UAH: global temperature down in August by .181°C, SH sees biggest drop of 0.4°C

August 2009 Global Temperature Update: +0.23 deg. C

Dr. Roy Spencer September 4th, 2009
UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_09

August 2009 saw a modest fall in the global average tropospheric temperature anomaly, from +0.41 deg. C in July to +0.23 deg. C in August. The tropical and Northern Hemispheric troposphere remain quite warm, but the Southern Hemisphere cooled by over 0.4 deg. C in the last month.


YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.412 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.231 +0.284 +0.179 +0.455

NOTE: For those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here, we are still working on switching from NOAA-15 to Aqua AMSU, which will provide more accurate tracking on a daily basis. We will be including both our lower troposphere (LT) and mid-tropospheric (MT) pre-processing of the data. We will also be adding global sea surface temperature anomalies from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite.

Advertisements

135 thoughts on “UAH: global temperature down in August by .181°C, SH sees biggest drop of 0.4°C

  1. We need Mann to “process” the El Nino spike down to 0.2 or so. Everybody knows he can do it because he is a statistical Wizard.

  2. Still no runaway warming?!? Pay no attention to the REAL Data…Just wait until Hansen HOMOGENIZES it! It will be the Warmest August in History!!!!

  3. Is this a forewarning of what lies in store for NH winter?
    Last year, no sooner did the Arctic Sun set in Alaska than the temp in Fairbanks plunged severely, and stayed down there for a long time.
    People in the Yukon take note, and be prepared.
    You too, Alaska.

  4. Just wait until Hansen HOMOGENIZES it!

    If only he didn’t pasteurize it.

    I’ll be gone next week, starting Tuesday. I wanted to observe the Monarch butterfly migration, which passes right through where I’m going, but I understand they cut out three weeks early and I’ll be missing it.

  5. I do not believe anybody knows the global temperature to a ten-thousandth of a degree.

    I don’t even believe anybody knows it to a full degree, but we might debate that.

    Did everybody skip 7th-grade arithmetic?

  6. evanmjones (19:50:06) :

    I’ll be gone next week, starting Tuesday. I wanted to observe the Monarch butterfly migration, which passes right through where I’m going, but I understand they cut out three weeks early and I’ll be missing it.

    Seems even butterflies understand weather/climate better than we humans :-D

    DaveE.

  7. While it’s nice to have the ‘charted’ data, I’ve got my own yardstick: my power bill about 20% less than last year and I actually was able to open the windows overnight [towards the end of the month].

    The hard numbers are welcome though.

    PS—The Farmer’s Almanac sez: Bitter Winter for most the US.

  8. evanmjones (19:50:06) :

    I’ll be gone next week, starting Tuesday. I wanted to observe the Monarch butterfly migration, which passes right through where I’m going, but I understand they cut out three weeks early and I’ll be missing it.

    Hmm. noted the Monarchs in this area-NE Oregon -have gone,So have the bulk of the
    Pelicans and Robins here.We are on a minor branch of the Monarch Migration.Noted the
    Meadowlarks have left the area too.Normally they are around until mid-late August…
    I Fear this isn’t good.
    Also,El Nino appears to be shrinking,as i have said,it will be gone or near gone by
    Northern winter: :http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html

  9. Still looks like part of a 60 – 70 year sine wave with lots of noise on it to me!

    That’s because it is. And the 60 year sine is noise on the 200 year cycle, which is itself noise on the 2,000 year cycle, which is noise on the 1,000,000 year cycle.

    Oh, and it’s the CO2. Yeah. That.

  10. After cruising along the zero anomaly line from 1979 the temperature deviation seems to be ‘reset’ upward to +0.3 by the 1998 El Nino and moves forward without a rise/fall trend.

  11. Douglas DC (20:39:27) :

    Sorry, Douglas, didn’t see your post until after mine. Your Robins stopped by the Shasta/Trinity last week. Noted the Monarchs and Yellow Swallowtails on the 27th & 28th of August (my wife keeps the notes). Have seen birds flocking in the Northern part of the Sacramento Valley mid-August.
    Yes, I am afraid you are correct. This is so not good.
    If this is what it takes to get the AGW monkey off our backs, well, that’s what it takes. Only trouble is, the MSM is working overtime to fake out the public, pointing them in the wrong direction.

