The January Off-Topic Thread

By January 1, 2018Other

We still seem to be in a weak la Nina, and all the usual bushfire warnings are out. No doubt we will have some fires too. My attention was caught on Judith Curry’s website by a reference to a piece (abstract only) in Nature on the incidence of wildfires in the last two thousand years. The authors used sedimentary charcoal as the evidence and suggest that global biomass burning declined from AD 1 to ?1750, before rising sharply between 1750 and 1870. Global burning then declined abruptly after 1870. The early decline in biomass burning occurred in concert with a global cooling trend and despite a rise in the human population. We suggest the subsequent rise was linked to increasing human influences, such as population growth and land-use changes. Our compilation suggests that the final decline occurred despite increasing air temperatures and population. We attribute this reduction in the amount of biomass burned over the past 150?years to the global expansion of intensive grazing, agriculture and fire management.

The last sentence strikes me as most interesting. We manage the land much better than in the past (of course, there are more of us to manage, and managing the land is a widespread activity everywhere, because of agriculture). But at least in urban Australia we expose more people and properties to fire by allowing development in bushland areas…

Later: for Chris, who agonises over the lack of December data from UAH. Here it is:

Now trends don’t mean much for the future. They only tell you want has happened where there are data. But if this pattern were to continue for the rest of the century (and I don’t suggest for a moment that it would), the increase would be of the order of 1.28C degrees.

Join the discussion 193 Comments

  • Neville says:

    Bjorn Lomborg also used similar data to find that global wild fires had reduced over the last century or more. Certainly we are much safer living in the modern world with much more technology and communications. The incredible reduction in human lives lost ( 97%) from extreme weather events over the last 100 years would not have been possible without modern technology that’s has been underpinned by modern access to cheap reliable energy.
    And China has sped up this modern miracle by excessive use of coal over the past few decades. Life expectancy in China has almost reached the level of the modern developed countries. Difficult to believe this is possible for a pop of 1.4 billion people and life expectancy would be higher in China’s more developed cities and would lag in poorer rural areas. In fact Dr Rosling pointed this out in his 200 countries 1810 to 2010 video.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Cold nights in Canada:

    “This extreme cold is just weather but all heat waves are climate change.

    Temperatures across Saskatchewan dipped to near -50 C with the wind chill last night.”

    “The question “ “Was that event caused by climate change?”” is not ill-posed, it is mindless, undefined agitprop with an ambiguous vocabulary, loaded meanings and no role in a scientific conversation.”

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Don, the following is not about climate, for which I do not apologise. However, I refer you to a very interesting essay on the Fabius Maximus website, about the creeping (one might say creepy) influence of the academic left on social attitudes in America, now gradually appearing in Australia. The author is one Professor Maximilian C. Forte; the essay reproduced from Zero Anthropology, 19 December 2017. It is long, but worth five or ten minutes, depending how quickly you read.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Yes, I’ve read it, and subscribe to that site. I’m out of touch with universities really, and can’t be sure of the extent to which the infection has spread here.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        I’m in a professional faculty, to which it is hard to spread social justice. But the recent scare about ‘university rape culture’ came straight from the US, and I don’t doubt that parents will soon be advised that allowing their children to play cowboys and indians will be seriously politically incorrect. Pity. The film was one of the most outrageously funny I have seen in recent times, second, perhaps, only to ‘Volcano’.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          The stuffed bird falling from the sky in the Dresden production of Freischutz actually had me in stitches.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            Sorry. This was hilarious, but will only resonate with people who have seen both, which I suspect is nobody.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I checked the Highest Astronomical Tide of the year today at the old family home at Cleveland Point where in the years 1946-53 these fine weather king tides used to just cover the jetty, the wall and the lawn [which were all at the same level] and just trickle in to the well unless we kept a levy bank around it.

    My checking for the last 6 years has revealed that the recent HATs were all lower by between 15 and 30 centimetres.

    Well this morning the HAT was pretty much exactly as it was 70 years ago!!!

    The only difference was the barometric pressure which this morning was ~ 8 hPa below normal whereas fine weather king tides are more usually ~ 5 hPa above normal so that would account for at least half the difference.

    I certainly don’t know what the BP was 70 years ago except to say that it was only the fine weather king tides that I am comparing – not cyclonic tides – and they would have been close to normal BP.

    It was good to see this tide level today as it bears out my theory of Nat Var.

  • Chris Warren says:

    The usual comments apply.

    How many ways can our denialists deliberately misunderstand what data stares them in the face?

    • spangled drongo says:

      What’s staring us all in the face, blith, is the fact that sea levels are the same as they were 72 years ago and we have had less than 1c warming since the end of the coldest extended period of the Holocene, aka the little ice age.

      It’s the alarmists like you who are in denial of the fact that you have no accurate data going back any earlier than this period to compare it with.

      Even though science is aware that the Holocene was warmer than today during many periods.

      But here’s something more for you to deny:

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, Much depends on what dataset you are looking at. UAH says 2017 was the third-warmest in the satellite record. So both statements can’t be right, though both can be wrong.

      • Chris Warren says:


        The “wattsupwith….” stuff is unreliable. The data they linked to only goes to November 2017 and does not represent 2017.

        As the data is just one level of the atmosphere it is not necessary that each and every subset of the general picture to produce identical conclusions.

        It is possible that both are correct, given that Anthony Watts failed to differentiate between El Nino years, La Nina and neutral years.

        This is the usual approach of more competant researchers.

        Watts claims he is using “preliminary data” but provides no link to it.

        So as he is unable to provide sources for his statements – he should be ignored where he conflicts with others.

        I am not aware of a source of “preliminary data”. Does it exit?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Do us all a favour, blith, and tell us how, when the world has been steadily warming by around 1c since 1750 with no significant acceleration and has yet to reach levels of previous warm periods, that this particular climate variation can now be blamed entirely on human emissions when so many times in the past this same occurrence has been entirely natural.

          Please note that quoting tiny variations in stratospheric temps that there is no long term data on doesn’t prove anything.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Aren’t you man enough to defend your own arguments without demanding URLs to every statement or idea with which you disagree?

          • Chris Warren says:


            It’s called “rigor”.

            Rigorous citing of sources is the keystone of any confirmed understanding of science.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes, Bryan, you should know that!

            Quoting Mr 97 from the groaner on pinhead-dwelling angels.

            How rigorous can you get?

            Try the real world, blith.

            It’s out there just dying to tell you the facts.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            Chris Warren,

            It’s actually ‘rigour’. Definition: the quality of being extremely thorough and careful.

            Rigor: a sudden feeling of cold with shivering accompanied by a rise in temperature, often with copious sweating, especially at the onset or height of a fever.

            The latter is what usually occurs when I read your posts.

          • David says:

            Well Bryan no one could ever accuse you of supporting your arguments with evidence.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          What you call the ‘Wattsupwith stuff’ is in fact one of the two best global datasets there are. The Guardian article (which is pretty loopy) seems to be relying on GISS, which provides the most adjusted and weakest of the global datasets. Can’t you do better than this? Climate4you will be out with all the datasets in a few days. Why didn’t you wait for that?

          • Chris Warren says:

            WattsUpStuff deliberately deleted the critical qualification of the two previous year records being from 1998, and 2016 when this was in the initial release I have now found from Spencer.

            This is the key trick by denialists. Consistently they misuse 1998 and 2016 which were El Nino years.

            To this extent WattsUp engineered a falsification.

            As Spencer noted:

            “2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record for the globally-averaged lower troposphere, at +0.38 deg. C … behind 1st place 2016 with +0.51 deg. C, and 2nd place 1998 at +0.48 deg. C.”

            Obviously the Guardian article provided a better analysis through ensuring the context of El Nino was not censored. Note that Spencer did not even have the honesty to also cite the relevance of El Nino or La Nina even though this has been his main explanatory device in the past, as at:


            where he projected 2017 to cool to record an anomaly of 0.2C.

