The March Off-Topic Thread

By March 5, 2018Other

I have had a busy few days, hence the delay. This thread is for observations and comments that are not related to the current essay. I note that the Northern Hemisphere has had a particularly nasty winter in many parts, and it is not yet over. I’ll post a reference or two here shortly.

Join the discussion 185 Comments

  • Neville says:

    Dr Roy Spencer has posted the UAH V 6 LT FEB temp anomaly. There has been another global drop from JAN 0.26 c to FEB 0.20 c.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/

  • Neville says:

    Prof Jim Steele looks at the lack of proper auditing of groundwater data attribution in relation to SLR.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/03/will-advances-in-groundwater-science-force-a-paradigm-shift-in-sea-level-rise-attribution/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Here is Emma Alberici’s original text.

    https://archive.is/AiWE5

    Do our corporate capitalists think they control public discourse so much that they want such opinion censored behind the scenes?

    Mitch Fifield, the Communications Minister, said:

    “This coverage contains multiple factual errors and misrepresentations in breach of the ABC’s editorial standards. It is neither fair, balanced, accurate nor impartial. It fails to present a balance of views on the corporate tax policy…

    [The stories] “display a lack of understanding about the tax system, and … failed to accurately present the facts or range of views on this issue with appropriate balance.”

    So what were the multiple factual errors?

    What were the misrepresentations?

    Why winge about “fair, balanced, accurate nor impartial” if the Alberici view was never covered by capo-media outlets such as Aust. Fin. Review?

    Alberici argued, with evidence, that business dogmas about tax cuts causing more jobs was false.

    Thanks heavens we have the ABC otherwise we would only be getting one view from Mitch Fifield and his corporate and media mates.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Poor ol’ blith hasn’t got any idea of economics or Co tax and refuses to learn.

      Guess why some companies don’t pay tax, blith?

      When Auntie has had it so good for so long under Turnbull, they are smart enough to realise when they overstep even his slack limits.

      • Tezza says:

        The core factual error was to treat the company tax that ought be paid as a product of the statutory corporate tax rate applied to an imaginary corporate tax base created arbitrarily in Ms Alberici’s imagination: essentially, company revenue. That error was not in the first instance of Ms Alberici’s creation, but rather embedded in the misleading sources she selectively chose to cite.
        In contrast, Parliament has legislated, over many governments of different political persuasions, for the tax due from companies to be a product of the statutory corporate tax rate and the statutorily defined corporate tax base of taxable income: roughly speaking, assessable income minus the expenses necessarily incurred in producing it, including such statutorily defined deductions as depreciation on capital. The tax law defines also how to treat over time losses that caused negative taxable income in any one accounting period. Why would any company pay tax on any other basis that what Parliament legislated? Why would they instead choose to pay some entirely different amount, in contrast to their legal obligations, and emerging solely from Ms Alberici’s imagination?
        Interestingly, the PM’s complaint was only a slight improvement on Alberici’s nonsense, as it claimed the company tax rate was applied to the base of company profit. (If that were true, the Income Tax Assessment Act would be much slimmer than it is – perhaps a good idea, but not the law that Parliament has passed.)
        So the core point is that Alberici constructed a rather florid piece of agitprop based on her dream of the company tax system whe would like, rather than the statutory system we actually have.
        Is that a big enough factual error for you? It clearly was the underpinning of an analysis that was neither accurate, fair, balanced or impartial.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Tezza

          Can you please cite the argument Alberici used to argue for:

          “an imaginary corporate tax base created arbitrarily in Ms Alberici’s imagination: essentially, company revenue.”

          What is the evidence that her sources embed a tax base essentially, company revenue?

  • Neville says:

    Another Green loony bites the dust in Germany. But why did they hire this fool in the first place? Still a bit like bolting the door after the Green loons have done their damage.
    And many more billions $ to be wasted here in OZ if the Labor and Green fanatics have their way. Of course this idiocy will have no measurable change by 2100 at all.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/green-no-more-germanys-mr-energiewende-resigns-criticises-new-coalition/

    • Chris Warren says:

      Only loons cry loon.

      Only fanatics cry fanatics.

      You do not strengthen weak arguments with strong language.

      You just guarantee you will be ignored.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Jennifer Marohasy responds to last nights 4 Corners program on their ABC.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2018/03/sarah-ferguson-michael-brissenden-withhold-important-information-australian-public-concerning-climate-change/

    “Sarah Ferguson and Michael Brissenden Withhold Important Information from the Australian Public Concerning Climate Change”
    By jennifer on March 6, 2018 in Information

    “Australian politicians, and the media they sponsor, have been throwing their hands in the air and screaming unprecedented climate change – particularly over the last two weeks. A focus has been on the record number of new record hot days. But in all of this, there is no mention that the method used to actually measure hot days has changed.

    This week’s Four Corners program began by interviewing Karl Braganza from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Braganza explained that it is really only since the 1990s that we have started to see the extreme heat. What he didn’t mention is that a totally new method of measurement came into effect on 1 November 1996 – with the transition continuing, so each new year, new weather stations have their mercury thermometer replaced with an electronic probe taking one-second spot readings.

    For example, the Bureau claimed a new record hottest day for September for the state of Victoria on 23 September 2017, which was actually a one-second spike from an electronic probe installed in June 2012. The Bureau reported this as the hottest September day back to 1889. Yet back in 1889 a completely different method was being used to measure maximum daily temperatures at Mildura.

    According to Guinness World Records, a record must be standardisable and verifiable. Yet the new record from Mildura was not measured according to world standards of calibration for the use of electronic probes which specifies that one-second readings be averaged over at least one minute. Meanwhile this questionable data is being used to justify ever more expenditure on Australia’s perceived climate catastrophe – without any questioning by leading Australian journalists Michael Brissenden or Sarah Ferguson, who presented Monday night’s program that lamented the new record hot days.

    In not reporting that the incidence of “extreme heat” corresponds with a change in how maximum temperatures are measured, these two journalists, Brissenden and Ferguson, have withheld important information from the Australian public.

    Given the new, very different, method of measuring temperatures, it would be assumed that there are dozens of reports published by the Bureau that document how comparable the measurements from electronic probes have proven at different locations, and under different conditions. Yet there are none!

    The Bureau claims, when asked, that temperatures from its electronic probes and traditional mercury thermometers are comparable – without providing any actual evidence. My analysis of temperature data from Mildura indicates that there is a statistically significant different – with the first probe (in place from 1996 to 2000) recording too cool, and subsequent probes too warm relative to the mercury thermometer (often by up to 0.4 degrees Celsius).

    I have been attempting to bring this to the attention of the media, particularly the ABC for some months. But their journalists turn-away. They don’t want any scrutiny of this much revered institution, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

    Even in the Australian parliament there is a closing-of-ranks. Rather than consider my evidence, Monday before last Senators Richard Di Natale and Anne Urquhart from the Australian Greens claimed that the questions I have been raising about the integrity of the temperature data amounted to ‘climate denial’ and harassment of the Bureau’s CEO, Andrew Johnson.

    In reality, my few emails to Johnson have focused on the single issue of how temperatures are measured, which really has nothing whatsoever to do with denying climate change. Indeed, if we are to accurately quantify the magnitude of global warming, then the integrity of the temperature databases is paramount. Yet the number of documented anomalies continues to grow – as does the indifference of our political class”.

    “Sarah Ferguson introducing Michael Brissenden on Monday night’s ABC Four Corner’s program that ostensibly reported on climate change. Four Corner’s is a publicly funded news program, that claims to be investigative. On Monday night it could be best described as climate porn, or climate propaganda with critical information withheld – perhaps through ignorance”.
    inShare

    • David says:

      Nev what Dr Marohasy (and you) need too appreciate is that these farmers are looking to make a profit. These farmers have seen the money she has hemorrhaged accepting dud bets against global warming, and have decided to take some sensible precautions against AGW.

  • Chris Warren says:

    This is fake news.

    No one has been “throwing their hands in the air ”

    No one has been “screaming”.

    No one is with-holding information.

    It is easy to calibrate electronic probes to ensure comparability with mercury.

    If I was in the Bureau or a Member of Parliament, I would ignore all this self-glorifying internet fake controversy.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “It is easy to calibrate electronic probes to ensure comparability with mercury.”

      Then why don’t they settle it by doing just that?

      Make the process transparent and obvious?

      You know, blith, as per the scientific method?

      “If I was in the Bureau or a Member of Parliament, I would ignore all this self-glorifying internet fake controversy.”

      Yes, blith, it’s always better for those responsible to ignore it and let people suspect rather than audit and prove corruption.

      How astute you are.

  • Chris Warren says:

    So why all the fuss and censorship over Emma Alberici?

    Are our millionaires, protected by Turnbull, feeling guilty, threatened by a bit of honest reportage?

    Why are the Liberal heavies and their business mates trying to direct the ABC as to what they can report?

    Here is a review from Cricky.com:

    “The ABC’s censorship of Emma Alberici in response to pressure from Malcolm Turnbull comes at a time when the national broadcaster’s mainstream media competitors are also increasingly failing to properly inform Australians.

    Far from being, as alleged by the ABC, too opinionated, Alberici’s piece (available here) is a collation of straightforward facts — levels of profit versus wages growth in recent years, the fact that few companies pay 30% tax, the high level of investment despite our “uncompetitive” tax rate, the minimal role tax plays in business investment decisions, the comparative performance of investment and wages in Australia, and Canada, where company tax rates were reduced significantly, the decline of real wages in the UK where company taxes were also cut, the Congressional Budget Office analysis showing Australia’s tax rate is relatively low compared internationally; the relatively negligible economic benefits identified in the government’s own modelling, the fact that we’re projected to remain in deficit for several years yet.

    Sure, there was a gratuitous targeting of the salary of Alan Joyce, but otherwise none of these facts are disputed. Indeed, they’re well-known. Crikey wrote about the Canadian and British experiences, and the CBO report, eleven months ago, and no one said boo. I’ve repeatedly asked the Business Council of Australia to explain why wages growth in the UK and Canada so significantly underperformed wages growth in Australia despite their cuts to company tax, and the BCA has refused to respond. Likewise, it’s noteworthy about the hysterical response to the article that no one disputed the facts. The Financial Review, which has led the attack on the ABC, today ran a piece it headlined “Our ABC perpetrates a tax fraud” that it claimed “debunked” Alberici’s work. It was a strange “debunking” — the piece skated over nearly all of the facts in Alberici’s piece and dismissed them as “anecdotes” and “red herrings” that the authors are “not buying” because they’re at odds with economic modelling.

    This is “fake news” territory, to insist that real-world evidence from other economies that have implemented the policy you’re defending is merely “anecdote”, while economic modelling — based on ridiculous assumptions like our lack of debt, and full employment — is a better guide to reality. Then again, the AFR was already deep into denial when it comes to tax cuts. There appears to be an editorial prohibition on any mention of the extraordinary level of share buybacks going on in the US fueled by Trump’s tax cuts — now running at more than twice the level they were a year ago. You’d think that the AFR, in seeking to make the investors who read it as well informed as possible, would regard the dramatic increase in share buybacks by some of the biggest companies in the world as newsworthy, but clearly not.

    The only “tax fraud” being perpetuated here is the one by the government, business and media cheerleaders like the AFR — the broad daylight transfer of over $60 billion from taxpayers to the world’s largest corporations under the verifiably false pretences that the money will be used to increase investment and wages. It’s a quite brilliant fraud, too: corporations don’t even have to hire an array of expensive tax lawyers like the Deloittes partner who wrote the AFR piece — they just have to chip in some money to Liberal and National Party coffers and get the politicians to do the heavy lifting of reducing their tax burden.

