Gary C says:
April 2, 2017 at 8:48 pm (Edit)
Two articles from 2016 supporting models:
“Comparing models to the satellite datasets” : -to-the-satellite-datasets/
“Models” :
Don Aitkin says:
April 2, 2017 at 9:23 pm (Edit)
Gary, you get the honour of having the first comment in the new Off-Topic Thread. I’ll comment there.

Join the discussion 105 Comments

  • Don Aitkin says:


    I know both these articles. They are not really germane to the topic of the BoM (they don’t mention the BoM, and are about other climate issues). Tamino’s paper is mostly about RCP 8.5, which is about the most unlikely future imaginable. If you don’t know about these scenarios, they are worth exploring.

  • Neville says:

    Just more proof that we are wasting billions $ every year changing our energy mix from reliable coal to clueless, unreliable W&S. China and Pakistan are opening up Pakistan’s huge brown coal reserves to supply Pakistan’s future energy needs.
    But here in OZ we’re shutting down our most reliable coal energy and replacing it with disastrous fairytale energy. What a criminal waste of our time and money, because our mad left wing pollies are too stupid to understand simple maths and use simple logic and reason.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Coal is so far ahead in the energy solution stakes yet we are too stupid to see it:

    “Feng recently took The Australian on a tour of his virtually spotless Waigaoqiao Number 3 power station, which produces 138 per cent as much electricity as the ­Yallourn coal-fired plant in ­Vic­toria’s Latrobe Valley.

    It operates with a workforce 53 per cent the size of the Australian generator, emits just 13 per cent as much carbon dioxide equivalent, and its efficiency — measuring how much of the energy in the coal ends up as electricity — is 166 per cent that of Yallourn. It took three years to build, and opened in July 2008.”

    13% emissions would beat wind and solar without even considering their unreliability.

    We’ll just export it all [including jobs] overseas like we do with uranium.

    What a clever lot we are!

  • margaret says:

    For those in their bubbles of privilege and neocon denial:

    Associate Professor Ben Phillips, of the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, has done the figures. Allowing for inflation and population growth, “on average we find that living standards in Australia peaked in June 2012 with living standards increasing by 53.5 per cent since March 1990. Since this peak, living standards have declined by 0.6 per cent to March 2016.”

    Tragically, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has been squeezed so much that it gave up its series “Measuring Australia’s Progress” which took into account all the things that really matter to people’s wellbeing. And we plod on with the deeply flawed and delusional GDP measure. And no doubt, when the figures come in confirming the 103-quarter “record”, some of our deeply flawed and delusional ministers will take the credit.

      • margaret says:

        From above article:

        “For pro-free marketers climate change is a nasty bur in their shoe. If you accept that climate change could lead to rising sea levels, coastal inundation, dislocation of large masses of people, increased intensity of tropical storms and droughts, and grave risks to food and water supply, then you have to accept the market failed to account for such impacts and not only allowed, but ensured they would happen.
        Little wonder many free marketeer thinktanks and political parties have instead embraced lunatic theories about climate change being a conspiracy involving the UN, Nasa, every university in the world, China, all major meteorological bodies, the World Bank and the makers of tin foil hats.
        Delusion is preferable to admitting fault.”

        • spangled drongo says:

          That’s right, marg. Neo-Marxism beats free market policies every day.

          Look how it’s proved it in the recent past when they had to slaughter millions to make it “work”?

          If you insist on being a lemming, marg, go for it, you and your mates too, but include me out.

          I don’t think you know you’re alive.

        • spangled drongo says:

          To be rationally sceptical, marg, all you have to do is have a look at Sydney’s Fort Denison where there has been almost nothing happening wrt sea level rise throughout known history.

          Or Moreton Bay where the sea levels are actually falling.

          No SLR = no global warming, other than natural climate variability.

          And this is precisely what’s happening.

          But even the IPCC says that a 1.8c increase would be beneficial and we are nowhere near that.

          You can choose to bed-wet and drive yourself into hysterical poverty over your religious belief or you can be a rational sceptic.

          Which would you rather?

          C’mon, marg, tell me.

