “You seem to be saying the “problem” is simply the population [ and I am inclined to agree] but that is a completely different problem altogether.”

        Chris also seems inclined to this position on population. I will ask both of you the questions that I have previously asked him, which he has not answered.

        If population is the problem, how would you go about first stabilising, and then reducing world population? Over what time frame would you hope for this to occur? Can your objectives be met within an acceptable time frame without using what might euphemistically be called “active measures?

        • spangled drongo says:

          BJ, I’m not a demographer and no expert but most countries will stabilise their population if they develop a reasonably functional economy, run their own affairs and be responsible for their own survival.

          As has been shown by history, rather than the “food for Africa” so called solution which has been disastrous.

          And then there are the Muslim countries today that are determined to out breed and flood the ROW even though some are a basket case economically.

          It’s hard to see “active measures” working there but allowing migration is certainly not the answer.

          But third worlders need F/F power as a big step in the right direction for independence and population control.

          • Boambee John says:

            SD

            I think that you are right, both in respect of most of the world, which will naturally stabilise its populations as living standards improve, and in respect of the Islamic nations, and their diasporas (diasporae??), which will continue to remain under political pressure to expand.

            I don’t see any great urgency to reduce population levels, certainly not because of panic from the CAGW alarmists, but the Islamic issue is of concern for different reasons, not relevant to this thread.

  • Neville says:

    Chris glaciers have been increasing and receding for thousands of years and global SLs were about 2 metres higher about 4,000 years ago. OZ is a good example and Jennifer Marohasy will talk about the much higher SLs of the Eemian IG etc some 120,000 years ago next Sunday. See above link.
    But Kiliminjaro’s glaciers are an example of sublimation at work because of the drier air in that area. Interesting that Tanzania’s pop has increased from about 21 mil in 1984 to about 61 mil today.
    And that much larger pop has an increased life expectancy of about 15 more years today ( 65) compared to the pop in 1984. Just another reason I don’t I don’t believe in their so called climate change emergency. Obviously everything is much better today and that includes the poorer countries of Africa as well.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      As interesting as it is:

      “But Kiliminjaro’s glaciers are an example of sublimation at work because of the drier air in that area. ”

      still does not explain how sublimation could ever occur as purported given the science of the water phase change behaviour.

      It seems that sublimation is not the process at work.

      • Richard S Courtney says:

        Chris Warren,

        Please tell, oh learned one, what is the mystical “process” that emulates sublimation of ice but is not sublimation?

        And since you claim to know more than anyone else about the behaviour of ice (i.e. frozen water) , please demonstrate your knowledge by explaining why all ice is wet (i.e. has all its surfaces coated in a layer of liquid water) at all temperatures down to -47 degrees Celsius.

        My question asks why ice is wet, and to assist you in finding an answer I state three things which I doubt you know.
        (a)
        The property of ice having all its surfaces coated in a layer of liquid water at all temperatures down to -47 degrees Celsius was first discovered by Michael Faraday.
        (b)
        This Michael Faraday also did some work on electricity.
        (b)
        In the 1990s, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging was used to investigate this layer of water on all ice surfaces at all temperatures down to -47 degrees Celsius, and these NMR investigations revealed the reason for the water layer.

        Chris, you are claiming to have greater knowledge of ice properties than providers of resources for secondary schools.

        I think you are an ignorant fool who knows nothing about ice properties. You can prove me wrong by answering my two questions; viz.
        1.
        What is the “process” which you claim emulates sublimation of ice but is not sublimation?
        2.
        Why does a layer of liquid water coat ice surfaces at all temperatures down to -47 degrees Celsius.

        Richard

  • Richard S Courtney says:

    Chris Warren AKA The Tool.

    You seem to have returned from the wedding but have not withdrawn your silly assertion that the scientific method is “the wrong tool” to investigate climate change.

    I have repeatedly asked you to say what you think is the right “tool” but you have not answered that.

    The only “tool” you have provided as a suggested method for investigating climate change is yourself.

    And attempts to defend your mistaken ideas about sublimation fail as a distraction from your claim that you are a “tool” whose opinions should displace findings of scientific investigations.

