Climate Change in Australia (Part 1)

But that’s the thing mate, the occurrences of what they bring up are extremely rare, for everyone of these instances that TD &TD bring up there are about 1500 peer reviewed and accepted papers that they ignore, across a far broader spectrum of science.

And they get what they give. At the end of the day they argue with guys like HM who comes from a background of science, werewolf calls my wife’s work who IS a scientist who graduated PHD valedictorian from Melbourne University and has spent 15 years providing her research for pennies as “paid to peddle crap”

So yeah, we get to play a the man a bit on these keyboard peanuts.

3 Likes

Also, scientists revising calculations based on better science doesn’t equal doctoring or manipulating of data.

E.G. A scientist finds out a sensor is faulty and this removes the data from the dataset. People jump up and down that they are taking out info that doesn’t fit their agenda. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

2 Likes

And I have read all the hype about this so-called doctoring of results and using “data” selectively.

My whole working life has been involved in science and employment in the scientific industry, we have spent lots of money on doctorates at many Universities around the world. My view has always been that good scientific research is about explaining the unexplained.

We once did a series of laboratory tests, 49 results were the same, one was very different. The question I asked the researchers was, which was correct, the 49 or the one ? So they worked on explaining the one different result and why it happened. It is called discovery.

1 Like

Some good news from Get Up! today.

Hit any links in the article to flood the inbox’s of you local MP with the report.

Abbott: 0 Renewables: 7 million

Miriam - GetUp! [email protected]
12:59 (3 hours ago)

to me
Hi BSD

I’ve got good news and good news.

Renewable energy is finally recovering from the dark days of Tony Abbott’s attacks. In fact, we’re now producing enough energy from the sun, wind and water to power over seven million homes — that’s 70% of all the homes in the country!

And we’re just getting started. Big solar and wind projects are popping up all over the country, providing work for a lot of people in regional Australia — 8,862 people to be exact.

The other good news? Thanks to a new report funded by GetUp members like you, journalists have noticed the sunny state of the clean energy sector, and they’re telling their readers all about it. 1,2,3,4

Make sure your MP hears the good news — share the Renewable Energy Index with them today.

The coal and gas lobby are at war with the sun and wind. They’re looking for every possible opportunity to pin the blame on renewable energy for price hikes caused by big polluters.

That means we need to seize every opportunity to share the real story. Despite Big Coal’s best efforts to block out the sun, the rest of us are getting on with the job of building a sun-powered country. That’s great news for our planet, great news for our power bills and great news for people looking for work in struggling regional towns.

That good news can be hard to hear from Canberra, where the coal lobby camps outside MP’s offices and their cheer-squad in the Murdoch press scream louder every time they so much as glimpse a solar panel.

Let’s give our MPs a break from the coal lobby’s lies and fill their inboxes with some sunny stats instead!

Share the real story on renewables with your MP now!

The Renewable Energy Index also shows that clean energy is doing the heavy lifting on cutting Australia’s carbon pollution. If we’d produced the power that renewables generated last year with fossil fuels, it would have been the same as putting another eight million cars on the road.

So give yourself a big pat on the back, because the fact that renewables are booming is down to people like you.

It took thousands of everyday Australians working together to defend the national Renewable Energy Target from Tony Abbott’s attacks, to save the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), and to push our state governments into leading the way while our federal government did the coal lobby’s dirty work.

You got us this far — will you take the next step by sharing the good news with your MP?

Congratulations for all you’ve achieved together.

Miriam, for the GetUp team.

*Here are just a few of the great stories generated by the Renewable Energy Index yesterday:
[1] Charis Chang, News.com.au ‘Renewable Energy Index shows power of solar, wind, hydro and other renewables’
[2] Joshua Robertson, The Guardian ‘Renewable energy generates enough power to run 70% of Australian homes’
[3] Nicole Hasham, Sydney Morning Herald ‘Renewable energy booming but could soon turn to bust, analysts warn’
[4] AAP ‘Renewable energy projects are booming’

1 Like

I think we’re starting to see energy generators and providers blaming renewables for price rises less and less as they know the importance of transitioning by now. That won’t stop LNP politicians and shock jocks from cheerleading it though. They’ll start to look more and more silly. Bit like the SSM thing. Not too many in the media pleading the case for the no vote as it’s not a very defensible position these days.