          • Neville says:

            SD sea levels were much higher around the world about 4,000 years ago. That’s after the much warmer Holocene climate optimum, that lasted for thousands of years. On our east coast SLs were 1.5 metres higher than they are today. See Narrabeen Man ABC Catalyst .
            Co2 levels were about 280 ppm during that time so what was the driver that caused the much higher temps to persist for thousands of years? Read the transcript or watch video here. But of course it must be us and our CAGW today. What a load of Hansen’s BS.


          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes Neville, and the GBR extended much further south too. Most of that dead coral in Moreton Bay was dredged to make cement to build Brisbane.

            How did we manage to warm like that with only 250 ppm CO2?

          • Ross says:

            Spangles special talent. The ability to remain rooted in one spot, and yet be all over the shop at the same time.

          • margaret says:

            Spangled Ross has given me a terrific image of you – as a whirling dervish.

          • margaret says:

            And no, I don’t want to bed-wet or be hysterically impoverished – keep whirling I’m entertained now.

          • spangled drongo says:

            That noise you just heard, rossie, was your in depth comment going right over my head and landing in the woodwork.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “keep whirling I’m entertained now.”

            But are you rational yet?

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Margaret, the article sets out the issue as having only two possible positions. You can, for perfectly good reasons, and abundant evidence, suggest that global warming is not leading to significantly higher sea-levels, coastal inundation and all the rest, without belonging to a free-market think-tank, or indeed knowing anything about them. That is part of the problem with the issue. It has many shades of interpretation, and people like me, and many others I know, try to keep balancing what we think we know with what comes to us as new information. It’s not easy.

          • margaret says:

            I know it’s not easy otherwise we’d all understand it. Malcolm Roberts thinks he knows but I saw him wearing a tin foil hat after last night’s Four Corners.
            Honestly we’ll all be dead and gone by the time our grandkids are dealing with the consequences of AGW so how can, and why would, any individual think they can score points on this.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Well, Margaret, one reason is not to score points, but to stop wasting money which could go to all sorts of much worthier causes.

          • margaret says:

            Yes, the worthy cause of the underpaid workers who underpin society, I would be happy with a here and now detente from those who endlessly argue the point about whether or not AGW will affect the lives of our grandkids some of whom will inevitably be ‘working class’.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Gary C

    Yes, models are based on real, hard observations, that need interpretation. The comment from Tamino that:

    “When the one deniers have been crowing about (like the so-called “pause”) turns out not to be, they switch to a different talking point.
    Lately they want to focus on computer models, in the vain hope that by discrediting them they can discredit all of climate science.”

    is how I see things.

    However they also seem rather vague as to what model they are comparing later observations to. I assume they use the Business As Usual projections from different Assessment Reports, so naturally their conclusions are way out. Christy used average of climate model runs so would have incorporated some low and high extremes without knowing whether they cancelled out appropriately.

    But the key point is that our deniers may raise all manner of hue-and-cry over mainstream models, but when they present their understanding, as models, they get results that bear no resemblance to reality. Some even predict global cooling (Don Easterbrook). and of course – Jo Nova’s David Evans who claims ” The next climate trend is cooling.”

    And Nova dares criticise the BoM !!!!!!!!!!!

  • Chris Warren says:

    Models vs observations

    • Neville says:

      Chris, here is Christy’s testimony before the US House of Reps last week. This should open at the correct graph ( 25mins 50 secs) showing the difference between models and observations from balloons and satellites.
      He even provides a second straight lines trend graph to better show how much error now exists in the model trends. I believe the one model that is the closest in the first graph is a Russian model that relies heavily on solar forcing.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Try CMIP 5, chrissie luv:

  • Neville says:

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been forced to cancel her OZ tour because of threats from Muslim extremists. This highly intelligent decent woman was also viciously attacked by OZ female Muslim extremists for telling the truth about this mad cult.

    Of course the mad Fairfax press led the pack and now this courageous woman has been called a lunatic. Her best friend was murdered in the street by these mad Muslim fanatics and she now has to have 24/7 protection to survive and live what she has left of her life.

    I first watched her when she joined Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennet on tour in the US and since then she has won my admiration and respect. She has called for freedom for all Muslim women and for a reformation of this mad cult. She has won the support of sensible people from the left and right all over the world and yet her mainstream message has been hounded out of OZ under threat of death. Here’s the Bolter’s editorial last night and just incredible that OZ has succumbed to this vile and deadly left wing extremism.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, Neville, we choose to ignore and be blind to the problems of Islam:

      “The commission, now in its fourth year, has diligently investigated Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Jewish, Jehovah’s Witnesses and obscure cults — along with sporting groups and the entertainment industry.”