    Richard

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      That diagram answers neither question.

      I remind that i said,
      “Chris, you are claiming to have greater knowledge of ice properties than providers of resources for secondary schools.
      I think you are an ignorant fool who knows nothing about ice properties. You can prove me wrong by answering my two questions”

      Your response proclaims what was already clear to all; i.e. You are an ignorant fool who knows nothing about ice properties.

      Also, you were not forced to reply and, therefore, your provision of a silly response proves you are too stupid to recognise your ignorance.

      Richard

      • Chris Warren says:

        Richard S Courtney

        I suggest you mend your speech a little – lest you get paid back in your own coin.

        I only raised a single issue – conditions for sublimation.

        You have tried to create distraction by talking about something else.

        • Boambee John says:

          Chris

          “I suggest you mend your speech a little – lest you get paid back in your own coin.”

          That’s a bit rich coming from someone who slings abuse like “denier”, “denialist”, “denialism”, “lies”, and “slander” around all the time.

          Mend your own ways before demanding change from others!

          • Chris Warren says:

            This has been considered before. Denialist is an appropriate term.

            Lies are spread by denialists and exposing lies relies on both the context and evidence.

            While I have blocked one, both Neville and our new troll are inveterate sources of unilateral corruption.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            “This has been considered before. Denialist is an appropriate term.”

            Don didn’t think so, and this is his blog.

            I suspect that your definition of “lies” is any statement with which you do not agree.

            Bit like your definition of “reliable website” is any site with which you agree.

            PS, I’m sure it was an oversight, but you forgot to tell us how you propose to first stabilise, and then reduce, world population (preferably without resorting to what might euphemistically be described as “active measures”.

            Or are another of the “fate of the world is more important than democracy” school of thought?

        • Richard S Courtney says:

          Chris warren,

          You make two points and they are each wrong; very, very wrong.

          First, you say to me,
          “I suggest you mend your speech a little – lest you get paid back in your own coin.”
          SAY WHAT!?
          In this thread you have attempted to smear and to defame me, and my research, and Ed Berry, and his research, and the IPCC, and an internationally published technical journal.

          I have merely treated you with contempt (which is more respect than you deserve).

          Secondly, you assert,
          “I only raised a single issue – conditions for sublimation.
          You have tried to create distraction by talking about something else.”
          NO!!! Those two assertions are each a lie.

          You are claiming to know more about sublimation of ice than the accepted experts in this field but the only knowledge of sublimation you have displayed is a phase diagram that you have misunderstood. I asked you to justify your assertions by answering the simple question,
          “What is the “process” which you claim emulates sublimation of ice but is not sublimation?”

          Then, I avoided any possible assertion of my having used trickery: I gave you a hint about what research you can do (i.e. the shovel you can use) to obtain an answer to why sublimation occurs to ice so easily (i.e. to refill the hole you have dug and are in). Furthermore, I stressed the importance of that information about a property of ice by asking you,
          “Why does a layer of liquid water coat ice surfaces at all temperatures down to -47 degrees Celsius?”

          If you were not so thick then you would have grabbed the life-line of “a layer of liquid water” which enables evapouration to emulate sublimation at all temperatures down to -47 degrees Celsius.
          I WAS NOT “CHANGING THE SUBJECT”. I WAS GIVING YOU AN ESCAPE ROUTE FROM YOUR HOLE.

          The water coating is important, but direct sublimation also occurs from ice.

          Chris, you know little and you are not very bright (even by troll standards). I suggest that you reject the global warming cult because it is not doing you any favours.

          Richard

          • Richard S Courtney says:

            Chris Warren,

            If you were not so thick then you would have seen that when I offer a ‘tethered goat’ to a troll there is usually a string attached to it.

            For example, I gave a clear demonstration of this in this thread when I ‘hooked’ the troll labelled as stu. I ‘dangled the bait’ of me saying “I am not interesting” (see the short sub-thread that begins at http://donaitkin.com/hoew-the-message-gets-embedded/#comment-59522 )

            stu grabbed the ‘bait’ and this enabled me to point out the dangerous threat provided by trolls who express personal interest in others on the web. I wrote,
            “stu,
            It pleases me that you agree I am not interesting.
            I have no idea who you are or what you look like so your interest in me was causing me to fear to bend over near strangers.
            Of course, I still need to take care because the perversions of anonymous trolls such as you should not be ignored, especially when one of them becomes fixated on somebody they claim is not interesting.”