            His error was 60% so, obviously his model is completely wrong and irrelevant.

            Most serious researchers take pains to compare apples with apples, ie El Nino years with El Nino years, peaks with peaks, La Nina years with La Nina years and so on.

            Otherwise sites like WattsUp generate nothing but fake news.

          • David says:

            I will be interested to see how much global temperature has increased since you wrote “A Cool Look at Global Warming” (Aitkin 2008).

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Chris, as I have said before, you are a believer. You will hang on to whatever point you are making at the moment, ignoring data or any opposing explanation. It is really pointless discussing things with you. Doing so uses up people’s time, and has no effect on you at all. I will say something about 2017 when the full datasets are out, in a few days, I would expect. And remember, before you tell us all again that ‘Humlum has been debunked’, that what he uses are the official datasets from the five main providers. Nothing more.

            If you take out all the ENSO peaks and troughs, what level of warming do you find?

          • Don Aitkin says:

            David, I think my contribution will be in April or May, but you are welcome to have a go yourself at any time. If you do, please set out your data and reasoning.

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s wonderful how the media just love to use new phrases to describe common events so as to promote alarmism:

    Alarmist “science” has the world’s media at its fingertips to promote their agenda yet they still can’t convince the majority.

    I occasionally have environmental scientists asking to inspect our place when they are doing research into native wildlife and I am happy to help them observe some rare and endangered species but I am often surprised by the exaggerated reports they make in order to promote their agenda.

    This sort of “science” is as cut-throat as any business.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    For Chris, and others who agonise over the lack of UAH data for December, it has arrived, and you can see the outcome at the head of the thread. A rise of 1.28C degrees oughtn’t to make anyone really worried, if that were to occur.

  • spangled drongo says:

    One tenth of a degree ocean warming in the last 50 years? Would Tom Karl agree?

    Why didn’t they tell us before the Paris circus.

    “….and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” he said:

  • spangled drongo says:

    One of blith’s recent comments:

    Chris Warren

    December 29, 2017 at 9:06 am

    Happy New Year for all our polar bears ?

    Looks like it worked, blith:

  • Chris Warren says:


    You do not understand global warming.

    We now have good data for Dec 1978 – Dec 2017 [40 years of December measurements, 39 years of calendar years].

    Over this period all mundane natural variations cancel out – a natural rise or fall is matched with a later fall or rise except for a possible minuscule cooling trend from Milancovitch cycles.

    In any data set, if there is no underlying tendency, record highs and lows will always become rarer and rarer as the series continues. If there is a cooling trend – the latest data will be mostly record lows. If there is any underlying warming trend almost all record highs will be recent.

    In the current data, all record months are in 1998 or later, and for September and October, 2017 were new records.

    Based on 40 years of December data and 39 years of other month data, an underlying unnatural warming trend is clear.

    As industrial CO2 and methane trap heat, any increase in these emissions guarantees that the undertlying trend must and will continue.

    IN fact, any continuing emissions in excess of the ecosystem’s carbon and methane sinks, will guarantee that global warming will continue forever.

    Unless “carbon emissions = carbon sinks”, there is no solution.

    If you access CDIAC Global carbon budget data, and assuming this is accurate, then it is clear that our population and lifestyle guarantee that carbon emissions will always exceed the global carbon sink.

    Once you understand the science, balancing sinks with emissions requires either depopulation or degrowth or maybe both. Otherwise the Earth becomes increasingly uninhabitable.

    This is the real story:

    So instead of hand-waving comments such as ” But if this pattern were to continue for the rest of the century (and I don’t suggest for a moment that it would), ” we need to recognise that:

    the pattern must continue if “carbon emissions exceed carbon sinks”.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Oh dear, after ten years and more of study and reading, I apparently don’t understand global warming. Chris, I don’t know whether you understand it, but nothing you write is at all convincing to others, however much it persuades you.

      It seems as though the planet is welcoming the extra CO2, and it is also plain that life on earth existed at much higher levels of CO2 than are present now. So, on the face of it, something is wrong with your assumption that carbon emissions exceeding carbon sinks (no definitions from you for either term) must lead to disaster. And the notion that anything ‘will continue forever’ is a statement that anyone with a sceptical bent will want to oppose and ask you for your reasoning — which seems pretty threadbare in this case.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Oh, and which natural rises and falls do you discern in the UAH data? And why do you think the warming trend (pretty small) that is there, even with the high el Ninos, must continue forever? There have been rises and falls in the past too, remember.

      • JimboR says:

        “Oh dear, after ten years and more of study and reading, I apparently don’t understand global warming.”

        I’d put that down to where you do most of your reading.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Chris Warren,

      You blithely assume, based on very shaky data, that the temperature in any one year will be determined by that in the preceding year. If the variables are independent, which is very likely in a chaotic system, this belief is false.

      In two up, you can throw any number, from 2 to many heads in a row. No observed outcome will prove the coins are biased. It just becomes, statistically, less and less probable that they are unbiased. It does not prove it, and gamblers have lost a lot of money believing the opposite.

      On the other hand, in a random walk, it is highly likely that the result of the next ‘test’ will be close to (may be higher or lower) than the last. You can take a single step in either direction. Whatever the result, it does not imply the process is not random. One or more moves in one direction does not require (or imply) that there will be an automatic correction in the other direction. Like the coins, it’s random chance.

      Needless to say, if, after a few moves, you end up a few steps above the ‘mean’, it will take some time to return. This says absolutely nothing about any underlying ‘deterministic’ mechanism.

      • JimboR says:

        “In two up, you can throw any number, from 2 to many heads in a row.”

        And imagine for a minute that someone is keeping track of the world record for the number of consecutive heads thrown. Assuming no bias, would you not agree that the frequency at which that world record gets broken reduces over time?

        “On the other hand, in a random walk…”

        So let’s assume for a minute that climate is a truly random walk. What would you then calculate as the probability of the ten hottest years all occurring since 1998?

        As Chris says….

        “In any data set, if there is no underlying tendency, record highs and lows will always become rarer and rarer as the series continues.”

        There’s plenty of argument as to the cause of the underlying tendency, but it takes a special kind of skeptic to deny it exists. Even our Don explains away the continued record-breaking years with the acknowledgment that we’re in a gentle warming phase. I guess if you’re talking in the tens of thousands of years timescale then your position might make sense, but most climate scientists are focused on much shorter time frames than that.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Well then, jimb and blith, kindly demonstrate to us how the “underlying tendency” of warm periods of millennial cycles [which in the past have been accepted as part of the natural variability of climate] has now changed.

          And while you are at it you can also demonstrate how a weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves causation.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          “What would you then calculate as the probability of the ten hottest years all occurring since 1998?”

          After five successive heads, what do you calculate the probability of the next toss being a head? Give your wallet to your wife, or stay away from the table.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Let’s just assume that there had been no change in average global temperature for five years. Would you bet that 2018 would be hotter/colder than 2017? Why?

          Because there had been no change in average global temperature for five years?

          Because the sun rose yesterday, it has to rise tomorrow?

          Faith is fine, but it’s not science.

        • JimboR says:

          We’re not betting on whether 2018 will be hotter or colder than 2017, or to use your two up analogy we’re not betting on whether the next toss will be a head or tail.

          We’re looking back at a run of historic events and considering alternative theories as to what may have caused them. One such theory is that it’s totally random and they’re just the numbers that came up. Another is that there is an upward trend in the data that correlates to insert-your-favourite-cause-here.

          A common test is to determine the probability of that observed sequence of events happening, given your theory. So, assuming that global temperatures are indeed a random walk, what is the probability that we would see the 10 hottest years all occur since 1998? Clearly, the answer is way smaller than 0.5. It’s certainly larger than 0, so we can’t exclude that theory but the closer it is to 0, the less attractive the theory appears.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            Jimbo, if you have a sequence of random events, you cannot take a subset of that sequence and claim it is not random.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    “In any data set, if there is no underlying tendency, record highs and lows will always become rarer and rarer as the series continues.”