  12. evanmjones wrote :

    “I’ll be gone next week, starting Tuesday. I wanted to observe the Monarch butterfly migration, which passes right through where I’m going, but I understand they cut out three weeks early and I’ll be missing it.”

    DaveE resonded:

    “Seems even butterflies understand weather/climate better than we humans”

    They’re just flapping for chaos. Consequently, many years down the road the weather will be different. Now model that!

    The last week of August in southeastern Washington Sate, Canadian Geese were bestirring themselves, taking off and landing in the pond behind our house, forming fitful V formations.

  13. OK, ignoring the 1998 El Nino year, I get a 0 to negative trend continuously with the UAH temp data from Feb 2000. Thats 9 years and 6 months.

    According to NOAA 10 years with 0 trend is possible but unusual and 15 years precluded.

    Shiver in your boots you AGW fudgers and credulous clowns.

  14. Update from 10,000′ in the Central Rocky Mountains: Autumn is in full swing. The yellowing of the Aspen leaves commenced a couple of weeks ago, and peak colors should appear in maybe two weeks. We had a cold rainstorm roll through today, and the peaks above 12,000 got snow. This early Autumn comes on the heels of a short, cooler than average summer.

  15. Keith Minto (21:17:48) : temperature seems to be “reset”

    I believe Bob Tisdale [ http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/ ]
    has explained the working off of the warmth from the 1998 El Nino. This suggests to me that the “resetting” is temporary. Maybe Bob or someone else knows the proper post for you to read and will point it out.

  16. Previous WxMark

    “Just wait until Hansen HOMOGENIZES it!”

    and evanmjones

    “If only he didn’t pasteurize it.”

    I thought ‘pasteurize’ was about Al Gore’s sea level prediction?

  17. Hi Anthony, where is James hansen lately? NASA has been using “maundeer minimum” type of cooling recently, plus this drop in August temp anomaly. Is he being eased out by fellow NASA officials? Or he’s on an intimate rendezvouz with Al Gore, in preparation for Copenhagen this December? thanks.

  18. So the SH “sees the biggest drop”? Funny, but the Bureau of Meterorology, Canberra, Australia reported only a few days ago that “August [in Australia] was almost 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer than normal across the country.

    “The bureau boffins described it as most extraordinary” as temperatures crept above 38 degrees in some areas.

    “And winter as a whole came within a whisker of being the warmest of record – it was just 0.01 of a degree cooler than the record-holder, 1996.

    See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/01/reporter-down-under-dont-blame-climate-change-for-hottest-august-on-record/

  19. CPT. Charles (20:30:44) : PS—The Farmer’s Almanac sez: Bitter Winter for most the US.

    They are usually right.

  20. Based on AGW theory, July temperature spike should have initiate higher evaporation, which would have caused increased GH effect, which should have warmed oceans and led to more CO2 released, which should have caused temperature increase, which should have increased humidity, which should have… but temperature just fell back.

  21. I would think the relative cooling of the SH basically stems from Antarctic/Southern ocean. While not explainig why they are record high, generally elevated temperatures in Oz is a consequence of the current el Nino.

    Cassanders
    In Cod we trust

  22. “Frank Mosher (19:26:46) :
    Flanagan. What happened?”

    Hahaha!! Yes Flanagan where are you? Earlier this year he promised me a super El Nino and we agreed to review temperature data in September 2009…

  23. Way OT, but I am eager to know about the scaling between a Denmark organization and IRAC/JAXA in graphing the arctic ice extent.

    For the former, the ordinate starts at “0 million km2”:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    For the latter, the ordinate starts at ” 2 million km2″:

    However, to my presbyopic eyes, the two graphs look essentially identical.
    The origin of the ordinate for the Danish graph should be “2 million Km2” and not “0 million km2”, or?

    Could a sea ice expert teach me please?

  24. 1. If we get a La Nina on the scale of the 1997/98 el Nino, will temperatures drop down to below pre-1998 levels? What’s that got to do with humans if it happens?
    2. How confident are we that the actual data generated isn’t the artefact of pre-chosen statistics?
    3. If we accept a step shift up of 0.2 degrees post 2000, with no discernible upward trend currently to worry about, is that going to melt the entire icesheet of Greenland?