    Fairfax, the owner of the AFR, of course can print whatever denialism it likes about the company tax cuts it will benefit from, should it ever achieve regular profitability again. As corporations, media companies can say what they like, and long may they do so, even if as a result Australians have less trust in our country’s media than virtually any other people. The ABC is different. It is funded by taxpayers and is rightly held to much higher editorial standard than private media companies. That’s why it is by far Australia’s most trusted media outlet. But the decision to cave in to government pressure and censor one of its most senior journalists, coming just days after the extraordinary decision to hand back to the government a trove of cabinet documents without sharing them with its audience, will undermine that trust. The ABC is looking increasingly like a state, not a national, broadcaster.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    “The ABC is different. It is funded by taxpayers and is rightly held to much higher editorial standard than private media companies. That’s why it is by far Australia’s most trusted media outlet.”

    Oh, dear!!

    But it must be nice for blith to know that he is not the only deluded prog around.

    The ABC is different, all right.

    Where else would you find a national media outlet that doesn’t have one commentator to represent around 50% of the population?

    The last one who slightly did has moved to Channel 9.

  • Neville says:

    Here is a transcript of Bjorn Lomborg’s summary of the Paris COP 21 fra-d and con.

    “Much has been made of the Paris Climate Agreement signed by the leaders of 178 countries in 2016. French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, speaking for many, called it a “historic turning point.”

    The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, echoed the minister’s remark when she testified before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The Paris Agreement was, she said, an “incredible achievement.” But when pressed by committee members to explain exactly how much this treaty would reduce global temperatures, she would not – or could not – say.

    This combination of grand pronouncements and vague specifics is a good strategy for Paris Agreement fans to take. Because the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.

    Consider the Obama administration’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. Using the same climate prediction model that the UN uses, I found that the power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris Agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century – the Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit.

    The President has made further, and grander, promises of future U.S. carbon cuts, but these are only vaguely outlined. In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees.

    To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.

    Now let’s add in the rest of the world’s Paris promises. If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met (which itself would be a U.N. first), but sustained, throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop by 0.3 degrees – the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that’s using the UN’s own climate prediction model.

    But here’s the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free; quite the contrary.

    The cost of the Paris climate pact is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature, by the end of the century, by a grand total of three tenths of one degree.

    Some Paris Agreement supporters defend it by claiming that its real impact on temperatures will be much more significant than the U.N. model predicts. But this requires mental gymnastics and heroic assumptions.

    The Climate Action Tracker, widely cited by Paris Agreement fans, predicts a temperature reduction of 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. But this prediction is based very heavily on the assumption that even stronger climate policies will be adopted in the future. Actually, 98% of the assumed reductions will come only after 2030, which is what the current Paris agreement covers. And even such wishful thinking won’t achieve anything close to the 2 degrees Celsius reduction that has become the somewhat arbitrary, but widely adopted, benchmark to avoid the worst effects of global warming. The actual promised emission reductions under the Paris agreement literally get us just 1 percent of the way to the 2 degrees target. 99 percent of what would be required is put off until after 2030.

    The Paris Agreement is the wrong solution to a real problem. The right solution will most likely be found through green-energy research and development, like that promoted by Bill Gates and the Breakthrough Coalition. Mr. Gates has announced that private investors are committing $7 billion for clean energy R&D.

    Instead of political hot air and ever-larger government subsidies of today’s inefficient green technologies, those who want to combat climate change should focus on dramatically boosting green energy innovation.

    The U.S. already shows the way. With its pursuit of fracking, making it safer and more efficient every year, America has drastically reduced the cost of natural gas. This momentous switch from coal to lower-CO2 gas as a source of energy has done far more to drive down carbon-dioxide emissions than any recent government climate policy.

    Turns out that those politicians who gathered in Paris, France, could learn a lot from Paris, Texas.”

    I’m Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.”

    Download a PDF of this Transcript

  • Sometimes you have to call a loon a loon! Deep Green loons are just about as looney as they come:)

  • spangled drongo says:

    We have just come to a wonderful agreement with East Timor to give them up to 80% of the Greater Sunrise oil and gas fields which were on 100% Australian mainland prior to recent sea level rise and separated from East Timor by the Timor Trench both then and now.

    If sea levels were as they were then, East Timor would not be entitled to anything.

    What is it about our island neighbours wringing us out over SLR?

    • dlb says:

      Using your argument about continental shelves, then PNG and West Papua should then be states of Australia? I can’t see that happening.

      I think Australia has been mean spirited over the gas fields, especially when East Timor is such a poor nation and we are so resource rich. We currently give them around $100M in aid each year. Wouldn’t it be better that they develop their own economy through exports such as gas rather than rely on handouts from us?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Sorry, dlb, that’s a flawed analogy of an agreed boundary.

        They can’t develop it themselves because that trench is a moving division of the two continental plates that prevents piping it across so we have to produce all the work and expense and provide them with the majority of the money.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Victoria’s Daniel Andrews agrees to give some workers [fire fighters and possibly other emergency workers] up to 195 days paid leave a year:

    “Analysis of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade enterprise bargaining agreement by the Herald Sun revealed provisions that allow fireys to be ­absent on pay for up to 196 days a year”

    I’ve been a voluntary Rural FB member for 30 years and never got a thing other than endless work and the joy of making donations.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Bye, bye glaciers …

    http://www.christian.se/global-warming-retreating-glaciers

    [Svalbard – Norway]

  • Chris Warren says:

    Interesting BoM chart showing Australian warming.

    https://archive.is/QHxFc

  • margaret says:

    “But then there is Amartya Sen.
    Every major work on material inequality in the 21st century owes a debt to Sen. But his own writings treat material inequality as though the moral frameworks and social relationships that mediate economic exchanges matter. Famine is the nadir of material deprivation. But it seldom occurs – Sen argues – for lack of food. To understand why a people goes hungry, look not for catastrophic crop failure; look rather for malfunctions of the moral economy that moderates competing demands upon a scarce commodity. Material inequality of the most egregious kind is the problem here. But piecemeal modifications to the machinery of production and distribution will not solve it. The relationships between different members of the economy must be put right. Only then will there be enough to go around.”

    https://aeon.co/ideas/why-amartya-sen-remains-the-centurys-great-critic-of-capitalism?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Do spare us the Marxist view of capitalism if you want to retain any cred, marg.

      You must surely recall how effective it has proved itself to be.

      • margaret says:

        Meaningless words from an absolute a-hole.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Do you know anything about Amartya Sen, marg?

          Like that he used to be a member of and be seriously involved in the same marxist group at Cambridge as Burgess and Maclean?

          Ever heard of them?

          Guy and Donald?

          No?

        • margaret says:

          Asked how he relaxes, he replies: “I read a lot and like arguing with people.” Wikipedia
          On that basis alone – my hero hahaha

    • Chris Warren says:

      Fascists oppose…

      “The relationships between different members of the economy must be put right.”

      Capitalists pretend that one day…

      “The relationships between different members of the economy must be put right.”

      Rednecks are unable to understand as several of the words have more than one syllable.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And neo-Marxists, meanwhile, don’t have a clue, hey, blith?

      • spangled drongo says:

        It doesn’t occur to a neo-M like our blith, that since the termination of our many Marxist empires in the 20th C our world population has exploded and yet there is more to go round than ever before.

  • margaret says:

    “Written in 1981, The Drover’s Boy tells the story of the relationship between a white drover and an Aboriginal woman. As Egan explains in the catalogue, the parity of such couplings is highly debatable, but these relationships were not uncommon in the heyday of Australia’s pastoral history.

    Marchant’s paintings illustrate the song, which is a series of reminiscences occasioned by the death of the Aboriginal woman, who everyone except the drover thought was a boy.

    Because such unions were illegal, the women were made to flatten their breasts with a scarf and dress like men.

    The paintings, like the song, are palatable versions of a very disquieting truth.

    As the song goes “Shoot the bucks, grab a gin/ Cut her hair, break her in”.

    Egan was moved by the number of Aboriginal women he met who had been “stockmen” and his words are affecting: “Remember the girl who was bedmate and guide/ Rode with the drover side by side,/ Watched the bullocks, flayed the hide, Faithful wife never a bride, Bred his sons for the cattle runs”.”

    https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/22/1050777251630.html

    • spangled drongo says:

      That’s pretty much rubbish, marg. Aboriginal girls are “broken in” by old Aboriginal men at a very early age. You obviously don’t pay attention to what’s still going on, and always has, at all the Aboriginal settlements, camps and communities.

      When I was an apprentice to an old Aboriginal rainmaker in the Channel Country he used to beg me to drive him to various branches of his tribe because he was beyond walking the hundreds of miles involved so he could be involved in this job of “breaking them in”.

      I used to write reams of correspondence to the various tribes [much better than smoke signals, he reckoned] on his behalf to organise various business and that was just part of it.

      These days it’s very young girls and young men as well and those girls are doing it a lot tougher than the “Drover’s Boy”.

      Two year old rape.

      Often having their second baby before they become teenagers.

      Drugs and alcohol make it much worse.

      White people have known about this since the beginning but preventing this from happening to little girls makes them the “stolen generations” so we turn a blind eye.

      Bess Price has tried to wise us up but we refuse to listen.

      • dlb says:

        With no knowledge of this and a complete outsider there may be truth in both what Marg and SD are saying.

        I would have thought young women could be acquired by white settlers by force, by mutual attraction, by buying them off, or possibly a gift in return for some favour. Of course the procurement of women for the first two reasons would create hostilities, but how prevalent was it? Also blacks working on, or receiving charity from white farms may have dropped many of their customs regarding sexual relations.

        Dressing young women up as boys to avert the gaze of authorities sounds plausible.

        I also don’t dispute what SD is saying about “breaking them in”.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Dressing young women up as boys to avert the gaze of authorities sounds plausible.”

          Just hard to hide when they got pregnant.

          There has always been consideration for aboriginals from whites. I found this on the Bunya Pine. 1842 was the time that free settlers moved into Qld as you have mentioned, dlb, WRT Tamborine and Mundoolun stations:

          “Remarkably, all native stands of this tree were protected from logging by Crown decree, issued by Governor Gipps in 1842:

          It having been represented to the Governor that a district exists to the Northward of Moreton Bay in which a fruit-bearing Tree abounds, called Bunya, or Banya Bunya, and that the Aborigines from considerable distance resort at certain times of the year to this District for the purpose of eating the fruit of the said Tree:– His Excellency is pleased to direct that no Licenses [sic] be granted for the occupation of any Lands within the said District in which the Bunya or Banya Bunya Tree is found. And notice is herby given, that the several Crown Commissioners in the New England and Moreton Bay Districts have been instructed to remove any person who may be in the unauthorised occupation of Land whereon the said Bunya or Banya Bunya Trees are to be found His Excellency has also directed that no Licenses [sic] to cut Timber be granted within the said District (New South Wales Government Gazette 1842.04.14, quoted in Huth 2002).”

          In later years when tribes ceased to be myall and plantations arose elsewhere, the restriction was lifted and it was milled as a great resource.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And made the rest up himself. Which is fair enough. I have seen plenty of young aboriginal women in drovers camps but never as in that song.

    Your link only supports my claims.