    You forget that yesterday was not the first toss of the coin.

    • margaret says:

      Bryan, it’s good to see that despite your plea for no more climate crap in 2018 you have joined mightily into the fray this year. Must have been a New Year’s resolution.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        I’m bored, but I’m back to work tomorrow.

        • margaret says:

          Here’s a nice long read for you to alleviate the boredom before getting back to the main game.

          “It is to put a very high value on your surmises to roast a man alive for them,” wrote Michel de Montaigne, who himself adjudicated in the French Wars of Religion. He was talking about the heretic’s pyre rather than white phosphorous being dropped out of a plane, but the sentiment is the same. You might call it a Western tradition of cultural relativism – and it is predicated on the hard-won knowledge that a man speaking about “cultural confidence” is often reaching for his revolver at the same time.”

          • margaret says:

            Oh, it’s not exclusively for Bryan chaps – it’s for any who believe that Western Civilisation is completely the ants pants.
            Beware though, it is thought provoking.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Marg doesn’t get the difference between being sympathetic to other peoples problems and destroying your own culture and living standards with overwhelming, hostile immigration.

  • Chris Warren says:


    The definitions of global emissions and sink are as in the CDIAC’s Global Carbon Budget.

    CO2 levels were NEVER at or over 300 ppm except long before homo sapiens and other modern species emerged. They will exceed 500 in the lifetimes of those being born today.

    Comments such as “…it is also plain that life on earth existed at much higher levels of CO2 than are present now.” are dinosaur arguments. The levels are clear based on the best science we can muster.


    So, it all boils down to one issue:

    Carbon emissions must equal carbon sinks, otherwise CO2 levels (and water vapour) will continue to increase in the atmosphere – forever.

    5 words – Carbon emissions must equal carbon sinks.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Chris, your fear is really puzzling. Your chart shows about half the period since the planet moved into long ice ages punctuated by short inter-glacials. Why does that fill you with fear? You do know that plants thrive on CO2, and that all animal life depends on plants. That there is more CO2 should be a source of gratification, surely. But no, you agonise. Don’t you know that the earth is getting greener, that agricultural productivity is increasing, and that there are no signs at all of any harm caused by the increase?

      What is your problem?

      • Chris Warren says:


        Your approach is unsatisfactory – what is the data?

        Once you understand the science, increased agriculture is not a carbon sink because all agriculture is consumed either as food or as inputs into industry – plus of course natural death and decay. Consequently all agricultural CO2 cycles into the atmosphere.

        Only permanent increases in any type of flora, that are not consumed, constitute carbon sinks. Forests that are not burnt and used for building are carbon sinks. Forests that are used for charcoal are not. Algae and seaweed that is not consumed is a carbon sink. SEaweed products that end up in land fill or digested by bacteria are not sinks. Algae converted to fuel is not a carbon sink when the fuel is burnt.

        The increased vitality of some plants under high CO2 could well be very bad news, if plants store less CO2 in their growth increase than arrives in the atmosphere to produce that growth.

        Again the balance is the key.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Interestingly the Paris Agreement is already based on the balancing sinks with emissions.

    It “…sets two other long-term mitigation goals: first, a peaking of emissions as soon as possible (recognizing that it will take longer for developing countries); then, a goal of net greenhouse gas neutrality (“a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks”) in the second half of the century.”

    Understanding global warming, climate change, and new weather events (eg coral bleaching) should start from this scientific principle.

    Of course I fully expect our politicians to express volumes of concern and pass hours of resolutions and fly all over the place to meet but without doing anything to ensure that emissions balance sinks.

    In fact our emissions are so high and driven by population and lifestyle, that a balance may well be impossible.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Increased agricultural productivity could well be very bad news.

    “Agricultural practices emit over 50% of global non-carbon dioxide GHG emissions. About 7% of these emissions are a result of rice farming, and over 80% of GHG emissions from rice farming are produced in South and Southeast Asia (India, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Burma).

    The warming of the planet, combined with the growing population expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050, threaten advancements made to achieve global food security and environmental sustainability. ”


    [ – sponsored by Department of Foreign Affairs, the World Bank and others]

  • margaret says:

    “Vatikiotis describes outside pressures tearing at the region:

    The spread of conservative Islamic dogma and extremist ideology fuelled by the contest between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the rise of China as an economic and military power are two of the most significant developments Southeast Asia has experienced since the Pacific War and the end of the colonial era.

    He predicts that China will trump the United States, helped along by Trump. He doubts that India or Japan can provide sufficient strategic ballast against China. “Based on these stark realities,” he writes, “quite possibly by 2050 Southeast Asia will have lost the minimal benefits of trade and security afforded by ASEAN membership. The ten member states will have become more aligned on the basis of geography and economic dependency — mostly with China.”

    Australia will be deeply involved and subject to the same pressures and promises. That’s why next March, with Sydney Harbour as the glittering setting, the prime minister will host the first Australia–ASEAN summit to be held on Australian soil. Malcolm Turnbull says he’ll be talking to the ASEAN leaders about what he calls “our region.” “

  • David says:

    Don in 2008, you made the following claim

    “…There seems to have been no continued increase since 1998…”

    However, as your preferred UAH data time series indicate (see above), your conclusion was wrong. The global temperatures have continued to increase. And if you eye ball El Nino (1998) to El Nino (2016) you can see it has the same slope of the underlying increasing trend as the entire data set.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      David, I said in 2008 there didn’t seem to have been any increase in global temperature since 1998, which was abundantly the case (see above). What you are arguing is that I would have been wrong to suggest that this lack of significant increase would go on forever, but then I didn’t say that.

      As so often, you have invented a straw man, or perhaps a straw diagram.

      • David says:


        AGW did not mysteriously stop and then start again. If you took a course in time series analysis (as I have suggested) you would understand why. The conventional approach is to start with a hypothesis, grounded in some theory, (e.g. decrease in sunspots caused temperature pause) and then you go about testing it. You do not try to interpret perceived variations in the trend.

        I will refer you to some advice from Professor Curry that you kindly shared with your blog

        “1.Do not overstate the power of your argument.
        2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.
        3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.
        4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.
        5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.
        6. Demonstrate consistency
        7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.
        8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.
        9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.
        10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.”

        Imo, you need to focus on Points 4, 5 & 7. Then return to Point 5 and post a Blog explaining what you have learnt. .


        • JimboR says:

          I think a bit of work on 6 wouldn’t go astray as well. Don’s gone from:

          “the assertion that the increase in carbon dioxide has caused the temperature to rise is no more than
          an assertion… There is simply no evidence that this causal relationship actually exists.”


          “Of course ONE of the main causes (of warming) is the increase in CO2 brought about by burning fossil fuels. I don’t know many sceptics who would disagree.”

          The charitable view would be that it’s a genuine change in position over the years, in which case a bit more of number 5 instead.

    • JimboR says:

      Presumably though at the time of writing, you knew that 1998 had been a big El Nino year? Were you trying to educate your audience on how this stuff works, or were you trying to push an agenda?

      • Don Aitkin says:

        You’ll have to ask David. He’s the one fixated on what I wrote ten years ago.

        • David says:

          So lets see if you have learnt anything in the last ten years? Looking at the graph above, can you see another “pause” in the warming trend?

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    One final thought. The concept of a tethered random walk. Works for molecules.

  • JimboR says:


  • JimboR says:


    There’s something about my reply to your response above that the server doesn’t like, so I’ll try dribbling it in a bit at a time.

    “if you have a sequence of random events, you cannot take a subset of that sequence and claim it is not random.”

    The point is we haven’t yet established that we have a random sequence of events, that’s what we’re trying to test. All we have is a sequence of numbers (or coin toss results) and we’re trying to determine the likelihood they could happen by random chance.