            My giving you the knowledge of ice surface properties was me offering another ‘tethered goat’. It has resulted in you providing a response that proves your comments are expressions of complete ignorance.

            It i important that your comments are merely expressions of your complete ignorance.

            DEMANDS FOR PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM PEOPLE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
            At very least they demonstrate a dangerous perversion, and at worst they are attempts to commit crime. In this thread and another you and your cronies have been demanding personal information from me.

            MY RESPONSE TO YOUR DEMANDS HAS BEEN TO TREAT YOU WITH CONTEMPT, AND I DON’T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK I HAVE ANY RESPECT OF ANY KIND FOR YOU.

            Richard

          • Chris Warren says:

            RSC

            Please upload longer posts in future.

            They are very entertaining.

            But you and others using the concept sublimation have yet to describe how this complies with the science of phase change for water.

            It seems, based on the science, that sublimation only occurs at pressures below a certain level (0.006 atm), not above.

            This may help:

            https://www.learner.org/courses/chemistry/images/text_img/phase_diagram_water.jpg

            Maybe you could address the issue and provide support for any other tangent.

            Thank you for your kindness.

  • Stu says:

    RS, wrote “stu grabbed the ‘bait’ and this enabled me to point out the dangerous threat provided by trolls who express personal interest in others on the web. I wrote,
    “stu,
    It pleases me that you agree I am not interesting.
    I have no idea who you are or what you look like so your interest in me was causing me to fear to bend over near strangers.
    Of course, I still need to take care because the perversions of anonymous trolls such as you should not be ignored, especially when one of them becomes fixated on somebody they claim is not interesting.”

    Now let us get this really clear. I do not give a toss about him personally, but he turned up here, and started pontificating. He then posted a link to a video of a speech he says he gave at a Heartland conference years ago. It is a bizarre rant and fairly typical of Heartland shows. And It is reasonable to check on the bona fides of people professing scientific qualifications in a forum like that and here. He was introduced as Doctor R S etc which he did not refute. But there is no apparent evidence of such a qualification. He also lays claim to being an IPCC reviewer, which is a dodgy and misleading claim similar to his fellow traveller, Monckton. At least he has not claimed he won the Nobel prize! Yet. Which lead to an interesting link.

    Under the title “the continuing misadventures of R S Courtney: non scientist”

    https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-continuing-misadventures-of-richard-s-courtney-non-scientist/

    It is a good read especially the comments that follow. Here is an example.

    “To the left of centre says:
    April 11, 2013 at 11:40 am
    I’ve just had a similar encounter, on the Watts Up With That site, with someone who refers to themselves as richardscourtney. I assume it is the same Richard S Courtney who is being discussed here (although I guess one cannot be absolutely certain that it is). A really remarkable encounter in which I was accused of “trolling”, spreading “pseudo-scientific nonsense”, and aiming to “mislead”, “misinform” and “disrupt” (amongst other accusations). A really remarkable and extremely unpleasant encounter. What was more, when someone else commented that he had in fact mis-interpreted my comment and should really apologise, he thanked them for their comment but claimed that he knew how to deal with “trolls” like me. He also included a comment similar to that described by the commentator above, that I “claim I didn’t get enough hugs as a child”. Would maybe be amusing if this wasn’t someone who is actually taken seriously by some.” Sound familiar?

    This is typical of scores of posts referring to the style of his attacks. His approach is remarkably consistent it seems and that is not the only place where his misdeeds are recorded. Google is full of such links.

    Given that he proffered the link to the video it is reasonable to assume it is one and the same. Which brings me back to the video, which is worth watching as it is melodrama mixed with biblical style rantings and really crazy. He talks like he should be in a church pulpit not a blog site, even when he gets to the part where he is supposedly serious. Then again, if that is where he would feel comfortable it might explain a lot.