Pointing out that you use All the information and not just what suits your own personal objectives.
Read the previous posting to mine.
Climate science isn’t about coming up with a theory and declaring it to be true because “it must be CO2, what else could it be”, it is analysising hard data and constructing a program using that theory, if the resultsthat match the data to the observations THEN. That theory is correct.

NOT the come up with a theory and then adjust the program to fit the observations as they did at the beginning and later as they are still doing, adjusting the raw data to make the programs work.
Refer Richard Feynman, I have posted his lecture on the principles of science before but if people are too thick to understand that is not my problem.

Of course the reaction of the young will be who the ■■■■ is Feynman? He is an old ■■■■, we know better

Try as they may the temperature still refuses to conform to their projections.

Refer to the UAH satellite temperature anomaly, the temperature has been falling steeply for months and is now at the same level as 1988 despite CO2 continually rising, funny thing is, none of you have questioned that, perhaps your religion forbids being curious after all when Gore visited recently that was his approach, no questions allowed, no questions answered, no dissent tolerated.

Cycle 25 is upon us, the Sun has gone quiet, we maybe looking at a Dalton or Maunder Minimum.

If you look at the charts the CO2 levels rise 600-800 years AFTER temperature.
What climate event happened 800 years ago? Clue, one that Mann tried to get rid of.

Finally, no one has commented on the deliberate mistake in a previous post to test you so I am assuming none of you has got a ■■■■■■■ clue about the climate debate other than what you have been spoon fed.

And it is a balltearer.

2 Likes

Posted in Analysis, Dalton, Drought, Earthquakes, History, Maunder, Solar, Survival | Leave a comment

New Study By German Physicists Concludes We Can Expect Climate Cooling For Next 50 Years!

Posted on August 3, 2017 by Russ Steele

By P Gosselin at the No Tricks Zone

German physicists: “CO2 plays only minor role for global climate”

In a just published study in The Open Atmospheric Science Journal here, German scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke and Carl-Otto Weiss have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean over the last 2000 years, dubbed G7, in order to find out more about the sun’s role on climate change.

Their results drop a huge surprise on the laps of scientists who have long believed the earth is warming due to human-emitted CO2.

The analysis by the German scientists shows the strongest climate cycle components as 1000, 460, and 190-year periods. The G7 global temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, Medieval, and present optima, as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age.

Correlation 0.84

Using further complex analyses, they constructed a representation of G7, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with the 31-year running average of G7.

The authors used extensive local temperature proxy data [2 – 6] together with Britain’s Hadley CRU temperature records since 1870 and the recent satellite measurements, and combined them to make up the global temperature time series G7 for the last 2000 years.

Luedecke_1
In accordance to the definition of climate, the blue curve in the paper’s Fig. 3, shown above, depicts the climate history as the 30-year running average of the grey curve. Noteworthy, the historically known temperature extrema are well reproduced by the blue climate curve: The Roman Optimum (~0 AD), the Medieval Optimum (~1000 AD), the Present Optimum, as well as the Little Ice Age (~1500 AD),

Also the pronounced minimum of 1450 AD, when the vines in southern France were killed by cold. Also clearly shown by the climate curve is the warming from 1850 to 1995.

The detailed analysis of the local records show in general a multitude of peaks, the authors say, and the G7 however shows only 3 dominant peaks, which correspond to cycles known from local studies, of approx. 1000, 500, 200-year periods. The combination of local records to a global record apparently averages out local cycles and emphasizes global cycles.

The sum of these three dominant cycles (red curve in Fig. 3) reproduces the measured climate (blue curve in Fig. 3) with a remarkable correlation of 0.84.

In particular the sum of the three cycles shows the temperature increase from 1850 to 1995 as a result of the three natural cycles, the German researchers say, adding: “Thus one can conclude that CO2 plays only a minor role (if any) for the global climate.”