  • JimboR says:

    Assuming a fair and unbiased coin+toss, the chances of you tossing 20 Heads in a row is about 1 in a million. But if you have just tossed 19 in a row, the chances of your next toss being a Head is of course 0.5 (still assuming a fair and unbiased coin and toss).

  • JimboR says:

    For kicks I just coded up a random walk “climate model”. I set the first year to 25C and then at the end of every year I toss a coin and set the next years temperature to this years +0.01C for Heads or this years -0.01C for Tails. I then let it rip for a specified number of years (anywhere from 20 to 100). I declare you the winner if the hottest 10 years occur in the last 20 years of the run (representing the
    real life observation that the hottest 10 years have occurred in the 1998-2017 window).

  • JimboR says:

    If I only run it for 20 years, your probability of winning is 1. There are only 20 years under consideration so clearly the hottest 10 will occur somewhere inside those 20 years… it’s a sure bet for you. But once I start adding in some more years, the odds drop away:

  • JimboR says:

    25 years and the probability of winning is 0.43
    30 years, 0.35
    50 years, 0.23
    100 years, 0.15

  • JimboR says:

    So if you accept that the hottest 10 years over the last 50 years occurred in the last 20 years, there’s about a 0.23 probability that your random walk climate model could produce that. It’s a long way from impossible so your theory is in with a chance, but you might want to leave some of your cash with your wife before you bet too heavily.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Climate (and weather) is not random. It is chaotic with organic parameters and feedbacks.

      Although, as with random walks, any feedbacks can move the system in one direction over another.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Confused as usual, hey blith?

        Climate is not chaotic, it has been within 2c per century for the last 80 centuries.

        We have warmed barely 1c in the last 2.68 centuries.

        That is extremely well behaved and below normal nat var.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Jimbo and Chris; enjoy yourselves.

  • Neville says:

    It looks like the fra-dulent S&W renewable energy con is about to have a much harder time in Germany. Just remove all the subsidies and the whole mess will be gone in record time.

    And Merkel and other possible coalition partners are now having a reality check about their renewable energy mitigation nonsense. Will OZ ever wake up to this stupidity before it’s too late?

  • Chris Warren says:

    As argued before – it is completely invalid to suggest that there has been no warming for any period up to 2015 if the chosen start is 1998.

    You can only compare 1998 with later El Nino years, so clearly there has been warming of over 1C per century.

    If there was no warming that threatens the planet, why are we experiencing El Nino heat now when there are no sunspots, no El Nino, and Milancovitch cycles are neutral or set for a very small cooling trend?

    If there was no warming that threatens the planet why was the 2016 El Nino temperature greater than the 1998 El Nino temperature?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      It’s called ‘weather’, Chris. You are trying to turn it into something else. And do note that Europe and the USA are experiencing extreme cold. That is weather too. Nothing much seems to have happened in the last hundred years, but you are so anxious to show that doom is ahead…

      • Chris Warren says:


        Yes it is weather.

        Global warming eventually affects weather.

        Certainly any extremes suggest disrupted weather and it is even possible to get extra cooling through rain when the cause is extra water vapour.

        Changed weather – outside natural variations – is climate change.

        There is no natural variation that produces current high temperatures in the absence of El Nino and sunspots.

        • spangled drongo says:

          You’ve noticed big flocks of “Peroquettes” and “Rosehillers” dropping out of the sky lately, then hey, blith?

          You know, like they did 227 years ago?

          Was that an el Nino year, too?

          And those millennial warm periods that were warmer than present that lasted for many years, they were all el Ninos?

          Or just not nat var?

          When you tell stories, blith, you should learn to pad your waffle with more convincing detail.

      • JimboR says:

        “get extra cooling through rain when the cause is extra water vapour”

        Not just that. but also….

        “In the northern hemisphere, the exceptional heating around the north pole – twice the global average – is breaking down circumpolar air flows that normally keep the cold air around the north pole and more temperate air to the south. Now icy polar air is penetrating as far south as Florida while balmy conditions linger north of Finland.”

        Climate disruption is the preferred term these days, which will no doubt drive the RWNJs into a new peak of rage. The problem with climate change is that it will always look like “just weather”. It’s the frog in the pot syndrome.

  • Neville says:

    Matt Ridley’s latest article in The Times considers the problems of a coming ice age, although it may be many thousands of years into the future. Certainly once co2 levels drop below 200 ppm the planet would have little hope of sustaining life as we know it today. He speculates that humans will be much further advanced by that time and be able to ward off the worst of those full glacial conditions, terrible droughts etc. Who knows?

    Meanwhile Iguanas and sharks etc are having to fight extreme temps in the present winter cold in the southern US.

    And Rex Murphy tries to understand global warming from climate change. I’d say it’s a very humourous and very accurate dig about the current debate.

  • JimboR says:

    Same sex marriages have been kicking off all over the country as of today. The Labradors are still resting peacefully, the babies haven’t been thrown out with the bathwater, the cake makers and florists are reaping the rewards of a spike in business. Everyone’s a winner!

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, jimb, how on earth will you proggies fill your working day now the battle of the rainbow has been won?:

    • spangled drongo says:

      And the God-botherers are still at it, too, jimb:

      There was a man who worked for the Post Office whose job was to process all the mail that had illegible addresses.

      One day, a letter came addressed in a shaky handwriting to God with no actual address. He thought he should open it to see what it was about.

      The letter read:

      Dear God,

      I am an 83 year old widow, living on a very small pension.

      Yesterday someone stole my purse. It had $100 in it, which was all the money I had until my next pension payment.

      Next Sunday is Christmas, and I had invited two of my friends over for dinner. Without that money, I have nothing to buy food with, have no family to turn to, and you are my only hope. Can you please help me?

      Sincerely, Edna

      The postal worker was touched. He showed the letter to all the other workers. Each one dug into his or her wallet and came up with a few dollars.

      By the time he made the rounds, he had collected $96, which they put into an envelope and sent to the woman..

      The rest of the day, all the workers felt a warm glow thinking of Edna and the dinner she would be able to share with her friends.

      Christmas came and went.

      A few days later, another letter came from the same old lady to God.

      All the workers gathered around while the letter was opened.

      It read:

      Dear God,

      How can I ever thank you enough for what you did for me?

      Because of your gift of love, I was able to fix a glorious dinner for my friends. We had a very nice day and I told my friends of your wonderful gift.

      By the way, there was $4 missing.

      I think it might have been those bastards at the post office.

      Sincerely, Edna

  • Neville says:

    Two new studies show a cooler trend to the LIA and present day. Also today we have higher sea ice levels in the Arctic, but below sea ice levels during the LIA.
    And another study finds that the SST off the south Australian coast has been falling for about 6,500 years. This again supports the recent Calvo et al study.

  • Chris Warren says:

    The recent invoking of the cooling canard is interesting.

    Presumably this “cooling” has been resuscitated merely because all other claims (1998, ENSO, Sunspots) have been debunked.

    While the suns output does vary – we know what the impact will be, and even with any temporary fluctuation, the amount of CO2 being emitted by ourselves will still exceed the Earth’s capacity to reabsorb it.

  • Chris Warren says:

    They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

    If so, then here is a picture of the global warming trend once ENSO, Solar, and volcanic fluctuations have been adjusted for.

    The result is +0.5C over 30 years.

    As this is derived from several independent data sets – it looks pretty robust to me.

  • Neville says:

    Here is Dr John Christy’s testimony before congress March 2017. Here he shows in FIG 5. that the IPCC quietly buried the fact ( in AR5 report) that the tropics modeling failed when compared to observations.

    In fact the grey OBSERVATIONS since 1979 fit within the blue modeling WITHOUT GHGs included. And the red modeling WITH GHGs included doesn’t overlap ( up to 12+ klm) the grey OBSERVATIONS at all. Why hasn’t this been widely reported by the MSM?