    • Neville says:

      SD you’re spot on , but I don’t think you’ll change the fantasist’s point of view.
      Just like their CAGW these people believe in their fantasies about so called Aboriginal culture and are not interested in the real world.
      Fancy quoting Egan , gezzz give me strength.
      They should definitely listen to Bess Price and other concerned women who have the courage to tell the truth about these mongrels and their vile behaviour.

      • spangled drongo says:

        But we still must apologise for it regularly and keep increasing the handouts, Neville.

        If only people like our marg could force themselves to live in the real world.

        And stop being such hypocrites.

        Think of the money [and the little girls] it would save.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Of course, not on such urgent issues as global warming, but voters in Turkey and China have preferred dictatorships to democracy.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Global warming is hitting the Northern Hemisphere hard.

    https://archive.is/gZTW7

    And there are those denialists who think that the fact that disrupted weather is bringing cold air further south is good news.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova has a look at Flannery’s prophesy in 2007 that Perth would become a Ghost city. Unbelievable garbage from this rank amateur and Perth has boomed over the last 11 years as has WA.

    When will these fools wake up to these false prophets?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/tim-flannery-top-scientist-spent-two-whole-months-reading-and-felt-like-an-old-testament-prophet/#more-56410

    Tim Flannery in 2007: after a two month crash course in climate change, the man was a prophet
    Flannery, Tim, Photo 2004, The West Australian.

    Tim Flannery, 2004, The West Australian.

    Flannery will be on Q&A tonight (bet you can’t wait, copy your questions and tweets below please!). Let’s check the exact wording of his original 2004 prediction that Perth would become a ghost town. It tells us something, not just about Flannery and a messiah complex (he really does talk of himself as an old testament prophet), but about journalism. Back then journalists interviewed critics too. Flannery was even called “alarmist” in 2004.

    The original story had the calm headline: “Perth Will Die, says Top Scientist”. That article has gone beyond the space time continuum, but thankfully, it was preserved by the Wayback Machine.

    Perth will become a ghost city within decades as rising global temperatures turn the Wheatbelt into a desert and drive species to the brink of extinction, a leading Australian scientist warns.

    –Carmelo Amalfi, The West Australian
    Perth in 2018, is wet, cool and productive and 30% larger:

    Dams are at their equal highest level at the end of summer since 2002, and Perth has 67 billion litres more than any year of the last seven. The desert seems to be shrinking, arid regions are 11% greener. A record grain crop last year was followed by a bumper one this year. Instead of being abandoned in the decade after Flannery’s prediction, WA had the fastest population growth rate in the nation getting a massive 25% larger from 2006-2016. Perth grew 28% in the same period.
    To bring back the rain, Flannery advised windmills to defeat “the enemy”:

    In years to come these will be seen as totems to the wind and sun gods:

    The South Australian Museum director and author of the best-selling The Future Eaters said a major shift from coal to renewable fuels such as solar and wind energy was needed in WA. “Coal is the enemy,” Dr Flannery said…

    In 2007 he was offered the chance to step back but Flannery went double or nothing, practically biblical:

    As temperatures around the world warmed by 2 to 7 per cent, [Per cent of what? — asks Jo] Sydney could glimpse its future by looking at the devastating impact that global warming had already had on Perth, which he said was likely to become a “ghost metropolis”.

    “There will be conditions not seen in 40 million years…”

    –Anne Davies, Sydney Morning Herald

    Perhaps “per cent” was a misprint. But 40 million years was not, and includes the formation of the Antarctic circumpolar current, super volcanoes, asteroid strikes, countless ice ages and millions of years of temperatures higher than present. The end of the last ice age saw a 125m sea level rise.

    Still it’s not like the man is a paleontologist… oh, wait.

    And what do we make of this 2007 admission? The man was billed as a “top scientist” in 2004, but in Feb 2007 he tells us he’s just spent two whole months reading about “climate change”.

    Dr Flannery said he had spent the past two months reading “everything I can get my hands on” about climate change, and had been horrified by what he had learnt.
    After a full nine week crash course, the man is a prophet:

    The next line after that:

    “I wake up in the morning thinking there are lots of times when people have woken up feeling like this, like the Old Testament prophets,” Dr Flannery said.

    “I try to find a way out of it, but I can’t. Its life-changing to realise what is going on.”

    –Anne Davies Sydney Morning Herald

    Flannery, expert on fossil mammals, offers his global geopolitical, physiological, and economic synopsis:

    “We are one of the most physically vulnerable people on the Earth,” Dr Flannery told the Herald.

    The dryness of the continent made it especially fragile in the face of climate change.

    “There may be a few worse places, like Bangladesh. But southern Australia is going to be impacted very severely and very detrimentally by global climate change.”

    Somehow a nation which is among the richest, with more square kilometers per person, more resources per capita than possibly anywhere on the planet, and on a stable landmass, and exporting food and coal, are “the most physically vulnerable people on Earth”. The journalist, Anne Davies, did not even question this or think it might be worth getting a second opinion.
    Archaic media: Back in the old days journalists would talk to critics too:

    In 2004, in a different era, when Carmelo Amalfi of The West, had the sensationalist headline “Perth Will Die” but still clung to the old fashioned anachronistic habit of getting an alternate view, in this case from Jorg Imberger, who called Flannery’s prediction “alarmist” (even though he seemed to believe the IPCC):

    Jorg Imberger, head of the University of WA’s centre for water research, agreed, saying the plant would produce about 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. “Building such a plant is the worst thing we can do when we have Yaragadee, with 1000 years of water in it,” he said from Singapore yesterday. But Dr Imberger said Dr Flannery was wrong to suggest WA was heading for an arid future when overall the world was getting wetter, not drier. He said his forecast was alarmist.
    It’s a simple world. Flannery appears to be a one-variable man:

    Hydrologists understand that streamflow and run off is determined by undergrowth, land clearing, evaporation rates, wind speed, etc. Flannery seems to think that only temperature matters. Warming means “less rain” which means “less run off” which means “death to flowers”:

    He said a global temperature rise of less than 1C last century had robbed the State of over half its annual rainfall run-off. Global temperature rises of up to 6C would transform Perth into an arid city unable to feed itself.

    A 1C rise was enough to wipe out an estimated two-thirds of WA’s native flowering plants.

    Another day I’ll do something on the issue of rainfall versus runoff in WA which is a whole ‘nother topic.

    For the moment, this is really about the media. Flannery doesn’t realize it, but he’s been hung out to dry by the failure of the media to ask sensible questions and interview informed critics. With better journalism, his wild, unresearched fantasies would have been ignored, or couched in sane terms with skeptical headlines. But the man has been walking the red carpet for years because he was so uninformed he could say the things that real experts couldn’t. He deserves the mocking he gets.

    We heard years ago from an insider at The Australian Greenhouse Office that he appeared to be a dejected man when he walked.
    More information:

    Warwick Hughes on Perth Catchments and water history (where the photo and original link came from).

    Wayback machine on dam storage in Perth
    Wayback machine on the Water Corp 2003

    If anyone knows a link to long term data on water storage in Perth (eg a monthly total for the last few decades) please add that in comments. The WA Water corp seems to prefer to “forget” data more than 4 – 8 years old. It must be there somewhere? Where are the long term graphs?

    *Edited – The end of the last ice age the seas rose 125m.

    **Edited, Anne Davies was the correct author of the SMH article not Louise Pemble. Apologies. Louise Pemble authored an article in 2007 about Flannery for PerthNow.
    Rating: 9.9/10

    • Chris Warren says:

      This is a typical slanderous attack on Flannery by denialists.

      Flannery’s comment in 2004 was;

      “My hypothesis is Perth will become a ghost metropolis over the next few decades unless governments acknowledge that global warming is a reality.”

      Not one cranky denialist has quoted him properly.

      You do not represent “next few decades” by the last 13 years and people should be encouraged to present their various hypotheses without being censored by wingeing denialists.

      Global warming is an average spatial and temporal event. You can always find cases which contradict any average and which denialists invariably wave around in their self-styled stupefaction.

      It may be that global warming increases water vapour and therefore rain and temperature. If so, what happens if this increasing does not stop?

      We end up with a world somewhat like the age of the dinosaurs.

  • Neville says:

    Chris you’re denying the bleeding obvious. A slightly warmer Sth OZ, Vic, SWWA and Southern OZ should see an increase in rainfall, not a decrease.
    In fact recent long term drought studies show much worse droughts over the last 1,000 years when Co2 was about 280 ppm. See Calvo et al and Vance et al for example and other long term studies like Prof De Deckker’s 20 years of work over southern OZ.
    Certainly Southern OZ and South OZ now have increased rainfall trends compared to the earlier 20th century record. So it seems that Flannery’s Co2 attribution for extended droughts is bogus nonsense, but I expect the religious fanatics will still twist and turn and deny logic and reason to describe the OZ rainfall record since 1900.
    But if some areas of Sth/Southern OZ now receive more rainfall, it stretches common sense to blame Co2 for less rainfall over SWWA and Tassie over the same period. That’s unless you truly believe that co2 is some magic molecule that acts like reverse fairy dust depending on where it settles?

    Here’s the SA and Southern OZ rainfall since 1900. Both have an increasing trend as does NSW, Qld, WA, NT, Nth OZ and Vic is line ball. Of course we now know that the last Mill drought was caused by positive+ neutral IOD over about an 18 year period of time. See UNSW study and their claim to have solved this enigma.

    IOW nothing to do with increased Co2 emissions. Flannery was wrong in 2007 and should be the last person that anyone should listen to now and into the future.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=sa&season=0112&ave_yr=T

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=saus&season=0112&ave_yr=T

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      This is a lie.

      “Chris you’re denying the bleeding obvious. A slightly warmer Sth OZ, Vic, SWWA and Southern OZ should see an increase in rainfall, not a decrease.”

      I never, never, said a warmer Australia would decrease rainfall.

      Are you totally unable to listen to, or comprehend, what others are saying – unless it fits your preconception?

      So where is this “Flannery’s Co2 attribution for extended droughts is bogus nonsense,”?

      Have you, and your sect, misunderstood him yet again.

  • Neville says:

    Geezzz Chris, how do I make this simple for you?
    Flannery claimed that human Co2 emissions would turn Perth into a Ghost City, because rainfall would rapidly decrease.
    I’m saying the record since 1900 is a mixed bag for SA, SWWA, Vic Tassie and Southern OZ, therefore it is probably part of ocean oscillations like the IOD etc.

    And WA has an increased rainfall trend since 1900 and SWWA still has slightly higher rainfall than Vic, even though there has been a fall over the last 25 years.

    Be honest, Flannery’s claim that increased co2 emissions would lead to more devastating droughts is complete nonsense. Do you agree or not?
    Don’t forget he claimed that “even the rains that fall will not actually fill our dams and river systems.” Is Flannery correct or not, just look at the years of flooding all over the country since he made those stupid comments.

    BTW the last MDB flood was caused by the strong negative IOD in the Indian ocean. And this occurred during the strong 2016 el nino. . Here’s Flannery making his bizzare claims about our dams and river systems.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      Making it wrong, does not make it easy for anyone except your branch of true believers.

      Flannery did not say:

      “rainfall would rapidly decrease.”

      This was your fabrication.

      Flannery said:

      “My hypothesis is Perth will become a ghost metropolis over the next few decades unless governments acknowledge that global warming is a reality.”

      I fully expect that as governments have now acknowledged global warming is a reality, that some steps may be taken to slow down such warming and prevent cities becoming a ghost metroplis.

      But if governments, recant on this acknowlegement or do nothing, then all humanity is at stakeand the globe may wellturn into a very wet, steamy unliveable environment or a over heated dry desert – or both.