      Peter Lalor:

      “Islamic organisations have dodged scrutiny by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which has spent four years probing numerous religious organisations but made no inquiries into Islam.

      The commission, now in its fourth year, has diligently investigated Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Jewish, Jehovah’s Witnesses and obscure cults — along with sporting groups and the entertainment industry.

      But it has published no information on sexual abuses against children within Islam, the third largest religion in Australia…

      Lawyer Peter Kelso, who has represented 15 survivors of Christian institutions, recently wrote to the commission asking if it had looked at abuse from within Islam, particularly relating to forced child marriage, female genital mutilation and child sex.

      “All groups need to be treated equally and fairly,” said Mr Kelso, who got no answers from the commission but argues it should give a balanced picture of faith-based abuse.”

    • margaret says:

      Perhaps she’s a comprador intellectual.

  • Chris Warren says:


    Did you know that Christy’s charts 2,3 have been debunked?

    Also the validity of such models has been discussed here:

    Figure 5, p4644 is typical of Christy’s first chart.

    The TMT satellite reading is a result of different weightings from ground to near 20K up. The weighting curve is on the Remote Sensing Systems website.

    Presumably balloon data incorporates data from different heights with equal weight.

    Christ’s box [slide 1] only goes to 50000 ft or just over 15km. TMT data goes higher.

    TMT data shows around 1.5C per century for the tropics. This probably includes higher warming at different levels within the sampled space.

    According to Skeptical Science: Observations “are consistent with the IPCC TAR Scenario A2 projected rate of warming of approximately 0.16°C per decade.”

  • Neville says:

    The SH has just experienced it’s quietest hurricane season on record. Just more proof that there is nothing unprecedented or unusual about our climate at all.

    And the US hasn’t had a hurricane of above CAT 3 make landfall over the last 10 years. Unbelievable but true.

    And China continues to dominate energy development for the developing countries. From finance to building plants China now dominates this sector helping to respond to the needs of poorer countries to develop and prosper. Plants are mostly oil, coal, gas and some hydro as well. Good to see.

  • Neville says:

    Another world glacier study finds no change in the rate of glacier retreat since 1850. In 1850 co2 levels were probably under 300 ppm and no higher than about 314 ppm by 1950. Hansen and McKibben’s ( hoped for return) target of 350 ppm ticked over in about 1990. Certainly a lot of food for thought in the year/date changes of the co2 ppm numbers.
    Now we know why there hasn’t been any real acceleration in SLR for at least 200+ years. Here’s the link to the study from the Hockey Schtick.

    • spangled drongo says:

      And Neville, the president of the Royal Society in London reported in 1817 significant reductions to arctic sea ice.

      “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated. … this affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”

      Exactly as you quote, 200 years ago.

      It’s called natural climate variability.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The coral bleaching was due to sea level fall, not warming.

    Won’t the bed wetters be relieved?

    Or not, as the case may be:

  • Neville says:

    Another accurate and informative post by Willis Eschenbach. Just backs up the older posts by Lomborg, Goklany and Ridley. Here’s a summary and the link.

    Killer Cold
    Willis Eschenbach / 2 days ago

    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

    I found an interesting article on weather-related deaths.

    Deaths Attributed to Heat, Cold, and Other Weather Events in the United States, 2006–2010

    Objectives—This report examines heat-related mortality, cold-related mortality, and other weather-related mortality during 2006–2010 among subgroups of U.S. residents.

    Methods—Weather-related death rates for demographic and area-based subgroups were computed using death certificate information. Adjusted odds ratios for weather-related deaths among subgroups were estimated using logistic regression.

    Here’s their money graph. It shows the number of deaths by the age of the person dying.

    weather related deaths

    A couple of notes. First, at all ages the deaths from cold are more common than deaths from heat. Second, almost no infants die from excess heat, but some die from excess cold.

    SO … if the globe gets slightly warmer, that appears to be a net benefit, as there will be fewer lives lost. This is particularly true since the feared warming is projected to be mostly in the winter, in the night-time, in the extra-tropics.