  • Neville says:

    Here is a direct link to Christy’s FIG 5 March 2017 testimony before the house. Even the IPCC included this data in the latest AR5 but nobody bothered to tell the long suffering taxpayers around the globe. Unbelievable but true.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks, Neville.

      And the cli-sci blitherers wonder why the average rational sceptic would like to see a Red Team looking at the details.

      We also need a Red Team MSM!!!

    • Chris Warren says:


      As you may know, the observations were from radiosondes with restricted spatial coverage, not observations from satellites. They were then compared to modeling of satellite data masked to match the same spatial coverage.

      Christie then only presented the part of the full diagram that confirmed his preconception.

      If he produced the full diagram which goes to some 78,000 feet, he would have exposed the fact that radiosonde data diverges even more at greater altitudes.

      He hid this fact because this divergence suggests that CO2 effect is in fact stronger than IPCC models as it finds much greater cooling above 43,000 feet [approx 13 km – 150 hPa].

      His presentation suggesting that observations are still within the limits of any model run (for the tropics), is false above this height in the atmosphere.

      Christie demonstrates classic denialist cherry-picking.

      You should have mentioned that the observations were just radiosonde measurements while the modeling was not.

      Once the full diagram is accessed it suggests that CO2 is generating much greater cooling at higher levels than predicted by models.

      This probably explains why “”Queensland and New South Wales recorded their hottest years on record.”


      • spangled drongo says:

        “”Queensland and New South Wales recorded their hottest years on record.”

        Poor ol’ blith is a sucker for religious hyperbowl.

        Remember Rose Hill, blith?

        Where all those “Rosehillers” and “Peroquettes” dropped dead in 1791 because of extreme heat?

        Everybody wants to live there these days:

        “Rosehill near Parramatta — a comparatively convenient 17km from the city — had 47 per cent price growth to an average $1.1m.”

  • JimboR says:

    Paradoxically, the coal fired power stations can’t operate in the extreme heat conditions they’ve helped create. They’re becoming every bit as intermittent as renewables, but unlike wind and solar, they’re unpredictably intermittent.

    “One of the four giant units at Victoria’s ageing Loy Yang A power station broke down on Tuesday night at 11.05, taking out 230 megawatts. When demand soared during Sunday’s heatwave, the Eraring plant on Lake Macquarie in NSW lost 275 megawatts. A few minutes later, Loy Yang A lost 264 megawatts. On New Year’s Day, unit 1 of Millmerran in Queensland stalled, taking out 156 megawatts. On December 28, unit 2 of Tarong in Queensland stalled, taking out 314 megawatts. On Boxing Day, unit 4 at Loy Yang stalled, taking out 528 megawatts. On Christmas Day, unit 1 at Gladstone stalled, taking out 230 megawatts, then unit 1 at Tallawarra in NSW, taking out 187 megawatts. And so on, back to the start of summer.”

    • spangled drongo says:

      You are being conned, jimb.

      Do you LWNJs really believe that half a degree of confected temperature rise has made these power stations suddenly unreliable or could it possibly be the myriad of negative attitudes, religious beliefs and other destructive policies from both private and govt sources that are undermining them.

      How about the fact that even the Minerals Council of Australia has been so brainwashed as to argue that energy policy should prioritise reliability and affordability over other policy goals.

      The country is dithering instead of building the latest HELE coal and gas fired power stations and you lot are helping us all down the road to disaster.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I know how embarrassing it must be for the climate religious but what the heck:

    Snow in the Sahara Desert and other Gorebal Warming jokes.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Dreams, desire and desperation:

    Hewlett Packard Backed Report Includes Planned Penal Colonies for Climate Sceptics:

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s fascinating the sort of wisdom that passes for cli-sci :

  • Don Aitkin says:

    I am clearing out a lot of paper, and came across the following Season’s Greetings from 2002. I think it deserves another round of reading, and here it is, suitably amended:

    ‘Please accept with no obligation, express or implied, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the summer solstice holiday, practised within with the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasions of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

    I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of of the onset of of the generally accepted calendar for 2018, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Australia great (not to imply that Australia is greater than any other country or is the only great country in the southern hemisphere) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

    By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: [there follows a good deal of the warnings and conditions we now found at the end of any offer from a firm or organisation, usually in 1-point in a font almost invisible].’

    • spangled drongo says:

      Don, as a wishee, I am most impressed by your professional PC polish.

      If I could only speak like that even jimb and blith might respond politely.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The hypocrisy of the Left and the MSM.

    Germany drops the carbon target.

    Compare the outrage: Germany abandons carbon target, but stays in Paris agreement. US abandons Paris, but makes actual “carbon” cuts. One of these nations is a global pariah.

  • Chris Warren says:

    As many will know, most heat is absorbed by the oceans.

    So a sure sign of dangerous global warming is coral beaching and, naturally, ocean temperatures.

    According to ABC’s reporting on the Bureau of Meteorology’s Annual Climate Statement;

    “Last year saw record warm ocean temperatures, especially on the east coast and around Tasmania. ”

    • dlb says:

      I doubt coral bleaching is directly linked to the minimal rise in temperatures of the Pacific Ocean.
      It is more likely due to stalled high pressure ridges causing clear skies and low winds. This and the lack of a monsoon trough, as is currently being experienced in Qld.
      If you can prove stalled high pressure systems are due to AGW, you might have a point.

      • Chris Warren says:


        Denialists make such comments without evidence.

        Do you have evidence for clear skies and low winds causing coral bleaching?

        What is the mechanism?

        Where is there any evidence of a linkage between monsoon troughs and coral bleaching?

        Monsoon troughs and clear skies occurred many times in the long past with no coral bleaching, why would we get repeated coral bleaching now?

        Has there been a change in low winds, clear skies, or monsoon trough to give them some new ability to destroy coral??

      • spangled drongo says:

        Dlb, in other words, blith agrees with you but he does not want to be seen to agree with you.

        At least you gave a reason for the warming that caused the bleaching.

        Whether it is local warming from low sea levels and correspondingly warmer, shallower water or warming from more distant waters, blith and his pals wouldn’t know.

        They don’t have any evidence either.

        Just as they don’t have any details of bleaching in the past [prior to their recent studies].

        Yet it is common knowledge that bleaching has occurred many times in the past.

        Whether there were corresponding warm, still and clear conditions then has most likely never been recorded.

        But Darra Cement Co built half of Brisbane from cement made from dead Moreton Bay coral that grew happily at a time when seas were a lot warmer than they currently are and corals have been much further south than Moreton Bay.

      • dlb says:

        Chris I am absolutely astounded at your lack of reasoning!
        OK you want a reference well here’s from UQ School of Earth and Environmental Science:
        “Historically, it was believed that El Niño-driven change in sea surface temperatures caused the most devastating mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef,” said Professor McGowan of UQ’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences.
        “However we found that changes in meteorology which result in light winds, high surface air temperatures and humidity, and clear skies over the Great Barrier Reef are linked to anomalously warm waters over individual coral reefs that experience bleaching.”
        See the full article
        Want to know a mechanism? well in primary school language:
        Clear skies: the sun heats the water.
        Low winds: less evaporative cooling.
        Monsoon trough: cloud, wind and rain which cools the ocean
        You’re the Denialist. One who denies simple physics!
        As for bleaching in the past, I’m afraid the aboriginals didn’t have pen & paper to record such events. Not that their bark canoes could get very far off shore to check.

        • Chris Warren says:


          You have tricked yourself up.

          Your claim in full was:

          “I doubt coral bleaching is directly linked to the minimal rise in temperatures of the Pacific Ocean.
          It is more likely due to stalled high pressure ridges causing clear skies and low winds. This and the lack of a monsoon trough, as is currently being experienced in Qld.”

          This was of course false. Coral bleaching is directly linked to rise in temperature.

          You now provide a quote that says “anomalously warm waters over individual coral reefs that experience bleaching.”