      Your carping cries against Flannery are just your responding to the dog-whistles from Nova and Bolt.

      If you actually read the UNSW piece you alluded to, you would soon see, yet again, how little you understand the relevant material, and yet again your own source contradicts you.

      Please don’t bother posting rubbish from Bolt – no-one except a thin smear of nutters takes any notice – and boy don’t the nutters clap at his outpourings.

      • Neville says:

        Chris you really have problems and don’t understand how silly you seem trying to make sense of a person like Flannery and his dud forecasts.
        Bolt always refers to data and evidence when he argues his case and so does Jo Nova. Their ABC treats so much of their cause as a religion and totally ignore data and evidence and yet you’re still there cheering them on. Bolt was correct and the ABC was wrong and only a true believer would think otherwise.
        Flannery was clearly wrong about more droughts/ less rainfall in a warming world, but you seem to want 2 bob each way and just ignore his quotes or try and tell us he meant something else.
        Meanwhile global greening continues and 7.4 billion people now have a much higher standard of living and have a much higher life expectancy than at any time in history.
        Obviously we’re doing something right and if you can’t understand it that’s your problem, not mine.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Neville

          You have not cited any real quote.

          Where did Flannery say: “…rapidly decrease”.

          or do you want to withdraw your claim?

          I have not said whether or not I agree with which of his statements.

          Bolt and Nova do not provide proper refereed evidence.

          • Neville says:

            As I said Chris you’ve got 2 bob each way. I’ve supplied the BOM rainfall data and I say that if the planet warms we can usually expect more precipitation.
            But this will sort itself out over a very long period of time. I listened to the ABC country hour about 6 years ago where a Melbourne scientist was interviewed about his team’s 500 year drought study.
            He said we’ve been very lucky here in OZ and “the last 100 years is about as good as it gets”.
            I’ll find it one day, but I think it was from Melb or Monash uni and must have been after 2010.

  • Neville says:

    The Arctic was warming rapidly nearly 100 years ago ( 1922) and was probably following the warm AMO cycle. Greenland and the Arctic then cooled from the late 1940s to the mid 1990s, before warming again until the present day.
    A number of PR studies support this 1922 article using real historic measurements from Greenland etc.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/the-changing-arctic-nov-1922/

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    For those who like a bit of humour in their life, there is a wonderful ‘interactive’ puff piece on the ABC web site. The lowly proles can play with birth, death and lifespan, and learn just how desperately we need high levels of immigration so the increasing hordes of grandmas and grandpas won’t have to sleep on the street … and we pay taxes for this crap.

  • Neville says:

    More desperate nonsense and BS from their ABC con merchants. The Bolter checked the data and found these people are telling us porkies once again. But what else would you expect from their ABC and SBS?

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/how-five-abc-staff-swallowed-global-warming-bull/news-story/5d0dbd0c61241e3da7997b6f43b5759f

  • spangled drongo says:

    -45c at Nunavut and this again at the “warm” end:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/13/more-polar-scientists-stuck-in-the-ice/

  • beththeserf says:

    Say, spangled drongo, 2014 ill famed cli-fi-sci antarctic misadventure all over again.
    When will cli-fi-scientists ever learn, when will they ever learn. *

    * Insanity is when yr do the same think over again and expect a different result.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, beth, these alarmist scientists believe that without humans, the climate would have stayed the same since the beginning of the industrial revolution/end of LIA period.

      Can you believe that we give the funding to run around the world trying to show how much damage we are doing when they are totally incapable of quantifying any of it?

      They are in total denial that the LIA, medieval warm period and all other climate cycles existed simply as part of Nat Var.

      And that Nat Var then was just as great as any we have at present.

  • spangled drongo says:

    NOAA has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.
    This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/

  • beththeserf says:

    Oh Noah!
    Erasing the past.
    So Orwellian.
    So Mannian.
    So BOM data-
    homogen-
    izayshun.
    Deja vu all
    over again.

  • Neville says:

    We shouldn’t forget that the Antarctic peninsula has been cooling for 20 years.
    And the ice core record shows similar warming and cooling events over the last 2,000 years. Perhaps some repair to the Ozone, SSTemps, wind shifts and nat variability arte also the answer. Who knows?
    It will be interesting to see what happens in the Arctic when the AMO changes to the cool phase in the 2020s. Certainly Arctic temps are much lower than Eemian temps were and much higher SLs as well.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/antarctic-peninsula-has-been-cooling-for-almost-20-years-scientists-confirm/

  • Neville says:

    What a wonderful sane scientist Bob Carter was and here he is with the Bolter looking at the facts behind some of the scary Flannery fairy tales.
    Amazing that even Steffen lets the cat out of the bag under Bolter’s pressure.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, John Sayers and I went to see him at the Sheraton Mirage when Anthony Watts came out, about 8 years ago. He was most impressive.

      We tried to get Luke to come but he ducked it. Facts like that are too embarrassing.

  • Neville says:

    There’s another big reduction in the sale of electric cars in the UK.
    Even the generous taxpayer funding cannot entice people to buy these duds. Just one more reason the mitigation of so called CAGW is a con and fra-d.
    And if Labor wins here in OZ we can expect many more billions of $ to be wasted on this idiocy.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/electric-cars-magic-policy-wand-wont-achieve-the-impossible/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Will South Australia now get smart and get fracking?

    “According to the Energy Information Administration, there has been a sharp reduction in power-plant emissions over a 10-year period. Since the start of the shale revolution in 2006 and leading up to 2016, annual sulfur-dioxide emissions dropped 81 percent, from 9.5 million metric tons to 1.8 million tons, and nitrogen oxides fell from 3.8 million metric tons to 1.63 million tons, a reduction of 57 percent.

    And over the same period, annual carbon-dioxide emissions dropped 22.5 percent, from 2.5 billion metric tons to 1.9 billion tons. Today carbon-dioxide emissions from power production are at late-1980s levels. Think about it: Even as electricity production has risen, carbon emissions fell.”

    http://www.insidesources.com/low-cost-natural-gas-environmentally-friendly-fuel/

    • spangled drongo says:

      This is the most recent gas discovery in the south east. Not to mention the huge Cooper Basin where it all began with Santos 60 years ago. I was out there when Santos arrived and in spite of gas pipelines to the south they are not utilising it as they should.

      They could have low emissions, absolute reliability and the lowest cost.

      “There is enough gas in the ground in South Australia to power our grid and supply businesses and homes for centuries, which is why this valuable local resource needs to be developed …”

      But instead, let’s just continue to emit, pay top dollar for power and [what trooly rooly counts] virtue signal to the world.

  • Neville says:

    SD I wouldn’t hold my breath
    waiting for fracking to start in SA anytime soon.

    In fact I heard yesterday that the SA Libs have promised a ban on fracking for the next 10 years.
    BTW this is that 500 year drought study I mentioned earlier.
    Certainly the period since 1900 is as good as it gets comparing OZ droughts and rainfall.
    But they’ll still listen to clueless Flannery and ignore real data and evidence and continue to waste endless billions of $ on BS and fra-d.

    https://theconversation.com/500-years-of-drought-and-flood-trees-and-corals-reveal-australias-climate-history-51573

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, wouldn’t it be fascinating if scientists had some motivation in demonstrating how much worse the climate was in the past?

      Imagine the fertile ground they would have to present the multiple disasters and catastrophes.

      And it would be all down to Nat Var.

      Thinks….., maybe if we could convince them that CO2 emissions are beneficial….

  • Neville says:

    Yet more filth and pig ignorance from their ABC in response to the rape of a toddler in the NT.
    The one billion $ taxpayer funding should be withdrawn from this biased Greens/Labor machine ASAP . Why is it so?

  • spangled drongo says:

    The hypocrisy is deafening!!!

    The leader of the party that is most responsible for these out of control bushfires – because they make sure that fuel reduction programs don’t proceed because of “endangerment” to wildlife – has the hubris to blame our lack of commitment to climate change:

    “Deflecting criticism over his handling of the Batman defeat and poor results in this month’s South Australian and Tasmanian elections, Senator Di Natale linked the Turnbull government’s climate change policies to the bushfires in NSW and Victoria”

    Is there anything more corrupt than a left progressive?

    • Neville says:

      Geeeezzzz SD, that’s like Bob Brown blaming the Coal industry for our much lower numbers of cyclones to hit the east coast of OZ.
      Unbelievably stupid , but people vote for these donkeys and Labor pollies as well. Certainly a number here share their religious mania.
      BTW Christopher Monckton says that there is an elementary error in physics that has lead to a too high ECS.
      His team has calculated a net positive sensitivity of just 1.2 c and hopefully this may be tested in court in the US. Who knows?

  • Neville says:

    At Dr Curry’s blog Nic Lewis is having another look at ECS. This is part one.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/19/emergent-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity-part-i/

  • Chris Warren says:

    “Yet more filth and pig ignorance from” … Neville and Co.

  • Chris Warren says:

    More “…religious mania.” from Neville and Co.

  • Chris Warren says:

    “… ignore the facts about the real world.” like a Neville and Co.

  • Chris Warren says:

    “Unbelievably stupid ” Neville and Co.

  • Chris Warren says:

    “… clueless … BS and fra-d.” from Neville and Co.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the EIA’s graph on coal use between 1980 and 2040. You’ll note that the OECD countries use of coal has stayed within about 10% of the 1980 level and will continue to do so until 2040.
    Certainly nearly all of the coal increase since 1980 has come from the non OECD countries like China, India etc.
    Of course most people are ignorant of these facts and a lot of my educated friends are surprised when I mention these facts.
    Here in OZ we will continue to see a big increase in population( through immigration) and yet we are supposed to sharply decrease our co2 emissions in the coming decades.
    But we will still be the world’s biggest exporter of coal and will be one of the biggest exporters of gas and iron ore for a long time to come. It’s just that we are not allowed to use fossil fuels at home to provide cheap and reliable energy.
    Why is it so?

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/figure_4-1.png

  • Neville says:

    Here’s another interesting SL post from Kip Hansen using latest NOAA data. NOAA states that 20th century SLR was 1.7 mm a year measured at the tide gauges. That’s about 7 inches for 20th century SLR.
    I’m still waiting for Judith Curry’s summary of the satellite data. It should be interesting.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/20/noaa-straight-talk-on-sea-level-rise/

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, Neville, only when they put a GPS chip on every tide gauge structure itself and not just the surrounding real estate will they start to get some truth about the state of sea levels.

      And even then, unless they get a fair cross section of the world that is rising compared to the world that is sinking it still won’t tell the whole story.

      But it will be a lot better than we have at present.

      In the meantime, local Australian sea levels are as indicative as any of the true situation.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Somebody’s got it wrong:

      Climate alarmists have hyped the Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu as a prime example of the dangers posed by rising sea levels caused by anthropogenic climate change. They warn Tuvalu’s islands will soon be underwater, creating thousands of climate refugees. Science is once again confounding the alarming climate projections: new research published in the journal Nature Communications shows Tuvalu is actually growing as sea levels rise.

      Abstract

      Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration. Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90?±?0.4?mm.yr?1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5?ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics.