    I would think warmer winter nights would be very popular in say Vladivostok or Anchorage. I wonder if that benefit is included in the calculation of the so-called “social cost of carbon”?


  • spangled drongo says:

    With race, gender etc it’s not the facts that count it’s the way you feel:

    Caroline Overington: “Rachel Dolezal … identifies as black. But Dolezal isn’t black. She says this doesn’t matter because ‘how I feel is more important than how I was born’. And, amazingly, some people are taking her seriously.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    From Caroline’s story:

    “There is a guy in California who identifies as a tree. I used to see him getting around Santa Monica, wearing brown clothes with twigs in his hair, or else standing completely still, hoping birds would land on him. I was transfixed. The kids were like: meh. If he wants to be a tree, let him be a tree. But is he actually a tree? No.

    Which brings me to Rachel Dolezal. You’ll remember Rachel, and if you don’t, go Google her, and you will find a woman with braids piled on her head, who looks as if she spent way too long on the tanning bed.”

    Reminds me of some other deluded people I can’t quite put my finger on….Ah, Yes!!!

  • spangled drongo says:

    So you looked in the mirror, chrissie luv?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a top group that some of the gullible groupies could join. Groupthinkers can sit down at their meetings and tell one another a load of BS and then have a good bawl. Amazing therapy I’m sure, NOT.

    And Nick Xenophon has just sacked a star candidate for telling people the truth about so called renewable energy. Amazing how the ignorant lefties take over these parties before they have been officially launched. Just imagine wasting your vote on another of these barking mad parties when you can already vote for Labor or the Greens.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Some time back I wrote about the discovery of some WW2 aeroplanes on, or rather under, the Greenland ice cap. You can read about it at
    The point of that story was the depth at which the planes were found, 82 metres, which suggested the the Greenland icecap was accumulating a good deal of snow>ice. A chance surf on the Net took me to the Danish Government’s website on the Greenland ice cap, where I learned that the ice cap does not in fact increase in height, but the new snow and ice causes what is underneath to flow away under pressure. That caused me to send an email to Dr Peter Langen seeking clarification. I referred him to my essay.

    This is his response.

    ‘Thank you for your interest in our website. As you say, we describe in the text how – for an ice sheet in equilibrium – surface height does not change. Neither in the accumulation zone (where mass is added on top every year) nor in the ablation zone (where mass is removed from the top every year). The point is that the vertical velocity due to the accumulation/ablation is balanced by the (divergence of the) horizontal velocity: In the accumulation zone (where I suspect the warplanes crashed), mass is added on top every year (burying the plane more and more each year) but mass is removed from the column below by the horizontal flow, such that – in equilibrium – surface height is unchanged. In the ablation zone further down on the ice sheet, mass is removed every year and the vertical velocity is upward as a result of convergence of the horizontal flow. So things that get buried up in the accumulation zone will travel inside the ice sheet toward the coast and over 10’s to 100’s of millennia they will reach the surface in the ablation zone (this is for instance seen with dust deposited on the ice sheet during the last glacial) or calve into the ocean.

    As a simple example, consider two buckets connected at the bottom with a thin pipe. In one bucket (let’s call it the accumulation-bucket) we add a cup of water each second and in the other one (let’s call it the ablation bucket) we remove a cup each second. Now, if the pipe is thin enough (such that flow is slow), there will be a height difference between the water surface in the two buckets. Eventually, a pressure gradient will develop that is exactly such that the flow through the pipe equals one cup per second. In that case, the system is in mass-equilibrium with the horizontal flow (from the accumulation bucket to the ablation bucket) balancing exactly the local surface fluxes in the two buckets. The vertical velocity in the accumulation bucket is downward and in the ablation bucket it is upward. This explains why things can get buried on the ice sheet without the surface height changing – for an ice sheet in equilibrium.

    Now, if the accumulation rate changes (which it does in a changing climate) and the ablation rate changes (which it does in a changing climate), this balance will be disturbed. The system is no longer in balance and surface heights will change. Typically in a warming climate, we will expect surface height to increase in the accumulation zone (due to increased snow fall) and to decrease in the ablation zone (due to increased melting and runoff). The latter effect is in all studies found to overwhelm the former, with a net mass loss to follow.’