          Most people will see that “warm waters” is the same as “rise in temperatures”, and most people will agree with your belated evidence that the current rise in sea water temperatures is “anomalous”.

          Be assured that your belated evidence is consistent with the fact that coral bleaching is directly linked to rise in sea water temperature.

          The only difference is that one view is that the rise in temperatures is caused by weather (clear skies and low winds) while another view attributes coral bleaching to climate change.

          Both views are probably correct, and both views directly link rise in temperature with coral bleaching.

          You are the only one claiming “I doubt coral bleaching is directly linked to the minimal rise in temperatures of the Pacific Ocean.”

          Your claim was false, and was clearly contradicted by your belated evidence.

          The ramification of the University Of Queensland work may well be that coral bleaching may persist even when there is no El Nino, due to additional causes of “anomalously warm waters over individual coral reefs that experience bleaching.”

          • dlb says:

            You just bang on about the same old AGW crap Chris.

            In the nearly 40 years since the satellites have been measuring sea surface temps there has only been an 0.4 C rise in tropical sea temperatures. This is the minimal temperature rise of the Pacific Ocean I talk about in my first comment.

            Any coral polyp wouldn’t recognise the change over one day, let alone the many generations mutating and evolving over 40 years.

            Here is the abstract from the paper of the UQ researchers:

            “The most devastating mass coral bleaching has occurred during El Nino events, with bleaching reported to be a direct result of increased sea surface temperatures (SSTs). However, El Nino itself does not cause SSTs to rise in all regions that experience bleaching. Nor is the upper ocean warming trend of 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1971, attributed to global warming, sufficient alone to exceed the thermal tolerance of corals. Here we show that weather patterns during El Nino that result in reduced cloud cover, higher than average air temperatures and higher than average atmospheric pressures, play a crucial role in determining the extent and location of coral bleaching on the world’s largest coral reef system, the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. Accordingly, synoptic-scale weather patterns and local atmosphere-ocean feedbacks related to El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and not large-scale SST warming due to El Nino alone and/or global warming are often the cause of coral bleaching on the GBR.”

            N.B. “Nor is the upper ocean warming trend of 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1971, attributed to global warming, sufficient alone to exceed the thermal tolerance of corals.”

            Time you expelled all that ABC / Guardian / Green / Left zooxanthellae from your brain.

            You have been brainwashed, time for a brain bleaching so you can study real science. Or better still get a few original ideas in your head, instead of following fashionable pseudo science.

          • spangled drongo says:

            When Prof Peter Ridd was criticised by his fellow scientists for whistle blowing on their alarmist attitudes he was told he was not being collegial.

            In other words he was reprimanded for not going with the “consensus” which wants to exaggerate the bad news and ignore the good.

            How scientific is that?

            “When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.

            After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.

            His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.”

            Prof Ridd; “My point is not that they have probably got this completely wrong but rather what are the quality assurance measures they take to try to ensure they are not telling a misleading story?”

            Speaks volumes on the scientific standards of our coral “experts”.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And Peter Ridd is right. They have been telling a misleading story:


          • Chris Warren says:


            You have lost track of your own argument.

            Your claim in full was:

            “I doubt coral bleaching is directly linked to the minimal rise in temperatures of the Pacific Ocean.
            It is more likely due to stalled high pressure ridges causing clear skies and low winds. This and the lack of a monsoon trough, as is currently being experienced in Qld.”

            This was of course false. Coral bleaching is directly linked to rise in temperature.

            Everything else is a perfectly reasonable discussion about the cause and timing of an anomalous rise in temperature.

            Clear skies etc do not bleach coral except for a direct link to a resulting rise in temperatures.

            You have misunderstood your source.

            Coral bleaching is directly linked to a rise in temperatures of the Pacific Ocean.

        • spangled drongo says:

          dlb, Larry Kummer explains brilliantly how even highly regarded climate scientists like Richard Alley are trying to “fix” the debate that our blith is pursuing in the same fashion:

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Last year saw record warm ocean temperatures, especially on the east coast and around Tasmania. ”

    For someone who claims to be an expert on sailing ships and their protocol you are easily conned by these fake “experts”, blith.

    When trade winds drop as happens during el Ninos awa other years as has happened lately the tropical high stand of ocean makes its way to higher latitudes.

    Sailors have been using thermometers for generations to work out if they were using these often fast currents to their advantage. These days you do it in a flash with your GPS.

    This has been happening probably forever yet you and your ideological mates with virtually no record of the past events have the hubris [or is it stupidity] to claim “unprecedented”.

    The same applies to historic land temperatures:

    And the same applies to coral bleaching.

    You are in complete denial of history and nat var.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I wonder at what stage historical facts will cease to be altered and manipulated?

    It seems that any time the progressive left feel that we are far enough away in time from a fact, it is fair game for a quick manipulation.

    This seems to be the progressive left’s interpretation of progress.

    And it is affecting so many aspects of our every day lives.

    And they wonder why rational people are sceptical of anything they do or say.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Good to see there are still many scientists [only 3%?] who disagree with the “progressive” left:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Isn’t it good to see that in spite of modern PC madness, some good judgement prevails.

    WUWT gets listed No.1 in the top 100 weather blogs:

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s bad enough in this country but…

    The progressives have gone crazy mad in Britain:

    • JimboR says:

      A great read, thanks for sharing Margaret. I think quite a few of those GDs hang out in this blog and wear that badge with pride. It would be fascinating to be seated at the next table for one of Aert’s, Don’s,… etc. lunches.

  • Chris Warren says:

    As we have been hit by a denialist trying to claim there is no direct link between coral bleaching and warming oceans, there must be another cause?

    What could it be?

    Outflow from polluted rivers?

    Litter from tourists?

    Changed marine fauna not related to warming oceans?

    If mavericks want to deny the direct link, then they need to provide an alternative – with evidence equal to the current understanding.

    Otherwise they are just running exercises in denialism.

    So far bleaching appears to be increasing in response to anomalous warming ocean temperatures.

    And were have enough government endorsed scientific evidence to analyse such trends.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      This is really for dlb, but you go on mis-reading him. He did not say that there was ‘no direct link between coral bleaching and warming oceans’.

      He said, as you correctly quoted him earlier, “I doubt coral bleaching is directly linked to the minimal rise in temperatures of the Pacific Ocean.” The minimal rise he cited was 0.4C degrees. He was responding to your claim about warmer seas. The point he was making is that such a small rise in temperature is hardly likely to have caused coral bleaching, which in any case does not occur over the whole reef.

      You do need to get the details right.

      • dlb says:

        Thanks Don.

        Chris knows what the situation is, he is rather childishly refusing to admit he is wrong.

      • Chris Warren says:

        I assume that if you say “I doubt X is directly linked to Y”

        that this is the same as there is no direct link between X and Y.

        Because if there is a link – the first statement is unreasonable.

        Anyone can express doubts – but they need to be answerable to what substantiates such “doubts”.

        Otherwise it is denialism.

        If there are details that should be got right – then that ball is in dlb’s court.

        If there is a direct link between coral breaching and warming oceans, what specifically is the detail that suggests there is :

        “doubt coral bleaching is directly linked to the minimal rise in temperatures”????

        I too would like the details?

        Why is there doubt that coral bleaching is linked to (any amount of) rise in temperatures ????????

        Details please.

        I see no reasonable cause for doubt according to

        Injecting artifical doubt is a form of denialism.

      • dlb says:

        He ticks boxes 1,2,3 and 4 of Saul’s List.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “…we have been hit by a denialist trying to claim there is no direct link between coral bleaching and warming oceans…”

    Who said that, blith?

  • Chris Warren says:

    It is pretty easy to see just how much warming has occurred in tropical seas.

    Since 1979 the warming has been around 0.5C. The recent anomalous highs are clear; 1998, 2004, 2016.