    Seems to me that the data says: the Earth may exist in a variety of states, but there’s nothing in the past 50 years which says we’re going into a meltdown situation……..

  25. OT: Kaufmann graphics that speaks for them selves:



    Kaufman added a graph with today 0,6K higher than 1940. GISS said that 1940 was at the same level as today:

    Why this difference? Does it seem objective for Kaufmann to apply the 0,6K-graph?

  26. Josh (22:04:05) :

    Update from 10,000′ in the Central Rocky Mountains: Autumn is in full swing. The yellowing of the Aspen leaves commenced a couple of weeks ago, and peak colors should appear in maybe two weeks. We had a cold rainstorm roll through today, and the peaks above 12,000 got snow. This early Autumn comes on the heels of a short, cooler than average summer.

    Yup. Last weekend we were up in the Sylvan Lake area. Leaves on both aspen and brush beginning their change. Somewhat cool and autumn like.

    http://parks.state.co.us/parks/sylvanlake

  27. re Ozzie winter … tad warmer north of a latitude line north of about Woolongong, south of this line however has been cold (Ski season has been awesome and it’s powering on with some great snowfalls due to hit early in the new week) and central, western and southern states have been cold. It’s all about where the winds/ jet streams have been blowing from and towards. Meanwhile the planet continues to cool.

  28. Anyone else caught this? Concessions in a recent report that solar activity and ENSO conditions are major climate drivers. This is nothing new of course and the report still panders to the usual AGW BS. Noteworthy though is the evidence based reference to these and other natural drivers of climate and indeed the website itself posting this report as showing a willingness to be a little more open minded. Worth a look. Follow link here. http://www.spaceweather.com/

  29. “If this is what it takes to get the AGW monkey off our backs, well, that’s what it takes.”

    Sorry cold winter just weather. Hot weekend climate change.

    “Floods remain as downpour ends”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8239074.stm

    Moray SNP MP Angus Robertson—-“The hard lessons learnt from this latest devastation include the need for local agencies to redouble their efforts to get flood prevention measures into place and to recognise that climate change will only lead to more flooding in the future.”

  30. Gene Nemetz (00:35:19) :

    CPT. Charles (20:30:44) : PS—The Farmer’s Almanac sez: Bitter Winter for most the US.

    They are usually right.

    You’re probably thinking of the Old Farmer’s Almanac. They haven’t made their annual announcement of publication yet, but they do have the 2010 weather data up.

    They also redid their web site. Some regional forecasts sound a lot like this year, the PDO continues. From http://www.almanac.com/weather (click on “Long-Range weather forecast” for details, but that doesn’t include the regional name.

    Northeast:
    Winter will be colder than normal, on average, primarily due to persistent cold temperatures in January, with only brief thaws. Other cold periods will occur in mid-December and mid-February. Precipitation and snowfall will be below normal. Watch for a snowstorm around Thanksgiving, with other snowy periods in mid- and late December and mid- and late January.

    April and May will be slightly cooler than normal, with below-normal precipitation continuing and raising concern of summer drought.

    Summer will be cooler than normal, with slightly below normal rainfall. The hottest periods will be in early and mid-June, late July, and early to mid-August.

    September and October will be slightly drier than normal, with near-normal temperatures.

    Upper midwest:
    Winter will be much colder than normal, with temperatures 3 degrees below normal, on average, in the east and 6 degrees below in the west. The coldest periods will occur in mid-December, early and mid- to late January, and early and mid- to late February. Precipitation and snowfall will be below normal in the east and above normal in the west. The snowiest periods will occur in mid- to late November, mid-December, early January, mid- to late February, and early to mid- and mid- to late March.

    April and May will be warmer than normal in the east but cooler in the west. Precipitation will be above normal, with widespread snow in mid-April.

    Summer will be cooler than normal, with below-normal rainfall in the east and near-normal rainfall in the west. The hottest periods will occur in mid-July and early August.

    September and October will be slightly cooler than normal, with near-normal precipitation.