    Things are never as simple as they seem!

    • JimboR says:

      “Things are never as simple as they seem!”

      A good cautionary tale for all amateur climate scientists and glaciologists. These guys have been quantifying this stuff since 1962:

      and in 2014 DonA spreads some FUD with: “so I think that it is probably true that we don’t really know all there is to know about the accumulation and melting of its ice…. as elsewhere in discussions about climate, the science just isn’t settled.” because a plane gets buried.

      There will always be more to know about glaciers… plenty more for some of us.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Things are never as simple as they seem!”

        Very true, jimb, and the best way to check is to put you head out the window on a regular basis which, being a data logger of various phenomena over long periods, I have a tendency to do.

        Local sea levels over long periods are the best method of judging land-ice melt and when these sea levels are not rising [based on ~ normal barometric pressure king tides over a lifetime] it is reasonable to assume that there is no net land-ice melt.

        Trying to quantify individual glaciers when the Antarctic Ice Sheet is 90% of the world’s land ice, is not very effective.

        And GRACE with its doubtful references is also questionable.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Sorry, should have added the link:

    The GRACE satellites that at the moment the ice cap is losing mass, at about 0.1 per cent per decade, one per cent per century. Historical measurements show it was much smaller a long time ago, and waxes and wanes in mass.

  • Neville says:

    Don , thanks for that info about Greenland ice accumulation or loss over centuries and millennia. The PR studies show that Greenland and Arctic ice was much reduced thousands of years ago and much more during the previous Eemian IG.
    During the Eemian studies show that the WAIS also had much reduced ice accumulation compared to today. Of course because it was much warmer then SLs were some 4 to 6 metres higher during the Eemian as well.
    But even the Royal Society doesn’t seem to be too worried about SLR over the next 300 years. Here’s their graph using ALL the models for SLR showing little change by 2300. Note that Antarctica is negative for SLR for centuries into the future, so where is their dangerous CAGW SLR to come from I wonder?

  • Gary C says:

    See below for link to a recently published paper that looks at climate change over long timescales and points out that the current speed of change is unusual:

    – “Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years” :

    – Some decent commentary at “…and Then There’s Physics” :

    – User friendly article by the paper’s authors (where I went for an understanding of the paper) :

  • Gary C says:

    Hope the wording ‘decent commentary’ in my previous comment didn’t go down the wrong way. It was meant to mean ‘non-hostile commentary’ – I was thinking of Don’s experience of the commentary at the ‘The Conversation’ web site.

  • spangled drongo says:

    This is a more fundamental approach to climate change:

  • Don Aitkin says:

    I’ve mentioned Russ Swan before. He runs a website devoted to ‘climate change, and he sets out in each essay a clear and accessible account of whatever the issue is. He says he is trying to get at the truth.

    The current one is at²-emissions/

    It’s worth a read.

  • john says:

    I don’t know how you put up with these people, Don. I hope you’re being remunerated somehow.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Not at all. There isn’t a tip jar yet, either.

    • margaret says:

      It’s good to know that Don has people who keep their opinions to themselves but his interests at heart. Don’s reward for setting up this website is not monetary. But yes, I still wonder about that chosen quote – if the growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement, there’s a long, tedious way to go with some of the comment here just an exercise in argument for argument’s sake.
      Karl Popper also said, “True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Karl Popper also said, “True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”’

        Yes, marg, I’ve noticed that too.

        Like religion and politics.

  • Neville says:

    Just about every GREEN CC initiative in the UK has turned out to be a barking mad disaster. And a lot of it so stupid and corrupt that it would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious. Of course after wasting endless billion $ for years there is still no measurable return on this waste and corruption.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The silence of the feminists is deafening.

    Muslim women advise the correct procedure on how to beat Muslim women:

    “Muslim men are allowed to hit their wives — but only gently, and not with fists, instead using short sticks and pieces of fabric, according to a new video produced by the Australian women’s branch of radical Islamic political movement Hizb ut-Tahrir.

    The video, posted to Facebook by the Women of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, features a Muslim woman, who identifies herself as Sydney primary-school teacher Reem Allouche, demonstrating the appropriate ways by which Muslim men may discipline their disobedient wives….”

    • spangled drongo says:

      But I’m sure marg thinks this is just another “argument for argument’s sake”.