    As long as CO2 concentration increases, and the rate-of-increase itself increases, then the end of North Qld corals cannot be far off.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Wonderful insight into the tolerance and understanding of true science of the “progressive” left:

  • margaret says:

    An article with beloved data …

    “Whether you believe life is getting better seems very much to depend on who you are.”

  • Neville says:

    Dr Roy Spencer looks at the usual nonsense about warming and cooling and attributing both to increased co2 levels. The recent hot Sydney weather occurred at the same time as a cooler southern and northern OZ .
    Just amazing what an increase ( just 0.01% of the atmosphere over the last 200+ years) in co2 can achieve by lowering and raising the temp in different parts of our country at the same time. Definitely a MAGIC molecule for sure. Of course it doesn’t pass the smell test but who cares as long as they can fool some of the hicks some of the time.
    Oh and don’t forget our so called hot angry summer DEC ’16 to end FEB ’17 was full of the same BS. The problem was that about 50% of OZ landmass had a cooler than average summer over those same summer months. Their co2 is truly an amazing gas for sure. That’s as long as you believe their porkies and fairy tales, but a real bummer if you use simple logic and reason or plain common sense.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Actually Spencer produces the usual denialist trick of using an El Nino year as a comparison to anomalously warmed La Nina or neutral years.

      The result is fake news.

      Spencer says:

      “The trouble is that neither of these two events are exceptional from a meteorological perspective. That is, they have happened before (Sydney’s 117 deg. F peak was exceeded in 1939), and they will happen again. ”

      Spencer usually has a lot to say about El Nino but ONLY when it suits his dogma.

      Sydney did not record 117 F – this was only out at Penrith and Richmond.

      Also there is no possibility that Western downwinds caused scorching heat because from Spencer’s own chart – the western areas were cooler than the Sydney Basin.

      Also I do not remember any bushfires impacting on Penrith readings, so I assume this was just a fabrication.

      There was never a year, outside El Nino, that recorded 117F for Penrith or Richmond.

      Personally I expect there were a combination of natural causes, including Western Sydney urban build up, that could have created warm temperatures in the absence of global warming, but not to the great heights being achieved now. The extra is global warming.

      I wish our denialists would stop comparing non El Nino data with El Nino peaks.

      It makes them look so stupid and trapped by their own private dogma.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Donald and Oprah over 25 years ago:

  • Neville says:

    Benny Peiser and Matt Ridley look at the evidence/data for extreme events globally and find that most of the media have been telling us porkies. Surprise, surprise. Of course the usual donkeys jumped on Trump for asking the same questions of them about global warming a few weeks ago.

    It seems only progressives and alarmists can play that game. Meanwhile most data-sets are heading back to lower temps after the recent strong el nino and a weak la nina perhaps now has had some small impact.

    And the percentage use of fossil fuels has remained unchanged since Dr Hansen’s con trick on the floor of the house in 1988. Kyoto and now COP 21 have been just BS and fraud and cost OECD countries citizens much higher prices and much more unreliable energy generation. And a further 1600 new coal plants to come in the near future servicing the needs of emerging non OECD countries. So why are OECD countries using S&W idiocy instead of cheap and reliable coal and gas plants? After all the data proves we’ve had no measurable impact at all and now have to endure higher crippling electricity prices for no dividend return at all.

  • Neville says:

    Alex Epstein looks at all the benefits of using fossil fuels. Certainly fossil fuels have changed a dangerous environment into a much safer environment. In fact today deaths from extreme events have dropped by 97% since the early 20th century. See Rosling, Ridley, Lomborg and Goklany studies.

    And life expectancy is much higher in the countries that have had the longest use of fossil fuels and much lower in countries that have limited access to cheap reliable fossil fuel energy. Just check the data.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova looks at the data for Perth rainfall and finds that Flannery’s forecasts of a ghost city are way off the mark. Big surprise NOT.

    But it seems that magic co2 gas continues to play tricks. While there has been a reduction in SW WA rainfall the total WA state has seen rainfall increase over the same period. Yet some people still believe Flannery, Steffen etc and the Climate Council. Incredible but true. Here’s BOM WA rainfall 1900 to 2017, showing an increase of 8 mm per decade.

  • Neville says:

    The SW of WA and Vic have roughly the same latitude and size. But even with the reduction in rainfall for SW WA , it still has about the same annual rainfall 663 mm compared to Vic 660 mm. That’s average from 1900 to 2017. Here’s BOM rainfall for SW WA.

    And Victoria.

    • Chris Warren says:


      You probably will not understand this but anyway ….

      Increasing rainfall is a global trend. It is over 2mm per decade.

      This means there is more water vapour in the atmosphere.

      There is only a few ways the amount of water vapour can increase globally.

      Global warming increases water vapour in the atmosphere.

      • Neville says:

        Geeezzz Chris I didn’t think of that. Yes we’ve had a small increase in temp since the end of the LIA and that’s the reason we should expect more rainfall, snowfall etc, but it didn’t stop Flannery, Robert Kennedy Jnr, Al Gore and Dr David Viner of CRUT etc telling us that the extra warming would reduce precipitation.
        So how does that work or do you just go on believing in these religious fanatics and their DUD predictions? BTW Dr Viner said that kids in the future wouldn’t know what snow was. What a bummer that forecast was along with all the predictions of increasing drought around the world etc. Thanks for Dr Pielke’s work schooling Obama and Holdren etc, we now know the facts about drought around the globe. Wake up.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Increased rainfall may well be far more serious than increased CO2

        From “Forbes” Science writer

        …as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor amounts. So a change in CO2 that affects the greenhouse effect will also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse effect after a change in CO2 needs to account for the consequent changes in the other components as well. If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the “feedbacks” are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

        As CO2 increase is itself increasing, and the carbon sinks are falling behind, global temperature and water vapour will increase. The extra holding power of air may well reduce precipitation in some areas.

        You have made claims about Flannery, Kennedy, Gore and Viner without producing any evidence.

        This is the typical tactic of those of your ilk.

        • spangled drongo says:

          blith not only denies common knowledge awa facts but also argues that everything that happens weather wise is now the result of CO2-induced climate change.

          As all alarmist hypocrites do.

          But if only they weren’t so hypocritical about it we could probably put up with their silliness:

        • Neville says:

          Chris I could supply links to those individuals nonsense but you can easily find their oft quoted stupid comments without my help. And if you’re unaware of Flannery and BOMs Dr David Jones’s claims about droughts you really do need help.
          Dr David Viner’s comments about kids and snow were quoted all over the world many years ago and like Flannery’s comments they made little sense then or now. This is not some tactic of mine , rather I’m just following up on silly comments made by religious extremists. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

  • Neville says:

    Tassie has also seen a reduction in rainfall just like SW WA, but is by far our wettest state receiving on average about 1390 mm a year, or more than twice the average rainfall of Vic and SW WA.

    And MDB rainfall is increasing although the southern sector suffered from the long positive/ neutral IOD during the so called millenium drought. A number of studies now show that similar droughts ( and worse) occurred a number of times over the last one thousand years. Such as the Vance et al study and others.

    • Chris Warren says:

      “It’s easy for liberals to decry the hypocrisy of Republicans, the putative party of family values, embracing Trump as its avatar. But there is no real hypocrisy here. The core value is patriarchy, which can take different forms. There is an older patriarchy which wears the mask of chivalry, and offers women protection in exchange for submissiveness. But the age of chivalry is no more. We now have raw patriarchy, which asserts its rights through naked displays of power.”

      Charming photograph of Trump, Melanie and her/their chum from 15 years ago.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Sorry Chris, I see what you mean about the hacking and the email addresses – this comment is mine not Chris Warren’s.

  • Neville says:

    Just for poor Chris who couldn’t track a leaking dunny cart.–id-rather-believe-flannery-than-my-own-eyes/news-story/a329acd43db88021209716e834dfdfc1

    And here’s 5 secs of Flannery on youtube just for Chris. “Even the rains that fall will not fill our dams and river systems”. And Bolt also covers BOMs Dr David Jones in above article. Apparently the latest big drought was to be the”new normal.” Jokers run wild, but will pollies and their media ever wake up?