    Texas/Oklahoma:
    Winter will be colder than normal, on average, from the Metroplex north and westward, with near-normal temperatures elsewhere. The coldest periods will occur in the second week of December, early to mid-January, and early to mid-February. Precipitation and snowfall will be near or slightly below normal. The most significant snow and ice will occur in mid-December, early January, and early and mid-February.

    April and May will be warmer then normal, with near-normal rainfall.

    Summer will be hotter and drier than normal, with the hottest periods from late June through the first half of July and in early to mid-August. The likelihood of a major hurricane is below normal.

    September and October will bring near-normal temperatures, on average, with slightly below normal rainfall.

    Desert Southwest:
    Winter will be colder than normal, on average, especially in the west, with the coldest periods in early to mid-December, mid-January, and early to mid-February. Precipitation and snowfall will be near normal, with the snowiest periods in mid-December, early January, and mid-February.

    April and May will be cooler than normal, with above-normal rainfall in the west.

    Summer will be cooler and drier than normal, with the hottest temperatures in early and late July and early August.

    September and October will be cooler and drier than normal.

  31. Oh yeah?

    We had snow in the mountains outside Kabul into mid August (last year it was all gone in early June). Our temps have already plunged below 32°C almost a month early. In fact we didn’t break 32°C the last week and a half of August. Plus we got treated to two big gully washers last week (very unusual for August). Nights are already around 10°C.

    The birds here are already starting their migrations too. The swallows moved out a week ago.

    Yep, methinks we too are in for a VERY cold one.

    On the plus side, the bad guys go to ground when the weather is bad. Here’s hoping they freeze their nibblets off in their caves!

  32. Bryn

    did you actually read what he said, rather than what the reporter thought he said.

    ““There’s a lot of natural variability but you’ve got a climate change signal on top of that.””

  33. “Harry Eagar (20:06:48) :
    I do not believe anybody knows the global temperature to a ten-thousandth of a degree.
    I don’t even believe anybody knows it to a full degree, but we might debate that.”

    You are right, of course. But this time the fault lies with WUWT and their chosen title.
    Please notice what they call it in the graph, and that the “UAH” at the beginning is almost like a disclaimer.
    Part of looking at such numbers is wondering what they means.
    (A very similar problem is that the IQ is called IQ)

  34. The lesson I am drawing about gloal temperature changes from the recent La Nina and the current mild El Nino conditions concerns the responsiveness of the global air circulation systems to changes in tropical ocean SSTs.

    All the more significant for the coming few years is the current relative coolness of the southern hemispere SSTs which is likely to filter across to the northern hemisphere over time and be compounded by the rapid heat loss of the northern continents in winter.

    Whilst the La Nina was present the air circulations were well equatorward of normal and now with El Nino they have returned poleward towards normal but are still not as poleward as during the 1975 to 2000 warming period.

    The past two UK summers were worse than the present one but even this summer the relative warmth has been limited mostly to the south east quadrant of the UK. The Met Office summer forecast could only ever have come right if the oceans had been significantly warmer or warm for significantly longer.

    The latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems really do seem to ebb and flow poleward and equatorward along with changes in ocean SSTs with consequent regional climate changes over time.

    On multidecadal time scales the current phase of the oceans seems to be the primary climate driver and as we have seen over the past few years that driver swamps any anthropogenic influence. Until the experts get the balance right their forecasts cannot improve but to get it right they have to take the current ‘weighting’ for CO2 effects out of the equation and replace it with a far lower number and possibly remove it altogether.

    On the basis of the last few years the rapid responses in the air to ocean changes are persuading me and should persuade others that the short term ocean and air behaviour is far more powerful than previously acknowledged. Even ENSO variability is clearly seen reflected in air circulation changes let alone the multidecadal phase shifts.

    There is no reason why ocean variability need be limited to interannual ENSO and multidecadal PDO shifts either. There could be longer term ocean variability not yet identified but I do not rely on that at this point.

    Longer term background trends are more likely to be solar induced than CO2 induced because solar trends affect ocean energy content whereas CO2 only affects the temperature of the air and so is swiftly dealt with by minor adjustments in the air.