  • Neville says:

    The Bolter’s podcast from 20th March exposes the deception and lies of the Greens. See 1 min 20 secs to 8.25 secs.
    How do these Green fools get away with this year after year when the Bolter can so easily refute their nonsense using publicly available data that can be accessed by anyone online?
    And why would any informed person want to vote for these fantasists? After all we are supposed to be living in the 21 st century, not Medieval Europe or listening to a witchdoctor dancing around a campfire.
    I guess some people never wake up and desperately need to believe any lie that stupid people tell them? IOW the blind leading the blind and happily flushing billions $ down the drain (for no measurable change) in the process.

    https://dashboard.whooshkaa.com/shows/sky-news-the-bolt-report

  • Neville says:

    This Washington Democrat blames snowfall on Jewish Bankers. This would be amusing if it wasn’t so barking mad.
    It looks like more donkeys voting for donkeys just like the fools voting for Green donkeys here in OZ.
    But what more can the Jews be blamed for I wonder? Hitler and Stalin were mad Jew haters too and would be proud of this stupid Democrat councillor blaming Jews for his lousy weather. Unbelievable but true.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/18/dc-council-member-apologizes-after-blaming-snowfall-on-jewish-bankers-controlling-climate.html

  • Neville says:

    Terry McCrann gives an excellent summary of Wind power???? on election day in SA.
    The data tells the story, not the BS coming from deluded Weatherill and his stupid Green mates. Proper evidence and data, ya gotta luv it.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/wind-blew-weatherill-out/news-story/efdb4e3f20459c5a7fe6869ebb526cb7

  • spangled drongo says:

    I wonder how believable the BoM’s categorising of our current cyclones are. These are the latest methods:

    “Satellites

    Scientist Vernon Dvorak developed a method for estimating hurricane strength by comparing satellite images with physical characteristics of the hurricane. This has become the basis for hurricane forecasting models used by meteorologists. NASA satellites collect hurricane data from space combined with computer-based climate mock-ups of sea surface temperatures, rain, wind and wave height.

    Buoys

    Buoys remain the last manmade structure in the waters in and near hurricanes, and because they don’t travel, buoys are suitable for the attachment of weather measuring instrumentation. Buoys can measure wind and air pressure, water and air temperatures as well as wind direction with anemometers, and they can measure sustained wind speeds in one-minute increments.

    Reconnaissance Aircraft

    Hurricane reconnaissance airplanes fly into hurricanes to measure wind speeds and barometric pressure and visually inspect the ocean surface. Planes travel at altitudes of approximately 10,000 feet and calculate wind measured at 10 meters above sea level based on measurements at 10,000 feet. Dropsondes descend from the plane with a pint-sized parachute to measure wind speed, providing approximate wind readings closer to the water surface, but they only gather localized snapshots rather than sustained wind speed information.”

    You can pretty well rule out buoys and those other methods would be very approximate and involve much assumption.

    But don’t the media just luvvit?

  • Don Aitkin says:

    ‘Climate sensitivity’ is one of the key issues in climate science, for without it there would be no likelihood of danger from an increase in atmospheric CO2. The term implies a positive effect from an increase in CO2, such that the effect of an increase in atmospheric CO2 is multiplied by whatever the level of sensitivity is thought to be. The IPCC says 1.5 to 4.5 times (i.e. that an increase of 1 degree C brought about by a doubling of CO2 would mean a real increase of temperature of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C).

    There are two problems with this assertion. The first is that a negative or null relationship is no less plausible, while the second is that no one has been able to positively measure such ‘sensitivity’.

    There is a new article about all this that is worth reading, and it is here: https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/climate-sensitivity-reducing-uncertainty-uncertainty_en.html

    • Chris Warren says:

      Don

      There is a problem with such “spring theory”.

      The authors have not included any feedback mechanism.

      CO2 warms the Earth which releases water vapour which adds to the warming.

      If you have any spring, oscillating as conjectured, and you keep on adding impetus (as feedback), the spring will always eventually break.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Maybe sensitivity is an empirical question that is best determined by measurements.

    Canberra’s long-term temperature record shows a night time warming trend of around 1.5C over 50 years [1930 – 1980]
    See; http://archive.is/uKJ8o

    The overall trend appears to be a ratcheting-up of otherwise natural variations.

    A negative or null relationship [temperature to CO2] can be ruled out as completely implausible. I am not aware of any science that supports a negative or zero sensitivity.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “A negative or null relationship [temperature to CO2] can be ruled out as completely implausible. I am not aware of any science that supports a negative or zero sensitivity.”

      But then there are lots of things in science that you aren’t aware of, hey blith?

      Remember the missing tropospheric “hot spot”?

      That was based on water vapour feedback and the IPCC climate models promoting the strongest positive water vapour feedback produced the hottest “hot spot”.

      Only there wasn’t any “hot spot”.

      Could WV possibly have a negative feedback?

      When science can’t figure out the basics, please spare us your consensual confusion.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?

      Positive feedback mechanisms enhance or amplify and eventually lead to tipping points [which has never happened in the past when CO2 was at a 2,000% increase, not 200%] while negative feedback mechanisms stabilize a system and prevent it from getting into extreme states. In many respects, the history of Earth’s climate system can be seen as a bit of a battle between these two types of feedbacks, but in the end, the negative feedbacks win out and our climate is generally stable with a limited range of change:

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/new-paper-finds-negative-feedback.html

  • Neville says:

    Dr Judith Curry has posted her latest summary on SLs. The big problem is the earlier faster 20th century warming of Greenland and Arctic and the faster glacier retreat from 1900 to 1950 compared to slower retreat after 1950 .
    I think that any so called discernible AGW attribution is just wishful thinking and is more likely to be Ocean oscillations like the natural PDO, AMO, NAO etc.
    Dr Curry also makes reference to undersea volcanoes in her article. Who knows, certainly not much dangerous SLR showing at the gauges.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/21/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-part-v-detection-attribution-2/#more-23956

  • Chris Warren says:

    Neville

    The global sea level rise is around 1 foot per century and there is no evidence that the number of undersea volcanoes or their activity are increasing.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “The global sea level rise is around 1 foot per century…”

      On what “evidence”, blith?

      Can’t believe your lying eyes or just refuse to use them?

      In areas with land that is relatively vertically stable compared to the rest of the world, such as Fort Dennison there has been 2.5 inches of SLR in the last century and now a GPS chip is indicating some sinking so there is virtually none.

      Until all the tide gauges have GPS chips mounted on them over several years we won’t know better than that.

      In the meantime, here’s one on the other side of the Pacific [San Francisco Bay] that also agrees with Sydney:

      http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/437_high.png

      • Neville says:

        SD I think sensible people can agree that there will be no dangerous SLR for a long time,
        But clueless fools like Flannery, ABC’s 100 metres Williams, Gore, Hansen etc are not interested in evidence or data , but instead have a very serious political agenda and have the taxpayer funding to promote it for as long as they like.
        Certainly pollies and the media seem to avoid debate and evidence at every opportunity.
        And they’ll even go after anyone who tries to present the correct data and then bring in more of their clueless mates to muddy the waters and tell more porkies.
        This has been going on for decades and covers just about all of the extremist nonsense about their so called CAGW.
        Little wonder that Dr Rosling found such blatant ignorance about the human experience ( last 200 years) among academics and the so called better educated elite.
        Yet he, Lomborg, Goklany, Ridley etc used data that is freely available online. Why is it so?

        • spangled drongo says:

          As a case in point, Neville, our current “cyclone”, Bloody Nora, has been touted by our BoM as up to cat 4 yet the strongest winds I could find were at Kowanyama at 29 knots gusting to 54 knots with lowest BP of 984 hPa at around 4.00 am this morning.

          Pussycat. Just a fresh travelling breeze up there. I don’t even reef my main in that stuff.

          A Category Four cyclone is: 86–107 knots {158–198 km/h} [constant] and 122–151 knots {226–280 km/h} [gusts]

          But they exaggerate it by a mere 300%.

          But don’t the Meeja and the bedwetters just lap it up.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, saying that ‘The global sea level rise is around 1 foot per century’ when the tide gauges suggest something much, much less is just a hand-wave unless you are prepared to deal with the differences between satellite and the gauge measurements. Plainly Sydney has not had the sort of sea-level rise you are talking about. Where then is all that water?

      You may be right, though I doubt it, but you can’t simply ignore measurements that have been collected patiently and well for much more than a century.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Don

        I do not know what you are saying. Tide gauge trend data (mm/yr) is available at:

        http://www.psmsl.org/products/trends/trends.txt

        It shows strong sea level rise over 1 mm/yr for over 50 gauges around Australia and falls for just two sites – Booby Islands and Brunswick Heads.

        There are a few gauges with low sea level rise (<1 mm/yr) which cherry pickers like to cite. They are:

        WALLAROO, FORT DENISON, EDEN, BRISBANE, LORNE.

        The remaining 50 or so exhibit varying sea level rise up to over 8 mm/yr at Perth (station 1761 in data file at link).

        Those with trends around a foot a century are:

        GLADSTONE
        SPRING BAY
        PORT KEMBLA
        WEIPA
        SHUTE HARBOUR 2
        KARUMBA
        HAY POINT
        LUCINDA
        CAPE LAMBERT
        ALBANY
        MOURILYAN HARBOUR
        ROSSLYN BAY
        THEVENARD
        GOODS ISLAND
        CAPE FERGUSON
        KING BAY
        ONSLOW
        MILNER BAY
        ESPERANCE
        WYNDHAM
        DARWIN
        GERALDTON
        BROOME

        If you have other (professional) data, please cite it.

        • spangled drongo says:

          In your cherry-picking, blith, you missed the ones that are going in the opposite direction:

          How about sea levels RISING at over 4 feet per year:

          https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9452210

          Poor ol’ blith can’t understand that in order to arrive at some scientific result he has to select the longest, continuous data tide gauges with the least vertical land movement [such as Fort Dennison] and even those are only the best of a bad bunch until we can establish true vertical TG movement.

          In 1982 NASA showed around 3.5 inches of SLR for the previous century.

          For that same period they have now doubled that figure.

          Welcome to 1984.

          On the Gold Coast in the ’60s you could buy flood-prone waterfront land for $1,000 a block.

          Those same blocks today are very sought after at $1,000,000 a block.

          Is that telling you anything, blith?

          In the meantime, as I keep telling you, simply go outside into the real world and check your local sea levels and if you see anything happening that in any way indicates SLR, come back and let us know.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Chris, you don’t know what I am saying because you are fixated on your own beliefs.

          Look, Fort Denison, the oldest tide gauge in our country, shows a long trend, much more than a hundred years, of 0.6mm a year. There’s no real sign of acceleration. Why isn’t all that water you think is out there flowing into Sydney Harbour, or into Eden, in southern NSW, which registers the same trend? Yes, there are higher tide gauge readings for NW Australia, but that’s been known for a long time. What does that suggest to you, Chris? Could it have something to do with the rise and fall of land? As another commenter says, when every tide gauge has a GPS attached, we will know a lot more than we do now.

          And while we wait, you might tell us where all the water is, and why it is going into some tide gauges and not into others.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Rapid sea level rise off the coast at Perth (Hillarys)

        http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/1761_high.png

        • spangled drongo says:

          Do try to supply some believable data, blith.

          A recent study of long term tide gauges from 1807-2010 showed 65% of the world’s tide gauges have recorded stable to falling sea levels.

          But as I have said above, until there is an audit with a GPS chip on each gauge over a period of years we won’t have an exact measurement.

          And always bear in mind that gauges on vertically stable land are always prone to sinking.

          It’s called decay/gravity.

          In the meantime our current average of around 1 mm/y [4 inches per century] from all gauges is nothing to bed wet about.

          And a true audit will eventually show less than this.

        • Chris Warren says:

          While the sea level is rising at around 1 foot per century, this is a global average.