Lüdecke and Weiss note that the present maximum of the cycle sum corresponds well with the world temperature stagnation since 1995 AD, the stagnation unexplained by current climate models. As the dominant cycles have persisted for an extended time, one can assume that they will persist for the near future. They write: “This allows to predict cooling until 2070 AD.”

The authors provide the following references:
[1] https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44
[2] Christiansen and Ljungqvist, Clim Past, 8, 765-786, 2012
[3] Büntgen et al., Science, 331, 578-582, 2011
[4] McKay and Kaufman, Sci Data, 1: 140026, 2014
[5] Villalba et al., Nat Geosci, 5, 793-798, 2012
[6] Petit et al., Nature, 399, 429-436, 1999

Dude, if I commented on EVERY inaccuracy in your posts in this thread it’d be a full time job. So I generally only bother with the high points…

As for this ‘months-long cooling trend, coolest since 1988!’ line you’ve been spouting recently…

  • do you realise how statistically insignificant this is, on the timescales we’re looking at? Talk to me when the global 5-year moving average heads meaningfully down.
  • months-long cooling relative to what? To last year? Certainly not to the long-term average, this’ll almost certainly be in the top 10 hottest years ever, again. And given last year was THE hottest year ever, it’s hardly a surprise if the randomn factor in the signal causes the average to tick slightly down. Bet you the trend continues upwards though.
  • you do know that 1988 was a hot year on the long term scale, don’t you? There were NO years as hot as 1988 prior to 1960 or so. Does that tell you anything about long term trends?
  • the thing about cycle 25, or any other cycle number on the 11yr solar oscillation is that it is … (drumroll) … a cycle. And even if it’s a historically deep solar minimum (which I have no idea about one way or another), IT WILL END after a handful of years and the temperature will increase again. You’re acting like solar cycle minimums are a fricking unprecedented event! There’s been two full solar cycles pass since Howard was elected FFS, and it hasn’t stopped the long term temperature trend grinding inexorably upward. Solar cycles have an impact on climate, but right now that impact is being drowned out by the AGW impact like a ripple gets drowned by a tsunami.
  • yes, in paleoclimatology, co2 concentration trails temperature, time-wise. This is because never before has there been a species artificially emitting the stuff by the millions of tons! There’s only been co2 release from melting permafrost as the climate warms in boreal areas. But here’s the thing - this is still happening now. There is a feedback loop in play, more co2 = more warming = more permafrost melt = more co2. This is where the threat of ‘runaway’ global warming comes from - a point when even if humans stop emissions fast, it’s too late to prevent catastrophic change because we can’t stop the emissions from melting permafrost (and other warming sources informed by feedback loops, like reduction of earths albedo due to icecap loss).

Seriously, learn a bit about the science you’re criticising before criticising it, maybe?

3 Likes

No chance of that

That paper is one of the most ludicrously hilarious things I have ever read. I am literally crying here. The misapplication of Fourier analysis right here deserves to be framed and put in some sort of Global Museum of Mathematical Failure, right next to the mars probe that got lost cos of metric to imperial unit conversion failure, and the conviction of a random pokie addict that ‘I’ve lost 400 spins in a row, that MUST mean a big win will be coming soon…’

I’ll point and laugh at it more thoroughly once I get home and have had a beer so I can properly enjoy it.

(Yes, I DO have strange hobbies!)

2 Likes

Hah!

To get published in that journal you don’t need to do much more than pay them.

That journal has an impact factor of 0.5. If they really had a breakthrough in climate science they would publish in a journal with IF over 20.

And it has a h-index of only 6 (i.e of all the papers it has published, only 6 have had more than 6 other papers citing them).

FWIW, my own personal h-index is 43.