    Ocean surface water variability causes surface air temperature anomalies then the air circulation shifts to neutralise them. The entire air circulation system and the hydrological cycle are involved.

    I don’t think there is any evidence that any ‘equilibrium’ temperature has ever actually changed from changes in the air alone. That is merely an extrapolation from the ideas of Tyndall and others combined with the current absence of any serious attempt to find a mechanism that could neutralise such an effect.

    To achieve such a change in any equilibrium temperature one has to change the energy content of the oceans beyond the changes attributable to solar and oceanic variability. To date we don’t even have a grip on the solar effects let alone other influences.

    It is true that changes in the composition of the air will change the thermal characteristics of the air but that has no effect on equilibrium unless it can be transmitted to the oceans and all the evidence is that that cannot happen on any timescale less than millennia and even then it would be unmeasurable from our puny influence.

    Instead all that happens is a miniscule shift in the air circulation systems and a miniscule change in the speed of the hydrological cycle transferring energy faster to space. I have proposed that as the mechanism countering any changes in equilibrium from changes in the air alone and await any serious attempt at countering it.

    Extra energy from the oceans (often a huge amount) is disposed of in exactly the same way with no tipping point in sight but with air circulation shifts of hundreds of miles latitudinally. There mght be a latitudinal shift of less than a mile from anything that humans could achieve. Wholly insignificant against natural variability.

  35. tokyoboy (01:27:47) :

    Way OT, but I am eager to know about the scaling between a Denmark organization and IRAC/JAXA in graphing the arctic ice extent.

    The main difference between these two graphs is that JAXA defines sea ice extent as the area where sea ice concentration exceeds 15%. The explanation’s a few paragraphs below the graph here:

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    DMI uses >30% (your link showed the explanation at the top left). Thus their area is lower and a different scale is appropriate.

    By the way, NSIDC and NANSEN use 15% as their threshold.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

  36. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1948/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1948/to:2010/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1948/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1948/to:2010/trend

    The hemispheric SST are not out yet , but if the global Southern Hemisphere temperature anomaly is down by 0.4 C, then the Southern Hemisphere SST will also be down the second month in a row . I have found that the Southern Hemisphere SST best correlates with global surface temperature anomaly [hadcrut3] and lead Northern hemisphere SST changes and global surface temperature changes by as much as 5-8 months . This can be clearly seen in the period 2006 to 2008 ,1963-1965 and 1900-1902. These were all periods that led to cooler subsequent global periods

    If we see a steady decline in Southern Hemisphere SST, cooler global temperatures could begin to manifest 5-8 months later together with a strong La Nina . My best guess for this is 2010.[perhaps the latter part]

  37. ““There’s a lot of natural variability but you’ve got a climate change signal on top of that.””

    Check out the AGW terminology employed in that statement, which is essentially a redefinition of words in an attempt to dictate Reality: natural variability does not produce “climate change”. Only Man produces “climate change”. But now tell me just who it is that actually denies climate change, unless it’s Man-made?

    And the AGWers think no one will notice their word-games and thus not draw the appropriate conclusion that their whole operation is a massive Propaganda Op.?

  38. Gene Nemetz (00:35:19) :

    CPT. Charles (20:30:44) : PS—The Farmer’s Almanac sez: Bitter Winter for most the US.

    “They are usually right”.

    Yes, last year Joseph D’Aleo (icecap.us) made their forecast which showed a perfect match with what happened in the real world.

    Who did the job this year I don’t know.

  39. ““There’s a lot of natural variability but you’ve got a climate change signal on top of that.””

    A totaly meaningless statement unless you can quantify natural variability

  40. tokyoboy: “Could a sea ice expert teach me please?”

    Not necessarily an expert but the DMI graph is based on a 30% sea ice threshold while the other one is based on 15% I believe.

  41. Stephen, I so enjoy your posts. They are clear and relatively free of new-age jargon. I also appreciate your use of directly observable mechanisms as the glue in your thesis while giving mention to but still putting aside “what we don’t know”.

  42. Stephen Wilde (06:10:12) :

    “Extra energy from the oceans (often a huge amount) is disposed of in exactly the same way with no tipping point in sight but with air circulation shifts of hundreds of miles latitudinally. There mght be a latitudinal shift of less than a mile from anything that humans could achieve. Wholly insignificant against natural variability.”