      Nothing to do with fem hippos.

    • margaret says:

      People are getting very outraged by this rather nutty video by two nutters who adhere to a ridiculous scripture which, like the bible should only be read as a piece of ancient literature.

      • spangled drongo says:

        But the subject, marg, the subject!

        Deal with the subject!

        Don’t prove me right again, please!

        But since you mention the bible, where does it tell us how men should beat their wives?

        • margaret says:

          Not sure, since I haven’t read the Old Testament and little of the New, but it’s probably there since women were the property of men.
          The subject – okay, well since statistically domestic abuse in Australia is disturbingly high given our small population, I don’t think we can pinpoint one element as the only one guilty of inciting wife beating.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Marg, what is it about the point of this story that you simply refuse to understand?

            I can’t believe that I need to spell it out.

            Better put your mum on.

          • margaret says:

            What is your point exactly?

          • margaret says:

            Statement from Justice Minister Michael Keenan:
            “This is utterly appalling and unacceptable. Australia’s culture and laws underpin the highest respect to women, as they should. Under no circumstances is it ok to assault a woman or anyone in our community.
            I condemn this video and what it advocates, in the strongest possible terms, as I’m sure the vast majority of the Islamic community would as well.”


          • spangled drongo says:

            Marg, compare the feminist reaction to the Red Pill with their say nothing reaction to those two muslim women saying that muslim men are allowed to hit their wives:


            Then get back to me regarding their consistency and honesty.

            Are they really just too dumb to realise that the enemy of their enemy is an even worse enemy?

          • margaret says:

            “There is no assumption that Muslims might find those views abhorrent.
            There are many appropriate ways to have responded to the video by Women of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Treating it as representative of the Muslim community is not one. Nor is printing a Qur’anic verse for circulation – as The Sydney Morning Herald did – to a public that cannot possibly understand the context of a sacred text, translated from an ancient form of Arabic, compiled in the society of the 7th-century Arabian Peninsula.”

          • spangled drongo says:

            Is that supposed to be an answer, marg?

  • Don Aitkin says:

    In the past few days three papers have appeared on the question of uncertainty in estimating temperature and other measurements. One is at RealClimate (a website for the faithful), and is unusual in that it is somewhat dismissive of one aspect of the orthodoxy. On the other hand, it is typical in that the author makes no mention of satellite temperatures at all.

    I’ll mention the others in subsequent posts.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    The second paper worth reading is by Clyde Spencer, and it is mostly about the difference between accuracy and precision, about which I have written in the past (but can’t seem to find where). I found this a most interesting and instructive paper, and so did a lot of others, but the 250 or so comments represent a stand-off, quite aggressive at times, between those who agree with Spencer and those who don’t. Great fun. I think he wins.

    You can read it all here:

    The third is a little addendum to Russ Swan’s post at his website:²-emissions/

  • Neville says:

    The new 2017 Oliva et al study has found that the Antarctic peninsula has been cooling since 1998. This supports more recent studies that also show some cooling.The Ant Pen was a poster child for their CAGW and was supposed to be one of the fastest warming areas on earth.
    Over millennia this area seems to cool and warm so these are probably just NATURAL warming and cooling cycles. Here’s the summary from Co2 Science and the study link.

    The Antarctic Peninsula: No Longer the Canary in the Coal Mine for Climate Alarmists

    Paper Reviewed
    Oliva, M., Navarro, F, Hrbácek, F., Hernández, A., Nývlt, D., Pereira, P., Ruiz-Fernández, J. and Trigo, R. 2017. Recent regional climate cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula and associated impacts on the cryosphere. Science of the Total Environment 580: 210-223.

    Climate alarmists generally contend that current temperatures are both unnatural and unprecedented, as a result of global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions; and they claim that this “unnaturalness” is most strongly expressed throughout the world’s polar regions. In this regard, they often point to warming on the Antarctic Peninsula (typically the Faraday/Vernadsky station) as the proverbial canary in the coal mine, where over the past several decades it has experienced warming rates that are among the highest reported anywhere on Earth.