          Several regions are experiencing greater sea-level rise, for example western Pacific and southern Pacific.

          Also regions off the coast of Japan seem to be experiencing extreme sea level rise.

          These measurements are taken by satellites and are w.r.t. the centre of the Earth.

          https://archive.is/c1raP

          • spangled drongo says:

            When are you going to try living in the real world, blith, and give up your ideology?

            The ocean is full of atolls that are INCREASING in area.

            And as for believing that satellites have the “centre of the earth” figured out accurately enough [to the nearest millimetre] to be able to give detailed change of a continuously and erratically moving sea surface when their orbits are constantly decaying, their reference frames are dubious and that same earth is a pear-shaped geoid with land and ocean bumps and bulges that vary radially in excess of 20 klm, all the while being fed by huge volumes of water in varying quantities from trade winds and storms of varying strengths, well, only those of a certain persuasion could do that.

            What would you expect those error bars to be? A metre? 10 metres?

            You do also realise that where the greatest equatorial bulge in sea levels is is also where these atolls are gaining the most additional land surface?

            Give up with the dancing angels, blith, and stick with the ever-improving tide gauge figures.

            That is, until you can be bothered making your own observations.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “These measurements are taken by satellites and are w.r.t. the centre of the Earth.”

            Here’s just one problem with that, blith, that still awaits solution:

            “We will describe how errors in the TRF impact our ability to answer key science questions, such as mean sea level rise”

            “Session: B.6 Other (non-Gravity) GRACE Applications
            Title: The Geodetic Reference Antenna in Space (GRASP) – A Mission to Enhance the Terrestrial Reference Frame
            First Author: R. Steven Nerem
            Presenter: R. Steven Nerem
            Co-Authors: Yoaz Bar-Sever and the GRASP Team

            Abstract: The Geodetic Reference Antenna in Space (GRASP) is a small satellite mission concept, currently being proposed to NASA’s Earth Venture 2 (EV-2) announcement of opportunity, that is dedicated to the enhancement of all the space geodetic techniques, promising revolutionary improvements to the definition of the TRF, its densification, and accessibility. GRASP collocates GNSS, SLR, VLBI, and DORIS sensors on a supremely calibrated and modeled spacecraft, offering an innovative space-based approach to a heretofore intractable problem: establishing precise and stable ties between the key geodetic techniques used to define and disseminate the TRF. GRASP also offers a solution to another difficult problem, namely, the consistent calibration of the myriad antennas used to transmit and receive the ubiquitous signals of the present and future Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). We will describe how errors in the TRF impact our ability to answer key science questions, such as mean sea level rise, and present new analysis of GRASP’s capability to improve various aspects of the TRF. We will also discuss opportunities for the geodetic community to contribute, support, and enhance this mission.”

            GPS is only as accurate as it because they use multiple spacecraft simultaneously. None of the data birds have that kind of multiple, overlapping measurements yet they measure much more complex, ever-moving stuff.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner actually states:
            “Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not
            just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure
            it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level]
            was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely
            no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid
            rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely
            no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
            Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
            publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
            changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per
            year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
            nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but
            they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which
            they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction
            factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was
            not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I
            accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow—
            I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not
            a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite,
            but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered,
            that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten
            any trend!” and then he continues
            “That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification
            of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And
            there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the
            rest of us, we are searching for the answer.”

            So the sooner this “introduced trend” is replaced with reality the better.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Chris, that’s a very short period in which to talk about a century-long trend!

          • Chris Warren says:

            Yes, but it is what we have.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Yes, we may have it, but it’s no basis for talking about what will happen in a hundred years’ time. We know nothing about the future. And the graph wanders around a lot as well. You need to observe the shape of the graph, not just the linear trend. Why does it move up and down? Do you have an explanation?

          • spangled drongo says:

            This is what it really looks like, Don. Not much happening at all.

            And the GPS is saying that it is sinking as well: 2.78 mm/y +/- 0.31

            http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1761_high.png

            But it is not a site you would use for long term information.

  • Neville says:

    A recent update from Lomborg on renewable energy using latest IEA data.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/where-do-we-get-most-of-our-energy-hint-not-renewables/

  • Neville says:

    Dr Jennifer Marohasy has a post quoting Bob Fernley Jones’s criticism of the 4 Corners program about OZ’s so called extreme temps and rainfall.
    He bothered to check the data and found that their ABC had told porkies about both low and high temps and rainfall.
    Will we get an apology for their sloppy work or will they just ignore him as is so often the case?
    But why is our media so clueless and always seem to favour alarmism and exaggeration.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2018/03/complaint-lodged-four-corners-weather-alert/

  • Neville says:

    The GWPF and Prof Ole Humlum have produced their latest State of the Climate Report.
    It is a thorough coverage and he claims that there has been little change in stratospheric temps for the last 23 years. Here is the PDF link.

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/03/State-of-the-Climate2017.pdf

  • Neville says:

    Could the fast charging of electric cars add the equivalent of another 20 homes to the grid? This seems to be the opinion of the largest electricity supplier in NZ. Who knows?

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/green-cars-worse-than-20-homes/news-story/720a56326aa9aeeedc23b3faf6f7fb24

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, Neville, when are we ever going to sort out what should be a straight forward problem.

      Here are some more rational facts about energy:

      http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/nuclear-fusion/

      • Neville says:

        Yes SD, your link to Ridley’s Times column is well worth the read. Just look at the mess Germany has made of their energy grid, wasting endless billions $ on clueless S&W , yet now they have to build more coal plants to try and generate enough energy for the future.
        And if Labor wins under that fool Shorten OZ will be closing down our reliable coal power asap. They’re barking mad.
        Ridley’s last few paragraphs tell the true story . Let’s hope nuclear fusion isn’t the pipe dream that it has proved to be so far.

        “Suppose fusion does make the “too cheap to meter” breakthrough that fission failed to make. We could then stop worrying about carbon dioxide, but what would we do with all this energy? We could make as much fresh water as we fancied, through desalination, to water the deserts. We could grow food indoors to release the countryside for nature. We could electrify all transport. We could enable Africa to become as wealthy as America.

        A green misery-monger called Paul Ehrlich once wrote that giving cheap, abundant energy to humanity would be like “giving an idiot child a machine gun”. On the contrary, cutting the cost of energy is absolutely central to delivering prosperity and fairness. This is why it is so baffling that Britain keeps pushing up the price of energy to encourage the medieval technologies of wood, wind and water power.

        Professor Dieter Helm’s official review of government energy policy last year found that we could have reduced carbon dioxide emissions for far less than the £100 billion already spent on renewables by encouraging a switch to gas. But, as he says, governments are bad at picking winners, while losers are good at picking governments. Meanwhile, Germany, which has spent something like a trillion euros on support for green energy, is now building lots of coal-fired power to keep the lights on.

        At huge cost, Germany is learning that you cannot have a cheap, reliable, low-carbon grid without the high EROEI of nuclear. The Energiewende is a historic error. But is there any guarantee governments would suddenly be more rational if fusion came along?”

        By: Matt Ridley | Tagged: rational-optimist
        the-times

  • margaret says:

    “Almost all top Sydney debaters come from private schools, where they could afford regular debating training — so it makes sense to try and balance that out by giving talented public school students a shot at becoming star debaters.”

    http://junkee.com/debating-sydney-uni-australian/151727

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don

    Moving up and down is likely due to oceanic circulation patterns and variations in high and low air pressures. The moon may complicate patterns based on monthly data, but this will cancel out using annual data.

    It is probably best to click on the Global Sea Level Observing System (GLOSS) data as:

    “GLOSS relies on the participation of tide gauge operators to maintain tide gauges stations to a research quality standard. At present about 80 nations participate in the GLOSS programme. ”

    If you click on different GLOSS stations identified here:

    http://www.gloss-sealevel.org/station_handbook/

    All we can say is that if whatever caused the overall rise so far, continues into the future, or worsens, sea level rise will continue. It may have a different spatial pattern. So far the cause has been identified as thermal expansion.

    Some sites are falling but most are rising and the overall picture is as at:

    https://archive.is/c1raP

    • spangled drongo says:

      For someone who really doesn’t know what’s going on outside, our blith should stick this on his wall:

      ##The global land and sea temperature record shows that temperatures have risen by about 1.0oC since 1850.

      ##Since 1901, global mean sea level has risen by about 19 cm.

      They are somewhat accurate but exceed the true measurements sufficiently to appeal even to his philosophy.

    • spangled drongo says:

      The satellites first showed no SLR but now show twice the tide gauge rate.

      The first GRACE gravity records gave an actual sea level lowering of 0.12 ±0.06 mm/yr.

      This measured value was later hypothetically “corrected” for global glacial isostasy so it fitted the now “corrected” satellite altimetry
      trend.

    • spangled drongo says:

      The mean of 170 PSMSL tide gauge stations having a length of more than 60 years is +0.25 ± 0.19 mm/yr.

      ONE INCH per century!

      The value obtained from many global test sites including the Maldives, Bangladesh, Goa in
      the Indian Ocean, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Majuro, Fiji in the Pacific, Surinam-Guyana in NE South
      America, Venice in the Mediterranean is ±0.0 mm/yr.

      ZERO per century!

  • Chris Warren says:

    Thermal expansion is not the only caused.

    Sea level rise disaggregated by cause.

    http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/1_25_16_upton_SLR_ocean_heat_FINAL_450_704_s_c1_c_c.jpg

    Source of data is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/6/1504.full.pdf

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris,

      First, the article is a contribution to a debate, not a statement of incontrovertible facts. Second, the average shown is 2.75mm per year. But Sydney and Eden, and lots of other places, haven’t seen anything like such an increase. Why? Once you start alluding to ‘natural causes’ you’re close to ‘natural variation’, but you can’t say exactly what its components are, any more than you can with respect to temperature. And you aren’t addressing the mismatch between satellite measurements and tide gauges (note that the rough PMSL data you used come with errors and warnings about the use of the figures).

      Your ordinary reader would, I think, be likely to say that it all looks like a bit of a muddle, really, and that we don’t know a lot. Whenever you have data that are not consistent the safest thing you can do is to say that ‘we don’t know’ and pass on to something else. Unless, of course, you are an advocate, in which case you say loudly that your data are the right ones.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Don

        The average of 2.75 only relates to 2002-2014. The rate from 2011 to 2016 is much greater. See pg 26 of

        https://tinyurl.com/BOM-annual2015

        There is no natural cause that produces this chart.

        The BOM states:

        “Global sea-level measurements from satellite altimetry
        over the period January 1993 to October 2015 show
        sea level rose at a rate of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year. A recent
        reanalysis of the altimeter and in situ sea level data by
        CSIRO and the University of Tasmania, using Global
        Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) models and Global Positioning
        System (GPS) data (where available) to estimate the
        vertical movement of tide gauges, indicates a small
        uncertainty of about 1 cm in the first decade of the
        altimeter record. If further results confirm this reanalysis,
        the new rate of rise would be in the range of 2.7 ± 0.4
        to 3.0 ± 0.4 mm/yr; about 15 per cent below earlier
        estimates.”

        The authors are aware of natural variations and state:

        “Sea level, and changes in sea level, are not uniform
        around the globe and are influenced by natural climate
        variability such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation
        (ENSO) and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (on
        different timescales) and associated changes in winds
        and currents”.

        They indicate that sea level rise off the coast of Sydney and Eden is over 6 mm/yr at page 27.