    The rest you can find yourself.

    • Chris Warren says:


      ye gods – you cannot dish up trash from Bolt and be taken seriously.

      A few seconds grab, with no context, is irrelevant.

      However there is an IPCC argument that climate change will both – increase rainfall while increasing drought in semi-arid regions.

      Flannery may be right or wrong on this point, depending on the time scale and the geographic region he was in context with.

      There is no need to expect this development to obtain now, but as a future perspective.

      Instead of attacking Flannery etc why not find means of ensuring that carbon emissions do not exceed carbon sinks.

      This is the critical issue.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Poor ol’ blith is reduced to denying a simple statement from a fellow alarmist in order to push his warming barrow.

        What part of; “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems,” can’t you understand, blith?

        “CHIEF Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007 warned global warming was draining our dams. “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems,” said the Australian who has most whipped up global warming alarmism. “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.” Here’s how full our dams are, five years later, at the end of another summer:
        * Canberra’s dams: 99.6 per cent. * Darwin’s dam: 96 per cent. * Brisbane’s dams: 91 per cent. * Sydney’s dams: 87 per cent. * Melbourne’s dams: 64 per cent. * Adelaide’s dams: 55 per cent.”

        And after govts took his advice and spent billions to mitigate a non-problem

        he is still saying it:

        And blith has the hubris to deny it.

  • Neville says:

    Yes SD the alarmists always follow their prophet, no matter how clueless he is. He can be barking mad but who cares

    • Chris Warren says:


      The face at the bottom of the well is your own.


      • spangled drongo says:

        Gee, that’s “deep”, blith!

        Rational people can understand what alarmists say without having to blatantly deny obvious statements.

        They also are capable of observing the real world.

        This supports my observations of a complete lack of SLR locally.

        Six Decades of Glacial Advance in the Western Ross Sea, Antarctica:

        When are you going to bite the bullet and put your head out the window so you, too, may get an inkling?

  • Neville says:

    More gold from the Bolter poking fun at the Flannery Joker’s SLR forecast and NZ dummies who want you to eat your dog. SD will love Flannery’s stupidity and hypocrisy in relation to his monster SLR scare, but he still falls short of their ABC’s “Robyn 100 metres Williams”.
    What a hapless fool poor Timmy is, but at least the true believers will lap it up and cherish every word.

  • Neville says:

    About the best OZ example of natural variability biting Flannery on the backside was the 2009 study informing us about the “discovery” of the IOD. Our long Mil drought was partly caused by a positive/ neutral IOD that lasted for about 18 years. ( see my recent link to UNSW+ CSIRO study )
    But alas pollies listened to ignorant ravings that cost the taxpayer billions of dollars to once AGAIN react to a completely NATURAL climate event.
    And in 2016 the same IOD changed to a strong negative phase and gave us a Murray flood after one of the wettest winters since 1900. No help from a la nina at all but just more rain caused by the neg NATURAL IOD. What else is waiting in the wings to kick ignorant alarmists up the backside? Who knows?

  • Neville says:

    BTW the 2016 winter was the 4th wettest for the MDB since 1900 and all thanks to a strong neg IOD. Even enough to cause flooding.

  • Neville says:

    Willis Eschenbach looks at the latest CERES data and finds that clouds in the tropics help to control any runaway GHE. He explains his argument and supplies all the data used for his calculations. If he’s correct it’s probably the end of their CAGW story. We need other sane, reputable scientists to check his claims and deliver their verdict.

  • Chris Warren says:

    There seems to be a lot of spam from Neville’s cutting and pasting fake science from denialist websites.

    It is best to stick to professional quality science as reported in “Scientific American” (2017). Cloud data indicates that:

    “the trends that amplify warming are strong and the trends that slow warming are weaker than anticipated.”

    The opposite to what our denialists are spreading.

  • Neville says:

    It’s only the start of 2018 and already a number of new studies show little historical evidence for their CAGW.

  • Neville says:

    And new data shows that OZ bushfires have become less frequent since the early 2000s. Of course the number of people dying from these extreme events has dropped dramatically over the last century. This trend covers both the globe and individual countries.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Let the denialists bark and yap …. but the caravan moves on …..

    • Chris Warren says:

      Aren’t I silly. As is usual for we perpetually alarmed consensuals, once more we confuse PC with evidence.

      • Chris Warren says:

        This comment was not mine. It looks like a hacker has got into the system and peoples emails are sprouting up in dialog boxes.

  • spangled drongo says:

    They could have built a complete Gas-fired PS for half the cost of the exorbitant electricity bill for the last two days:

  • Don Aitkin says:

    I have come across a nice summary of the CAGW debate by Roy Spencer, which you can read at

    It was written nine years ago, so some of the statements (for example, about growing Antarctic sea ice) are no longer correct. But it remains a sane and clear exposition of the debate. I commend it.

  • spangled drongo says:

    It’s interesting how reefs in warmer waters are doing better than our GBR:

  • Neville says:

    There’s not much difference in the latest co2 measurements from Cape Grim Tassie 404 ppm (Sept 2017) and Mauna Loa Hawaii 408 ppm (Jan 20th 2018). I thought there would be a greater difference than just 4 ppm.
    But it is supposed to be a well mixed gas.

  • Neville says:

    It looks like their so called UK renewables are having a hard time after subsidies have been reduced. What a pity we can’t nip this idiocy in the bud here in OZ before we waste more billions of dollars and make our grid more unreliable with input from more S&W.

  • Neville says:

    Lomborg and Ridley are great at this Q&A from the IPA Freedom conference. But as they say feelings so far seem to trump data and evidence.
    Ridley thinks that superstition and bureaucracy will be the biggest problems we face into the future.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Was Trump right after all?

    Surely not?

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Judith Curry has started a series on sea-level rise (SLR) which should be, when completed, a major effort. You can see the first instalment here:

    I find the whole discussion absorbing, in part because of the sheer difficulty in determining what is happening. It is easy enough to show sea-level rise in one spot, like Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour, and for those living in and around Sydney the Fort Denison numbers are the most important data they can have (and they are reassuringly low). But the CAGW position is that global sea level is rising and indeed that the rise is accelerating. Anyone can pluck out of a superfluity of numbers a set that makes them comfortable. I have the same sense of impatience with global sea level as I do with global average temperature — these are statistical constructs, not real measurements — but if you read the comments (more than 300 of them) you’ll see lots of sword-fights about them.

    Nonetheless, sea-level rise is important, and it is important to governments as well as to coastal communities. So JC’s series could be a most important product.

  • Thank You Margaret for this link. This article was arresting as I could relate to to my experiences but I could never articulate them. Excellent article. The western world – ant pants – it has a lot going for it and to me is on a evolutionary process. The discrimination and social structures of the British and European Colonial empires – where they introduced from earlier experiences in India?

  • Neville says:

    The BOM is up to their old tricks telling porkies AGAIN. Thanks to Dr Marohasy for her hard work trying to nail these tricksters. And her Climategate email link is a beauty, just more fra-d and corruption.

  • Maggie Wilson says:

    I smoke weed to flesh out reality, not to make a break. I don’t use cannabis because I hate my job or my life. I don’t smoke weed because I can’t pay my bills. I definitely don’t smoke weed to avoid working on my relationship. As a matter of fact, cannabis has done a lot to help my relationship. I am depressed about the state of the world and Donald Trump being the president, but smoking weed doesn’t help me escape those facts. It does make those things easier to process, but I don’t forget them. In fact, this site is one of the sources of my weeds I smoke weed because I’m bipolar and I have a social anxiety disorder, and it helps me deal with it without taking pills. I smoke weed because it helps make me a better person.

Leave a Reply