    Perhaps now he will desist and spare us from his weird mindset.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Yes, RSC has been exposed as a denier.

    According to

    https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-continuing-misadventures-of-richard-s-courtney-non-scientist/

    “The term denier is not intended to apply to all those questioning climate science, especially the ordinary individuals being mislead. The term denier applies to those individuals such as Courtney who are paid public relations professionals lacking scientific qualifications whose job it is to muddy the debate and mislead. ”

    Maybe RSC could confirm whether or not he is a paid denier or not.

    Maybe someone should ask for their money back?

  • Richard S Courtney says:

    stu AKA Perve and Chris Warren,

    You two slimey trolls have exposed yourselves as being despicable.

    For four decades I have consistently proclaimed that climate changes. It always has and it always will.

    You assert that I am “exposed” as a “denier”. WRONG! I proclaim that I am a supporter of science and an opponent of the global warming cult because there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – of any discernible effect of human activities on global climate.

    The cult of global warming uses nasty trolls like you to attack me – as you have tried to do here – because I have consistently promoted science to refute the evil promotions of your cult.

    I am not and I never have been a public relations professional either paid or unpaid.

    I do not know how to exterminate trolls like you guys. I wish I did.

    YOU PERVERTS DISGUST ME. YOU MAKE ME SICK.

    Richard

  • Richard S Courtney says:

    Stu,

    People do notice your lies.
    Few people are reading this but I mention a couple of the falsehoods in your latest post in the probably forlorn hope you will learn something.

    If as you now claim you “don’t give a toss” about me “personally” then you would not have repeatedly demanded that I give you personal information about me. There are only three reasons for those demands; viz, you are a pervert, or you are a criminal, or you are a pervert and a criminal.

    I provided referenced information and explanations which refuted nonsense you had asserted, and I understand why you say that was “pontificating”.

    Richard

  • Stu says:

    RS, enough, enough, enough, time to just shut up mate, you are once again embarrassing yourself on a blog site. Just go away, or perhaps Don can block your disgusting rantings. If you want to just talk “science” fine, but you seem incapable of that.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      stu aka Perve;

      I am NOT your “mate”.
      Your claim that I am is merely another of your perverted fantasies about me.

      I don’t know who you are but (assuming you are a person, not a group or bot) your posts display what you are.

      You are a disgusting pervert.
      Your demands that I post personal info. about me on the web may tickle your perverted fantasies about me but – in addition to everything else wrong with those demands – they assume I am sufficiently stupid that I would do it.

      Look at my comments. I want to “talk science” but – as everyone can see – when I try to introduce science into the thread all discussion is disrupted by ‘The Three Trolls’ imitating The Three Stooges. The three of you cannot discuss science; you think science is about abusing people, Chris Warren doesn’t know what science is, and JimboR says he cannot explain his misunderstanding of basic scientific principles because he is on a honeymoon.

      You contribute nothing of any merit here so return to the slime under your bridge where you belong.

      Richard

      • Stu says:

        “Mate” is a colloquial Australian term when referring to another. It can be a genuine reflection of association or it can, as in this case, be a derogatory reference, a put down. Anyhow, your post illustrates the point I was making. Please disappear from here, you are a nong (another aussie term which you won’t comprehend -it is not flattering).

  • Chris Warren says:

    RSC

    I thought the issue was how sublimation could occur at Earthly pressures, given the science.

    Have you actually addressed this?

    If you and others cannot deal with a small issue – I doubt whether you can deal with climate change.

    Interpreting a chart correctly is within the skill sets of high school students.

    • Richard S Courtney says:

      Chris Warren,

      I am assuming your post addressed to the Royal Shakespeare Company is intended for me.

      Please don’t pretend you “thought” anything: thinking is clearly beyond your limited abilities. For example, anybody capable of “thought” would not expect a sensible person to accede to demands for personal info. to be posted on the web.

      Also, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you lack ability at reading comprehension, so it is not surprising that you failed to understand that the matter under discussion is your mistaken notion that glacier ice does not sublime. You say you “thought” the subject was something else, but it was not.