Also, after a little fascinated googling, it seems that the journal did have peer review performed on the paper. The reviewers basically said ‘rewrite this entirely, it’s rubbish’ but the journal went ahead and published the paper fundamentally unchanged. At least one reviewer has publicly called the journal out about this and refused to review papers for the in future. Shenanigans shenanigans…

I’m a big fan of Feynman, who died before I was 10 years old. I discovered him later in life. As for some kind of gigantic international circular reasoning agenda for CO2 it’s a wonder science departments and peer reviewers all over the world aren’t going to town on all of this dodgey interpretations of results. I assume you’re implying it’s everywhere undermining the entire thing and not just the example you mentioned.

As for old scientists forgotten by the young, maybe take a peek into a guy called John Tyndall.

I was pointing out the principles of science according to Feynman the chief one being falsifiability.

When you have scientists refusing to provide the data and programming because:

“why should I give it to you so you can prove me wrong”

Then alarm bells should be going off in your head.

1 Like

Oh the irony

3 Likes

How are the effects of greenhouse gasses not falsifiable?

Name examples, specifically.

Cos I’m aware of two types of case when climate reality deniers shriek about this sort of ‘■■■ you’re hiding the data!’ stuff.

First is when a new climate paper comes out that has results they don’t like. The paper will say something like ‘we used the Wilberforce method in a Bibble simulation with x=0.57’. A competent scientist in the field would know what these are and be able to reproduce them, and would be able to say stuff like ‘hey, a Bibble simulation is inappropriate when the Splung coefficient is this low, your results will be inaccurate’. Or if the researcher coded their calculations wrong a followup using the correct method can prove it. Standard denier tactics, by contrast, is GIVE ME ALL YOUR WORKING AND ALL YOUR DATA AND ALL YOUR DISCUSSIONS AND ALL YOUR CODE AND ALL YOUR INTERMEDIATE STEPS and then start screaming ‘coverup!’ when it doesnt arrive the very next morning in a pretty gift box with a nice little bow. Firstly, ■■■■ off, cos if I had to code my simulation you can too, the algorithm is right there in the literature. Second, ■■■■ off, cos I’ve been working in this paper for two years and damned if I’m dropping everything involved in my actual job and spending the next three weeks finding every bit of archive data and every discussion email and sending you data sets that you can get for free on the internet just by looking just cos some screaming conspiracy theorist reckons he’s entitled to them. Thirdly, ■■■■ off, cos everything you need is in the paper and the literature, and if you had the slightest competence in the field you’d know that. Now go away, the adults are talking.

Second is related to your beloved Yamal tree ring sets - when a researcher has been permitted to use pre-publication data from another researcher as a professional courtesy. When the ‘where’s the data’ demands arrive, the author says ‘oh, it belongs to X, go ask them for it’ because it’s ■■■■■■■ RUDE AND UNETHICAL to release someone else’s prepublication data without their consent. What normally happens is that the denier never bothers asking X, and instead claims the researcher is trying to hide something.

All of which is complicated by the known and documented (in their own words) fact that many if the drivers of the climate reality denial movement are not acting in good faith. As laid out in the leaked Exxon documents, there is a clear strategy of NOT engaging in genuine good faith scientific debate, instead trying to make enough confusing noise so that media and public believe there is a legit scientific controversy where there is not one. The scientific community has yet to come up with a solution to this dilemma. But there is an understandable unwillingness to jump snappily into action to meet the arbitrary demands of someone who has proven unwilling or unable to engage in honest scientific debate. Does NASA spend all their time answering letters from the Flat Earth Society?

And finally, it’s funny that climate reality deniers get in such a tizzy about ‘unreleased’ data and simulations while they remain utterly unable to make a dent on the vastly greater amount of stuff that HAS been released. All the NASA GIS stats sets are public domain. The IPCC climate simulation code is public domain. Go disprove those. Oh wait, you can’t…

1 Like

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the polemical blueprint for our dismantling of the Swans.

Agreed on all counts btw.

1 Like

Unfortunately, sorfed is the Pannell of the climate change thread. Very talented at only seeing what he wants to.

6 Likes

Are Wiberforce method, Bibble simulation and Splung coefficient real things? Or did you just make up hypothetical names for the argument?

For the record, I hope they are real. They sound very sciencey.