    However, in recent years two studies have challenged this assessment. Carrasco (2013) reported finding a decrease in the warming rate from stations on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula between 2001 and 2010, as well as a slight cooling trend for King George Island (in the South Shetland Islands just off the peninsula). Similarly, in an analysis of the regional stacked temperature record over the period 1979-2014, Turner et al. (2016) reported a switch from warming during 1979-1997 to cooling thereafter (1999-2014). And now, in 2017, we have a third assessment of recent temperature trends on the Antarctic Peninsula confirming that the canary is alive and well!

    As their contribution to the debate, Oliva et al. (2017) report in the journal Science of the Total Environment how they “complete and extend [the study of Turner et al.] by presenting an updated assessment of the spatially-distributed temperature trends and interdecadal variability of mean annual air temperature and mean seasonal air temperature from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the Antarctic Peninsula region.” And what did that assessment reveal?

    In describing their findings, the eight European researchers write “we show that [the] Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern Antarctic Peninsula.” They also note the presence of significant decadal-scale variability among the ten temperature records, which they linked to large-scale atmospheric phenomenon, such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Southern Annular Mode. Perhaps most important, however, is their confirmation that “from 1998 onward, a turning point has been observed in the evolution of mean annual air temperatures across the Antarctic Peninsula region, changing from a warming to a cooling trend,” especially over the last decade (see figure below). This cooling has amounted to a 0.5 to 0.9 °C decrease in temperatures in most of the Antarctic Peninsula region, the only exception being three stations located in the southwest sector of the peninsula that experienced a slight delay in their thermal turning point, declining only over the shorter period of the past decade. It is also pertinent to note that, coincident with the above findings, Olivia et al. cite independent evidence from multiple other sources in support of the recent cooling detected in their analysis, including an “increase in the extent of sea ice, positive mass-balance of peripheral glaciers and thinning of the active layer of permafrost.”

    In light of all the above, the evidence is clearly mounting against those who point to warming on the Antarctic Peninsula as proof of CO2-induced global warming. For in the most incredible manner, warming trends that were once among the highest recorded on earth have slowed and even reversed to show cooling.

    Figure 1. Temporal evolution of the difference between the mean annual air temperatures and the 1966-2015 average temperature for each station (3-year moving averages). Source: Olivia et al. (2017).

    Carrasco, J.F. 2013. Decadal changes in the near-surface air temperature in the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 3: 275-281.

    Turner, J., Lu, H., White, I., King, J.C., Phillips, T., Scott Hosking, J., Bracegirdle, T.J., Marshall, G.J., Mulvaney, R. and Deb, P. 2016. Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability. Nature 535:
    Posted 13 April 2017

  • Neville says:

    Michael Mann made a presentation to Sydney Uni in FEB 2017 and it amazes me why nobody challenged his ridiculous claims. Yes there were a few sceptics who challenged him in the Q&A but his answers were mainly more infantile appeals to authority.

    Remember he is by far the most high profile scientist???? from the CAGW camp, since the retirement of Dr Hansen. But unlike Hansen he thinks that Paris COP 21 is a winner and without it we would warm to the same temp trend during the Cretaceous. His point is that if we didn’t have COP 21 ( and more drastic action to come apparently) we would experience the same temp as the Cretaceous. But this would happen in just 100 years ( 2117 ?) not 100 million years or at a rate of change 1 million times faster than the Cretaceous. Yes that’s his claim. Does anyone else in the CAGW camp really believe this stuff?

    During the Cretaceous temps started at about 17 c and then rapidly move to a much higher level and plateaued at about 25 c for about 60+ million years. Co2 levels started at about 2300ppm and dropped to about 850ppm during that time. IOW co2 levels dropped 1450 ppm while temps rose by about 8 c during that time.

    Here’s a link with graph showing the Berner, Scotese data for the clast 600 million years. I can well understand why so many scientists are upset with this bloke and this video shows many more bloopers. If this is the CAGW side’s best scientist then they really are scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Little wonder that McIntyre, McKitrick, Steyn etc found him to be such a rich source of strange claims. And Steyn quickly wrote a book using quotes from all types of scientists condemning Mann and his HS study.

    Here’s the link to Mann’s video in Feb 2017 at Sydney UNI. They wisely disabled comments for his video.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Feminist victimhood strikes again:

    Red Pill film, feminist protests black out cinemas.