      I tried to help you out of your mistaken notion by mentioning a property of ice. However, your lack of any knowledge of the material properties of ice induced you to claim I was changing the subject. That claim informed me that the task of teaching you any materials science is beyond the abilities of a mere mortal such as me.

      I will be willing to again try try to teach you something when you have mastered reading to the level that you can understand ‘Janet And John’. For now I am confronted by the surreal experience of having attempted to discuss the carbon cycle with you in this thread: talking to you about that was like attempting to have a conversation with a parrot that is trained to ‘talk’.

      Richard

  • Neville says:

    Dr Hansen and Bill McKibben tell us everything will be OK if we can just return the world to 1990 levels of co2 emissions. McKibben’s site is named 350.org because that is the level of 350 ppm that they now endorse. But I’m sure they must be having a joke with the feeble minded among us.
    Chris thinks that 300 ppm is the limit we should aim for and then everything will be wonderful in his pixie, fairyland garden once more.
    But if they really believe this infantile nonsense they should jump on the first plane ASAP and set up their protest base in China and India etc , because that’s where the ONLY growth in co2 emissions have come from over the last 30 years. Best of luck with that task, I’m sure you’ll be welcomed with open arms. SARC.
    Here AGAIN is the WIKI link for all countries co2 emissions 1990 to 2017.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      If you have considered William Ruddiman’s work, you may well find that a safe level is below 300ppm.

      I assume you are now satisfied that sublimation is not scientifically accurate.

      • Neville says:

        Chris your 300 ppm is a fantasy as is Dr Hansen’s 350 ppm so what is it you don’t understand? But by all means tell us about your so called climate emergency and then tell us how to fix it?
        Don’t forget real data and evidence from the real planet earth and not your fantasy world. I’ve provided real data from Our W. I. D to prove that everything today is much better and humans today live much longer + healthier + wealthier lives.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Neville, you better show our blith this picture as he claims his denial machine won’t let him see anything I post [how’s that from someone who calls rational sceptics deniers?] and ask him how he figures this is melting ice:

          https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/070601_thompson1_vmed_1p-grid-4×21.jpg

          He’s now reached the stage where someone needs to hold his hand and calm him down.

        • Boambee John says:

          Neville

          Chris has already given us the bare outline of how he would solve the problem. Reduce per capita CO2 emissions and halt the rise in world population, then reduce future population numbers.

          Put aside that these actions will not reduce global CO2 levels to 300, or even 350, ppm for many years, he has offered (and seems either unwilling to, or incapable of offering) any detailed prescriptions of how these desiderata might be achieved.

          The first could be achieved using current technology, either HELE or nuclear, but both of these are haram to him.

          Short of dictatorial measures, the second would take many decades, and would require improvements to living standards in much of the world that would negate the effects of the first.

          Chris is not a denialist in respect of this, he just ignores the whole issue of the practical measures needed to achieve his target.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Neville

          Please cite where I claimed a “climate emergency”.

          If 350ppm and 300ppm is a fantasy (!!??) what is the science.?

          No reputable scientist has investigated and found these two benchmarks to be fantasies.

          Reducing population growth in concert with falling per-capita emissions is the path that causes the least disruption to present society.

          • Neville says:

            Gosh Chris why do we always have to hold your hand and do your thinking for you? To get co2 levels back to 300 or 350 ppm on human timescales IS A FANTASY according to the RS and NAS report.
            And if you think that the developing countries are going to rely on your S&W fantasies from now on you really do need more help than I can offer.
            So how many endless hundreds of trillions of $ will this cost and how many thousands of years would it take? OTOH if you’ve suddenly come to your senses and don’t believe in sudden and irreversible CAGW, we can all throw a party and celebrate your return from the abyss.
            But if you don’t believe in the alarmist scientist’s projections via the RS report, you’ll have to explain your reasoning and of course tell us why they’re wrong?

    • Chris Warren says:

      If our denialists understood the CO2-global warming dynamic, they would be in a much better position to make informed comment instead of generally slanderous statements.

      Climate change as a response to GHG’s goes way back in time. Fossil fuels have just accelerated it.