    Right you are.
    The sun sends in a single hour the entire energy budget humans use in an entire year.
    From the total CO2 budget human emissions only contribute 3%
    That is 3% from 385 parts per million currently present in our atmosphere.
    Wholly insignificant against natural variability indeed.

  43. “A totaly meaningless statement unless you can quantify natural variability”

    He was making a statement to the reporter. What the reporter (or sub editor) came up with in the headline and introduction did not agree with what the scientist actually told her.

  44. @ M White (07:33:34) :

    “What does a “climate change” signal look like??????????”

    Excellent question, simple answer. Whatever the climate modelers say it is because (all together now) the models predicted it.

    Higher, lower, October high, October low, 2011 flat, 2010 cold (or warm)… one of the models predicted it, and since the models assume CO2 as the climate driver, there’s your “climate change” signal.

  45. The Ideal Climate Change Signal looks like a stock certificate and a bill sent by the computer model to the printer.
    They get the shares. You get the bill.

  46. May be OT here,
    but lots of birds did leave already,
    black elderberries are great this year ,
    did harvest them last weekend, about three weeks early,
    local temperatures are below last solar minimum here,
    – I do overlay daily temps from 1996/1997 with
    current daily temperatures (currently compared to 1997),
    we’re here currently about 1.2 °C below Aug./early Sep. 1997,
    (using 14 days centered moving average).

    My early guess-timating for winter 2009/2010, done in May/June
    this year was a rather warm one, exception a pretty cold phase
    between last week of January 2010 and 2nd week of February 2010.
    (I was simply thinking SOI and later ENSO/ONI may point a medium El Nino,
    not to a weak one). Now it looks like Dec/Jan/Feb could match and even
    be colder than last year. At least my roses and my cameliaes do support my
    opinion, up to now.

    KlausB

  47. When it comes to early changes in the leaves for Fall I have to say we’re seeing some early changing of the leaves here too, cottonwood leaves have been trickling down, the locusts have started dropping a trickle of leaves in late August and I’ve seen a small tree or two around our neighborhood bursting with color already.

    We’re far from peak color yet, but it has starteda bit earlier than usual. Also, we usually don’t notice migrations of certain songbirds like robins here, we can have quite a few robins when the temps. are well below freezing and the ground is covered in snow. Our squirrels don’t hibernate either because they know they can just raid the bird feeders.

  48. Josh (22:04:05) :

    Update from 10,000′ in the Central Rocky Mountains: Autumn is in full swing. The yellowing of the Aspen leaves commenced a couple of weeks ago, and peak colors should appear in maybe two weeks. We had a cold rainstorm roll through today, and the peaks above 12,000 got snow. This early Autumn comes on the heels of a short, cooler than average summer.

    Pike’s Peak got snow the other day.

    Mark

  49. How that drop of 0.4°C in SH equates with NOAA´s Nino. Is it NOAA´s or a Hansen´s model “Virtual Nino” (kind of transgender Nina)?.

  50. Pamela Gray (07:51:50)

    Thanks Pamela.

    Should be quite clear in a couple of years as to whether my theses are broadly correct or not.

    The key combination of variable oceanic energy release and a subsequent shift in the air circulation systems seems to be my unique selling point.

    No other climate driving force comes close on timescales of less than centuries and on longer timescales solar variability seems perfectly adequate.

    The entire AGW proposition depends on increasing CO2, rising air temperatures and an assumed absence of an alternative climate driver. I’ve suggested one and for 18 months now no AGW supporter has been able to discount it.

  51. @Adam from Kansas,

    Dear Adam,
    the changing of leaves depend do of two different values
    (silly me, my born language isn’t English)
    – as first is not temperature, but precipitation (or lack of)
    – temperature comes as next
    – finally, the mixture of both and when, is what counts in the end.
    Here, first colour changing of leaves was already at 20th of July,
    about 6 weeks ahead, but – mostly – due to dryness.
    But more, my alpine asters are ahead by 4 weeks,
    last year, they did still bloom at December 16th.
    Will have a daily look on them, may be they tell me more.