        They also explain why tide gauges are not comparable to satellite measurements. Satellite measurements are w.r.t. to the centre of the earth.

        https://archive.is/c1raP This corroborates the higher sea level rise off the coast of Eden and Sydney.

        “AVISO+” advises: “The global mean level of the oceans is one of the most important indicators of climate change. It incorporates the reactions from several different components of the climate system. Precise monitoring of changes in the mean level of the oceans, particularly through the use of altimetry satellites, is vitally important, for understanding not just the climate but also the socioeconomic consequences of any rise in sea level. ”

        Satellite data is preferable as you cannot place tide gauges in the middle of oceans.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Chris, a 2015 report cannot talk about 2016 sea levels, though it does. That doesn’t fill me with confidence. And it’s satellite stuff again. I can only infer that you don’t believe the Fort Denison tide gauge, or indeed any tide gauge that doesn’t accord with satellite altimetry. And you haven’t answered the question: why hasn’t the the large sea level increase filtered into south eastern NSW?

          In short, you’re not interested in reality, but in pushing your beliefs. I know, I said this before…

          You may be right, but I doubt it, and the data don’t support your view, let alone the notion that what you have seen can be extended into the late 21st century.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Don

            So you don’t believe global satellite data because of individual sites when everyone knows there are local variations?

            Climate change impacts the whole globe not just sites with gauges.

            The trends are clear – As AVISO+ states:

            “By applying the postglacial rebound correction (-0.3 mm/year), the rise in mean sea level has thus been estimated as 3.33 mm/year (mean slope of the plotted data).
            Analysing the uncertainty of each altimetry correction made for calculating the GMSL, as well as a comparison with tide gauges gives an error in the GMSL slope of approximately 0.5 mm/year with a 90% confidence interval. ”

            https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/mean-sea-level.html

          • Don Aitkin says:

            What a great wriggler you are! I neither believe them nor disbelieve them. I simply point out that they do not accord with tide gauge measurements. There is a mismatch. It is no use saying that there is a really rapid rise in sea levels, as measured by satellites, if there is no sign of the increase in tide gauges.

            Can’t you see that there is a problem? I don’t have the answer to it. And you don’t, though you won’t face it. So, for the moment, I have to say that there is no strong evidence that sea levels have risen quickly, no matter what the altimeters say. It may be so, and it may not be so. The evidence simply doesn’t tell us. It just gives us another problem to deal with.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “Satellite data is preferable as you cannot place tide gauges in the middle of oceans.”

          Poor ol’ blith doesn’t seem to understand that to measure sea level accurately you have to have a stilling pond.

          Whatever complex statistical method is used by satellites to calculate sea levels in mid ocean [with noise far exceeding any signal] only measures the level that exists there for a varying period of time and for them to claim that this is permanent SLR is plainly wrong.

          These ocean hills and valleys are only constant and on going while the [somewhat constant and ongoing] weather patterns hold but quickly change when they do.

          They are the basis of ocean currents seeking equilibrium.

          If you’ve ever tried to win a yacht race on the east coast of Australia you will be very familiar with the problem.

          To claim that these short term moundings in the ocean are any sort of permanent sea level rise is simply blither and their temporariness in the tropics can be seen on all the coral atoll tide gauges.

          And you may have noticed you can’t push the water up one end of your bath and expect it to stay there for very long but that is precisely why they can record much higher rates of SLR offshore than in the stilling ponds of the tide gauges.

          As Don says, if these much higher offshore levels were anything but a temporary state then the local sea levels and tide gauges would show it.

          And they don’t, so they aren’t.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Don

          I have lost track of your argument.

          If you are concerned about differences between satellite measurements and gauges, then so be it. However the differences do NOT alter the fact that sea levels have been rising for over 100 years.

          The US EPA has produced a chart that combines both gauge and satellite data which shows the difference. It also shows that BOTH show sea level rising.

          According to tide gauges recent sea level has gone from 6 inches in 1990 to 8.5 inches by 2010.

          https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/sea-level-figure1-2016.png

          The satellite data, which I prefer, shows sea levels went from 6.29″ in 1993 to 8.94″ in 2015.

          https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/sea-level_fig-1.csv

          This is a rise of 2.65 inches in 22 years or slightly less than 1 foot per century.

          If you analyse the satellite data you will find a current acceleration rate of 0.4″ per century.

          Whatever the differences between the two data sets are – this does not change what is occurring across the globe.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Chris, You say ‘I have lost track of your argument’, and plainly you have. Sea levels appear to have been rising for the last several thousand years at a slow and reasonably steady rate. You prefer satellite data, which start in 1993.

            OK. There is a mismatch between them and tide gauges, and since those of us who live at the coast are concerned about what happens where we live we use tide gauges. They do not show what the satellites show — or at least a lot of them don’t. Land rises and falls in different parts of the world. Some apparent sea-level rises and falls are affected by land rises and falls.

            All this is complicated, and no one has sorted it out. It may never be sorted out. But you prefer satellite measurements, even when they are plainly at cross purposes with what is happening locally. Please don’t warn Sydney-siders or Eden-dwellers of the great slosh of water that is out there. They’ll think you are a scare-monger. What they can see is the same slow accretion of sea level they, their parents and grandparents have seen for the past century.

          • Neville says:

            Chris do you claim there is an acceleration of 0.4 inches per century in sat data?
            If so I don’t see your problem and I don’t think anyone should claim such precise forecasts over the next 100 years.
            Remember there has been much higher rates of SLR during the Holocene climate optimum and SLs on the OZ east coast were at least 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago. See ABC Catalyst “Narrabeen Man.”
            So what caused that much higher Holocene warming and much higher SLs than we see today?
            Don’t forget the Earth has been warming slightly from the end of the coldest period (LIA) of the last 10,000 years.

          • NH says:

            There isn’t a big discrepancy between satellite altimeter and tide gauge estimates of global sea level rise during the last 25 years. By altimeter it is about 3.3mm/yr and by tide gauge about 3.1mm/yr (http://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/5946.short). You may have been misled by estimates for the last 100 years – say 1.7mm/yr – but obviously this is for a different period.

            If this rate had been steady for the last several thousand years then sea levels 200 years ago would have been 6 metres lower. We know this can’t be right because still-existing Roman fish traps couldn’t have worked at that level.

            The Port Kembla tide gauge has a rate of 3.7mm/yr. If you are interested in sea levels for the south coast then this is the one to use.

          • spangled drongo says:

            These high stands of blith’s “sea level rise” are all over the oceans and have always been there.

            They are the source of most of the ocean currents.

            Back before the days of GPSs sailors could only locate them by using thermometers and in most cases these currents flowed into the wind.

            If it was blowing northerly, it was a northerly current, southerly, a southerly current [winds are named after the direction they come from, currents after the direction they head to] and so on.

            In other words the ocean is always being pushed and mounded down wind by the wind’s force, causing sea level rise and the current simply flows back seeking gravitational equilibrium.

            The Australian East Coast Current flows in all directions dependant on wind direction, strength and longevity.

            These high stands and currents are also affected by PDOs, AMOs etc.

            40 years ago I was given the job of skippering a yacht in an international series in Hawaii right at the time of a big shift in the PDO which made a big difference to these high stands so after making a study of it we modified the yacht accordingly.

            As a result we won every race both on line honours and handicap and won the series.

            I mention that to show that people who need to know have been aware of blith’s “sea level rise” long before altimetry satellites.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            NH, thanks for your comment. Why should I prefer Port Kembla to either Eden or Fort Denison as a statement about sea levels on the south coast of NSW?

          • Chris Warren says:

            Don

            Such differences between sites, suggests strongly that it is best to use averages of all sites.

            Also this data set can be compared to satellite data. You cannot get satellite data for Eden or Port Kembla.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Dear Heaven! Here I am in Mosman or Eden, I have a tide gauge that seems to have been working well for a century or so, and you want me to use the averages of all sites. In heaven’s name, why?

          • spangled drongo says:

            But-but-but Don, ya can’t bed-wet over the ho-hum local tide gauge or king tide levels like ya can over the carefully confected catastrophe of blith’s cli-sci.

          • NH says:

            Don,
            Fort Denison is a valuable long-term tide gauge. However until recently it was not easy to check its vertical movement because it is on an island about 500m from the shore. This was done by trigonometrical heighting which is now considered inaccurate for the purpose. It is also inside a closed harbour. This is less than ideal for estimating the sea level trend of the open coast. The long term trend over 130 years does not necessarily reflect the present trend.
            Port Kembla is a SEAFRAME gauge and is not of course long term, however it has 27 years of high quality data in the area of interest. It is up to date as regards its recording method and checks on vertical movement. It is a puzzle why you never refer to this station.
            According to Church & White Eden has a trend that is anomalous compared with nearby locations to both the north and south, and there could be some datum or vertical movement issues (although I would have to say the levelling record looks pretty thorough). I actually don’t have any good reason why you shouldn’t use it, but not in preference to Port Kembla for the northern region anyway.

            By the way the Roman period was 2000 years ago not 200 as I said. It was certainly well over by 1818.

            “Whenever you have data that are not consistent the safest thing you can do is to say that ‘we don’t know’ and pass on to something else.” I can’t accept this. A scientist would regard that as a challenge, and an engineer would check the data and the cause because it might be serious problem.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Don

            Global warming impacts the entire globe and creates different ice melt trends at different places. It creates different patterns of rain, atmospheric warming, winds and ocean warming in different regions and at different times.

            So anyone choosing just one or two sites would have no way of knowing whether they are representative and therefore are probably making a huge error.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            NH, there is nothing anomalous about Fort Denison and Eden — they are virtually the same. If you look at all the Australian sites, which I have done, there is a range of trends over time. Some are smallish, in southeastern Australia. There are quite large ones in NW Australia. My interest in all this is whether or not one should be alarmed about sea-level rise, and my response is that it depends on where you live. The evidence over time, closed harbour or not, is that there is no danger at all in Sydney or Eden. I’m not sure about the meaning of ‘closed harbour’. Fort Denison is quite close to the entrance, and the entrance itself is large. I’ve sailed there over the years, and know the area well. Same with Eden, though I haven’t sailed there. Tide gauges seem to do the job well in both places.

            If you’re convinced that doom is approaching, then of course you would need to be absolutely sure, and those of that mind prefer satellite measurements, because they show a much larger rise. As I keep saying, there is a mismatch, and doom-worriers don’t want to deal with that. Because there is such inconsistency, and there seems no danger, I pass on to something more interesting. I agree that somebody ought to do the work, and no doubt somebody will. When that is done we will know more. On present evidence there is no danger at all from sea-level rises in the present, and we have ample time to build defences against it, if that proves sensible, once we learn more.

          • spangled drongo says:

            NH,

            Port Kembla TG is in a similar stilling pond to Fort Denison TG except that FD is in a natural one whereas PK is in a man-made one that could have hydraulics issues.

            This one, a little further south in Jervis Bay [also in a natural stilling pond] shows the latest sea levels lower than they were in 1989:

            http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/2312_high.png

            But when a complete audit of long term tide gauges after ~ 20 years installation of GPS chips on the actual gauge is carried out, we will have a better [ still not accurate because GPS accuracy is questionable] idea of what the world sea levels are actually doing.

            In the meantime pay particular attention to the levels of your local Highest Astronomical Tides.

            In Moreton Bay they are up to a foot lower than they were 70 years ago.

            On the Gold Coast they are up to a foot lower than they were 55 years ago.

            Based on very precise, still existing and easy to assess sea front infrastructure.