      You can see this if you read and understand this:

      https://donaitkin.com/perhaps-carbon-dioxide-increases-are-postponing-the-next-ice-age/

      • Neville says:

        The human pop 10,000 YBP was probably about 5 mil and could have increased to 40 mil by 5,000 ybp. Who knows? But Don’s last two paragraphs are probably on the money. OZ should be building more coal HELE plants and ditching clueless, unreliable S&W ASAP.
        Here is how Don finished his article.

        “The other is that if Berger and Loutre are right, then the whole effort of trying to combat temperature change is pointed exactly in the wrong direction. We should be keeping up the CO2 and CH4 levels, so that the next ice age is postponed indefinitely. I know that others have said this in the past, and that all the signs are that the warming we have had so far has been beneficial.

        But if we have 50,000 years to deal with the problem, there may come the time when the scientists of ten millennia ahead will have worked out how to prevent ice ages ever recurring. And it will all be due to us, and our love for farms, beef and fossil fuels!”

        • Boambee John says:

          Neville

          “The other is that if Berger and Loutre are right, then the whole effort of trying to combat temperature change is pointed exactly in the wrong direction. We should be keeping up the CO2 and CH4 levels, so that the next ice age is postponed indefinitely. I know that others have said this in the past, and that all the signs are that the warming we have had so far has been beneficial.”

          This paragraph from Don reminded me that in the 1970s the BBC did a program and associated book on “The Weather Machine and the Threat of Ice”. Given the change in fashions since then either would probably be difficult to find these days.

          The interesting thing is the solution proposed by the Beeb to counter the perceived threat of a new Ice Age – burn more fossil fuel! The Beeb suggested that rising sea levels would be preferable to glaciers. The book even included a map showing parts of Europe that might need to be inundated to keep the glaciers away.

          All blasphemy these days, of course.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      Such attempts at references are fake: What does this even mean – “RS and NAS report.” You give no title and no page number etc.

      So I assume you now accept that I have not claimed a “climate emergency”, that you now accept that “sublimation” is not the appropriate scientific term, and that you have yet to understand Ruddiman.

      Apart from your slanderous language and tradition of chery-picking, it seems you do not have the necessary skills to explore these issues with the required level of accountability and rigour.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        It is quite clear from your proposed remedies that you do NOT believe that there is a “climate emergency”. Your proposed solutions of reducing per capita CO2 emissions and world population cannot (in the first case) be implemented by current solar and wind technologies, while turning population around without taking extreme measures involving dictatorial powers (and probably mass murder) would be the work of many decades.

        So why do you bang on about the subject incessantly?

        • Chris Warren says:

          Boambee John

          You are misinformed. Australia has already reduced per capita emissions.

          Turning population around in decades seems reasonable to me and is no more dictatorial than every other government program or religious dictate.

          I have never said anything about current solar and wind. Why do denialists constantly make this stuff up?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Consistent failure of apocalyptic warnings hasn’t stopped climate change alarmism but their “solution” is ever more apocalypse.

    A new publication from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reviews the impact of wind energy on the environment and finds that it is already doing great harm to wildlife:

    https://www.thegwpf.org/the-appalling-environmental-cost-of-wind-energy/

  • Boambee John says:

    Chris

    It seems to have escaped your somewhat narrow focus that Australia reducing its per capita emissions makes three fifths of five eighths of bugger all to world CO2 concentrations, but thank you for confirming that we have done our share there, and need only reduce our popolation, a task easily accomplished by stopping all immigration.

    If you think world population can be turned around in “decades” without a strong measure of (at least) coercion, you know little of demographics, nor of the vexed history of such policies in India and China.

    As for your statement that “I have never said anything about current solar and wind. Why do denialists constantly make this stuff up?”, I remind you that a couple of threads ago (look it up yourself if you have forgotten), you abused me for allegedly dismissing solar and wind in favour of HELE coal and nuclear. Or you could just keep on denying it.

    You seem to have a very convenient case of STML about some things you post.

  • Chris Warren says:

    RSC

    What references have you provided that have not been debunked?

    Do you know what at DOI is?

    Do you know how to stay on topic?

    Can you write a post without slander or obscenity?

Leave a Reply