    KlausB

  52. KlausB (12:27:23)

    I thought trees changed their leaf colour primarily in response to a change in light intensity.

    Usually cloudy skies reduce light intenslity as well as accompanying cooler temperatures so it isn’t cooler temperatures in themselves that cause the colour change.

    Cold and drought damages leaves too but via different processes which do not always involve colour changes over time.

    So the question is whether the timing of colour changes in leaves is sensitive to tiny changes in solar radiation separately from such changes induced simply by increased cloudiness or gradual seasonal changes. I’ve no idea but it sounds plausible.

  53. Oxfam activist danish model and photographer Helen Christensen, scaring peruvian local indians, at Cusco, Peru, about “Climate Change”, to provoke them against government:
    “We are at a critical tipping point. We need to put pressure on our governments in order for them to take the necessary, radical steps that are needed to lower CO2 emissions. There’s no time left, it is absolutely imperative to act now. Hopefully the only benefit of this UN conference won’t be just a boost to Danish tourism.
    “http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2009-09-04/helena-christensen-witnesses-climate-impacts-peru
    http://www.elcomercio.com.pe/impresa/edicion/2009-09-05/ecvf050909a20/04
    This is really a work of “intelligence” against third world governments and people, which should be address as a foreing meddling in internal affairs, even as foreing agression.

  54. I find it interesting that oak trees around my house are already sprouting nearly full size acorns—seems a month or so too early, and this is in north Florida, where the cooling weather being felt in the north during this summer did not reach (though it seems that we had a fewer number of hot days after June).

    So how do oak trees know that they have got to finish their reproductive cycle earlier? Could it be that their leaves are equipped with ultraviolet radiation sensors, and the sensors detected the diminished UV solar output of the current solar cycle (more marked than in the visible spectrum) which in turn triggered hormonal change that is speeding up their winter weather preparation?

    A mechanism using a chemical that is sensitive to a prolonged decrease in UV input might be at work acting like a fuse that decides on when to trigger the hormonal change.

  55. Nogw (11:59:59) :

    How that drop of 0.4°C in SH equates with NOAA´s Nino. Is it NOAA´s or a Hansen´s model “Virtual Nino” (kind of transgender Nina)?.

    Well, they might point you to the numbers for the tropics, which actually increased just a bit.

  56. Stephen Wilde (12:44:24) :
    KlausB (12:27:23)

    I thought trees changed their leaf colour primarily in response to a change in light intensity.

    Usually cloudy skies reduce light intenslity as well as accompanying cooler temperatures so it isn’t cooler temperatures in themselves that cause the colour change.

    Cold and drought damages leaves too but via different processes which do not always involve colour changes over time.

    So the question is whether the timing of colour changes in leaves is sensitive to tiny changes in solar radiation separately from such changes induced simply by increased cloudiness or gradual seasonal changes. I’ve no idea but it sounds plausible.

    The primary trigger is the length of day (or night).

  57. George PS (12:45:58) :
    So how do oak trees know that they have got to finish their reproductive cycle earlier? Could it be that their leaves are equipped with ultraviolet radiation sensors, and the sensors detected the diminished UV solar output of the current solar cycle (more marked than in the visible spectrum) which in turn triggered hormonal change that is speeding up their winter weather preparation?

    A mechanism using a chemical that is sensitive to a prolonged decrease in UV input might be at work acting like a fuse that decides on when to trigger the hormonal change.

    Not likely since the UV you mention doesn’t make it through the atmosphere! Not much chance of making it through the cuticle either.

  58. Frederick Michael (06:41:15) :
    Mark (07:40:33) :

    Thank you for your mentorship on my simple question:

    tokyoboy (01:27:47) :
    Way OT, but I am eager to know about the scaling between a Denmark organization and IRAC/JAXA in graphing the arctic ice extent.

    Jetzt alles klar.