  • spangled drongo says:

    When “experts” quote their estimated results from a combination of faulty reprocessed methods with a straight face you have to begin to wonder about the honesty of cli-sci.

    Not that there was ever much lack of doubt.

    But using:

    Reprocessed and known to be moving, short term TDs

    Reprocessed, malfunctioning GRACE

    Reprocessed, reprocessed Topex/Poseidon/Jason/etc

    Plus the many additional hubristic assumptions such as claiming they know the centre of the earth to the nearest millimetre, the complete temperature of the total ocean at all depths, etc.

    Is a truly obvious, desperate exercise.

    Well…obvious to most rational people anyway.

    Thinks…now what could possibly influence “experts” to tell obvious porkies like that?

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Cairns and surrounding areas have copped about a metre of rain over several days and on Monday 100mm fell in one minute.”

    Several newspapers are reporting this incredible story.

    From what I can find the world record is about 30 mm in one minute.

    This is a huge increase. Anybody know any details?

  • Neville says:

    Rapes by organised Muslim gangs are occurring in the UK on an industrial scale and yet their BBC seems to want to turn a blind eye to this most serious of crimes.
    Many of the girls are underage and yet their is barely a mention of this terrible crime in our media although this has been happening in many cities across the UK.
    Of course this has also occurred in other countries in Europe and there is little wonder that there is such growing concern about Muslim immigration. But when will the stupid politicians wake up and reduce immigration from countries that have so little regard for basic civilised behaviour?

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/third-muslim-rape-ring-beyond-coincidence/news-story/c9271d93cdca51ec5e90f763a358f497

  • Chris Warren says:

    Neville

    It is a feint sign. The time-series for satellite data is too short for anything else.

    However the ERA chart for tidal gauges does have a slight concave-up shape – ie increasing slope.

    • Neville says:

      Right Chris, now can you explain what the trend is and how much of that trend is due to increased co2 emissions?

  • spangled drongo says:

    These were all supposed to melt by 2030 but once again we have global warming causing more cooling:

    “Precipitation?driven glacier changes in the Pamir and Hindu Kush mountains.

    Abstract

    Glaciers in the Pamir?Hindu Kush?Karakoram appear to be less influenced by global warming and have instead experienced slight gains in mass, unlike most other glaciers around the world. Here we apply laser altimetry and satellite?derived precipitation products to characterize the relationship between the glaciers and precipitation. We found a strong correlation (r???0.92, p?<?0.005) between the year?to?year changes in glacier thickness and precipitation in the Pamir and Hindu Kush from 2003 to 2008, indicating the primary role of precipitation in the glacier changes. The amount of precipitation in the glacial region is underestimated by approximately 7?±?2 times in the gridded precipitation product. This underestimation is attributed to the low resolution and lack of orographic precipitation in the gridded products. The long?term precipitation data show strong interannual variations, which probably cause similar variations in glaciers and biases in previous glacier mass change estimates."

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL072646?campaign=wolacceptedarticle

  • spangled drongo says:

    The new Gallup Poll on AGW.

    The left becomes more militant with sceptics in charge:

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/gallup-globalwarming-2018-2.png

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don

    Is there any reason you would not use the BoM data that:

    “… includes a network of earth monitoring stations for geodetic observations, implemented and maintained by Geoscience Australia. The earth monitoring installations provide Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurements to allow absolute determination of the vertical height of the tide gauges that measure sea level.”

    See: http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/abslmp.shtml

  • JimboR says:

    Don Aitkin: ” I agree that somebody ought to do the work, and no doubt somebody will. When that is done we will know more.”

    They already have: “Australian sea levels—Trends, regional variability and influencing factors”
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825214000956

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Thanks Jimbo. A good paper, but you will have observed that only twelve tide gauges in Australia have GPS indicators, and that the GIA ‘measurement’ is modelled, not real. This is a beginning, not the end.

    • spangled drongo says:

      So jimb introduces more science where the large noise of the satellites is married to the lesser noise of the tide gauges and claims the science is complete.

      That isn’t work “done”, jimb, that’s only work in progress.

      Accurately estimating trends in global mean sea levels is still a challenging task. A longer period of observation is needed to distinguish the interannual and decadal variability from the long-term trend in sea-level records.

      Also, satellite altimetry measurements of mean sea level for regions outside the 66° N–66° S zone are not readily available.

      Interestingly some of the papers they referred to agree with my own observations on the state of SLs over 50 years ago but they sure need to observe and report on the current lack of SLR since then that is staring them [and all of us, too] in the face but which they just refuse to see.

      Instead of removing it by simply applying their desired retrieval Al-Gore-ithm to incredibly noisy satellite altimetry.

    • JimboR says:

      “the GIA ‘measurement’ is modelled, not real.”

      I think that’s always going to be the case. A tide gauge is never going to be able to break down the reading into its component parts. The only thing you can measure is the compound signal which is comprised of several underlying signals each with their own patterns, cycles and signatures. If you want to assess the contribution of any one of those components, you’ll need to use maths to deconstruct it into its component parts and there will always be some uncertainty introduced as a result. Uncertainty, and even conflicting data, is never an excuse to shrug it all away and hope for the best. Business leaders are always having to make judgements based on uncertain data.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Business leaders are always having to make judgements based on uncertain data.”

        But you’ll notice, jimb, that business leaders don’t ignore the elephant in the room by making up stuff to claim it’s not there.

        Also, GIA is only part of the vertical movement that involves tide gauges and the net movement can be assessed reasonably accurately by GPS.

        A lot more accurately than sea levels can be with satellite altimetry.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “A tide gauge is never going to be able to break down the reading into its component parts.”

        A tide gauge only has to show two things: 1/ how much the sea level is moving in relation to datum and 2/ how much the gauge is moving vertically.

        Both on a periodic basis.

        • spangled drongo says:

          I should have said “tide gauge data” has only to show…..It is, of course, the GPS chip attached to the TG that will show the latter.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Jimbo, SD has beaten me to it. But what is being modelled is GIA. So the ‘corrections’ to the real data are modelled ones. Forgive me if i find them interesting only.

        If you want real measurements, as SDS says, you’ll need a GPS monitor on every tide gauge. We only have twelve at the moment.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Don

          GPS analysis has been done in the context of tide gauges. The corrections are to real data.

          Reed J. Burgette et. al. published a paper in “Geophysical Journal International” (2013). The project was funded by Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP0877381).

          They noted:

          “Analysis of the available continuous GPS records that have been collected within 80 km of Australian tide gauges suggests that rates of vertical crustal motion are generally low, with the majority of sites showing motion statistically insignificant from zero. A notable exception is the significant component of vertical land motion that contributes to the rapid rate of relative sea level change (>4mmyr?1) at the Hillarys site in the Perth area.” Further that there are 12 continuous GPS sites in Australia with at least 5 yr of data within 100 km of a tide gauge.

          In fact: “Our observed vertical land motion rates from the GPS time series show that the vertical deformation of the coast of continental Australia is occurring at generally low rates, consistent with the distance from active plate boundary zones”.

          They analysed the;

          “…records of continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers nearest to tide gauges to obtain estimates of geocentric sea level rise,
          separating the effects of vertical land motion from observed relative sea level change.”

          The authors also noted that the 15 gauges that are part of the “Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project” are regularly monitored
          for vertical stability with respect to local tide gauge benchmarks using high-precision levelling.

          The bottom line is that:

          “The GPS-measured rates of vertical crustal deformation are consistent with the majority of the geodetic sites not experiencing statistically significant rates of vertical movement. Taken together, these observations suggest that the rates of relative sea level change from the higher quality tide gauges are not statistically significantly different from geocentric sea level rise around the Australian coastline within the current levels of uncertainty in both the GPS and tide gauge observing systems. The mean rates of sea level rise around Australia are similar to, or slightly higher than those inferred globally for similar time periods.”

          As you probably realise “GPS receivers do not need to be precisely co-located with tide gauges to monitor tide gauge stability, and in some cases benefit by being positioned away from the immediate tide gauge vicinity, as long as relatively regular ties are made between the tide gauge sensor by levelling and/or additional GPS observations”.

          • spangled drongo says:

            That has all been known for years, blith.

            Until GPS chips are placed on all gauges that are used for serious SLR audit [and have been there for some time] the truth won’t be known.

            And even then there are other movements that have been happening for years from decay, gravity etc that register increased SLR that are not accounted for.

            In the meantime you better go and look yourself and take notes.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Chris,

            The paper you cite is familiar and does not say anything about GIA modelling corrections at all. The paper repeats something I said before.

            Why do you do this?

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Chris, you would do well to read Judith Curry’s latest instalment of her continuing series about sea-level rise

            https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/02/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-projections-for-the-21st-century/

            which finishes with this paragraph:

            ‘The bottom line is that the sea level rise will continue to rise in the 21st century, probably at a rate more than 8 inches observed in the 2oth century. And there will be substantial regional and local variations in the rate of sea level rise. Reducing emissions will have little effect on sea level rise in the 21st century even if you believe the climate models; compare the difference in sea level rise for the RCP2.6 versus RCP4.5 scenarios.’

            Her whole series is based on a close reading of the IPCC reports, plus dozens of papers that bear on the subject. The central question is whether or not anyone should be properly worried about sea-level rise. In her view the modelled projections rely on climate sensitivity estimates that are much too high. There is abundant evidence to this effect. For local communities the really important question is: what is happening here? And the best guess will come from the local tide gauge, qualified by a GPS monitor if there is one. The rate of sea-level rise is quite low everywhere, and there is plenty of time to do what is sensible if indeed the increasing sea-level threatens housing or other installations.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Don

            Presumably it does not need modeling when it uses actual data.

            Maybe models are useful for projections, but are they needed to work with current readings?

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Chris, the White et al paper Jimbo provided uses modelled GIA estimates to relate satellite to tide-gauge data. I don’t think that is good enough, though it is a start. What is needed are GPS monitors at tide gauges. There seem to be only twelve of them in Australia, or maybe fifteen. They aren’t enough. What we know is that in this part of Australia (SE) land is pretty stable, which suggests that the long-term tide-gauge figures for Eden and Sydney are accurate.

            Yes, the GPS corrections are to real data. We were, however, talking about GIA corrections. Perhaps you should read Curry on all this, as I suggested above. She only uses IPCC and refereed paper data.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Don

            There is no problem with the Curry statement you noted. As Curry says, the rate of 21st C sea level rise will be greater than 20th C sea level rise. So a current rate over 8 inches, up to a foot seems logical.

            Satellite and tide gauges seem to validate projections. See:

            https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

            As Curry noted “although local values may be substantially more or less based on local vertical land motion, land use, regional ocean circulations and tidal variations.”.

            This suggests it would be unwise to base any interpretation on mere 2 tide gauges particularly if they are on the same ocean or sea.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Only our blith could quote a source that would run a graph completely free of error bars that are so big there is room for that graph to go in the opposite direction.

  • spangled drongo says:

    As a builder of water front houses, jetties and various infrastructure on the Gold Coast since 55 years ago I always had to abide by the latest regulations for complying with sea levels.

    Because of new regulations based on what the legislators have had drummed into them following the “known science” of SLR, the floor level of a habitable room has been increased 100mm [~ 4 inches] over this time but the actual king tide levels have fallen up to at least twice that.

    It is very easy to see at any king tide as all the old sea walls going back 60 years were built to AHD100 [king tide level].

    That sort of evidence [as well as much other evidence] is available in many parts of the country to anyone who is interested enough to learn the facts of current sea levels.

Leave a Reply