    “Dendy Cinema Newtown in Sydney’s inner west canned a sold-out screening of the film next week. The screening was organised by FanForce which was last week told their planned showing was cancelled.

    The documentary’s director Cassie Jaye wrote a comment which she posted to the union’s website but has yet to be publicly displayed. In it she said the majority of her work sheds light and advocates for women’s issues.

    “If you ask someone who deeply cares about gender equality to look into men’s issues, that person is going to realise that men have issues that deserve to be addressed, and that is what happened when I was making The Red Pill,” she said.”

    Interesting that the people that scream the loudest about bullying are the worlds greatest bullies.

  • spangled drongo says:

    What is it about puerile people who don’t know what they have and are happy to destroy it with mindless division:

    “Like many other Australians I attended a local Anzac Day dawn service to remember the sacrifice that so many have made during our nation’s history. It’s a day that always inspires but the major service in South Australia was marred by a ‘welcome to country’ that was unnecessary and totally inappropriate.

    The Aboriginal ‘elder’ employed to welcome us to our own country, Katrina Power, decided to welcome everyone to “stolen Kaurna land”. She doubled down by rewriting the 23rd Psalm to say “Yea though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of invasion.” Both political statements were totally inappropriate, rude and unnecessary. It’s a shameful indictment on those organising committee members who knew of her intentions prior to the event and still allowed her to proceed. I wonder how much she charged taxpayers for her insensitivity.

    We could say the same about Muslim activist (or perhaps that should be apologist) Yassmin Abdel-Magied. She’s the one who claims Islam is the religion of feminism whilst doing taxpayer funded book tours of some of the most misogynistic lands on the planet, including Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Qatar. She also boasts on her CV that she was on a Centenary of Anzac committee but showed her lack of respect on one of our great national days of unity by putting on Facebook “Lest we forget (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine).” Once again, an unnecessary and disrespectful message from a two-bit taxpayer funded celebrity Muslim. I can only presume she’s happy for us to forget it’s actually the Islamists who are responsible for Anzac terror concerns.

    But these two events are indicative of what our country is facing. Whilst conservatives are seeking to unify the country and have everyone treated equally according to the rule of law, the leftists are seeking to divide us according to race, creed and colour. A country of tribes cannot prosper. A nation is built around shared values, the rule of law and one unifying culture. We need to end the division and recoiled national unity. That doesn’t mean that people like Yassmin Abdul-Mageid and Katrina Power can’t have their say but it’s up to the rest of us to let them know just how wrong they are.

    Until next week.
    Cory Bernardi”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Looks like women are a bigger problem than men when it comes to waging war:

    A study has found that over the past 500 years, queens have been more likely to wage war than their male counterparts – and more likely to win new territory.

    Are states led by women less prone to conflict than states led by men? We answer this question by examining the effect of female rule on war among European polities over the 15th-20th centuries. We utilize gender of the first born and presence of a female sibling among previous monarchs as instruments for queenly rule. We find that polities led by queens were more likely to engage in war than polities led by kings. Moreover, the tendency of queens to engage as aggressors varied by marital status. Among unmarried monarchs, queens were more likely to be attacked than kings. Among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings, and, more likely to fight alongside allies. These results are consistent with an account in which marriages strengthened queenly reigns because married queens were more likely to secure alliances and enlist their spouses to help them rule. Married kings, in contrast, were less inclined to utilize a similar division of labor. These asymmetries, which reflected prevailing gender norms, ultimately enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.

  • spangled drongo says:

    An article in the Oz sums up beautifully how the cringe-making green-screechers just love to come out in force on this one day when they could do us all a favour and give us a break:

    “Anzac Day, as most people know, is about anything but the glorification of war. But it’s in danger of being usurped by the glorification of self-promotion, as evident by the likes of Abdel-Magied, Ford, Deveny, Green and Fitzsimons, with all its virtue-signalling platitudes. Free speech applies to them, too, but perhaps they could ponder this. Out of respect for those who served, do you think that for one day – just one day a year – you could spare us your egotistical and self-righteous denunciations? Think of those who fought real battles – not the imaginary kind against the so-called patriarchy or Islamophobia. Hard as it may be, you have to remember it’s only one day a year where it’s not all about you.”

  • margaret says:

    Our ABC has provided these interesting century-old maps.

Leave a Reply