  59. About trees and change of color, here in southern New Brunswick (about 45°N) we have seen red tinges since early August. This is not the first year that we have seen some color early, but what this summer can do is to put to rest the hypothesis that it is due to lack of precipitation. We have had LOTS this year. It seemed that every second or third day was wet until after the middle of August. It’s only since then that I’ve been able to start painting exterior wood. (Unless the wood is good and dry, moisture inside will cause blistering and lifting of the paint.)
    We’ve had six continuous days of sunshine and temperatures in the 20-27°C range (i.e., very comfortable) and the forecast is for this to continue at least another three days. Despite these very favorable conditions, our hummingbirds have left. Do they know something about coming weather? Did the fact that the 4th was full moon have anything to do with it? (Do they fly at night?)
    IanM

  60. It might be worth collating Nature’s early autumn/fall bad winter signals. A few from Europe but most comments here from North America so far, with one from Kabul, Afghanistan.

  61. Stephen Wilde (12:44:24) as regards the color change here in the Rockies as Josh (22:04:05) mentioned, it is frost that causes this change. Josh was talking of 10K ft, I live at 6.7K ft in the central rockies and had temperatures in the 35-36°F range four nights the second week of august. Just from altitude it would have been 12-15°F cooler at 10K ft. The plants are showing their exposure to that now.

  62. juanslayton (07:01:33) :

    JLKreuger
    Re: your temperatures. Should those numbers be Fahrenheit?

    To those who wear body armor, dropping from around 37°C to below 32°C is a plunge. :-) But I meant 27°C so thanks for the poke.

    Still, far more telling are the night temps and in early morning more people are wearing jackets now. Normally, temps don’t drop like this until about October. Last year it was in the above 32°C for most of September.

  63. Harry Eagar (20:06:48) :
    I do not believe anybody knows the global temperature to a ten-thousandth of a degree.

    I don’t even believe anybody knows it to a full degree, but we might debate that.

    The 1/1000 and 1/100 C positions are a complete fiction. The 1/10C position has some hope for the satellites I think but GIStemp “has issues” with individual records that can shift several tenths due to programer choices. Add to that the fact that most of the historical record is recorded in whole degrees F only and there is no way the 1/10 C position is accurate in GIStemp. Whole degrees? Yeah, you might have some hope in the whole degrees position. But then you must address the issue of thermometer changes over time.

    Which leaves the other major issue: What does the average of an intensive variable mean? Not much.

    The “crib notes” explanation of intensive vs extensive variables is via an example. Take two pots of water. Measure their temperatures. Average them. Now pour one pot (the small one) into the other pot (the big one). What is the final temperature? You don’t know. You cannot know.

    Without an answer to exactly what mass of water each pot held (and maybe even what their specific heats were – was one salty and the other not? Was one pot aluminum, the other iron?) you have a nice average number that tells you nothing. Oh, and was any of the water solid?…

    Now if you’ve answered those questions you can calculate the thermal energy in the pots. Then when blended, you can calculated the final temperature. The thermal energy is an extensive variable, the temperature is intensive.

    “Global Average Temperature” has the same problems, but is even further confounded due to more materials with more variations of specific heats, and massive quantities of phase change (mostly in water and ice, but not all…). Oh, and very large masses with very variable latencies for thermal transfer. The inside of a boulder can be a very different temperature from the outside.

    It also “has issues” in that we assume that an accidental averaging via the air in a spot tells us something about the temperature of a “grid cell” surface temperature (yet the SST data show that is false). Anyone who has been warm standing in the sun watching snow in the shade knows this “has issues”… We then further assume that this “air temperature” tells us something about energy balance, when it does not.

    The air temp can tell us if we ought to wear a sweater (since we are standing in that air), but does not tell us anything useful about energy balance, heat flow, thermal energy of the materials in the surrounding kilometers, etc.

    Basically, the “Global Average Temperature” is a number we use because we can calculate it even though it has no physical meaning and no utility.

    See here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/gistemp-a-slice-of-pisa/

    for a discussion of “issues” with the temperature calculations in GIStemp

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/gistemp-f-to-c-convert-issues/

    For an example of a particular line of code, just ONE, that warms the entire data set by 1/1000 C (it warms 1/100 of the records by 1/10 C, depending on what compiler you use to compile the code. )

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/

    Any decent physics or chemistry class will teach you to keep only the digits of precision justified by your original raw data. Here’s an example:

    http://www.physics.unc.edu/~deardorf/uncertainty/UNCguide.html

    The standard is that you toss as “False Precision” any digits beyond the original data. The Original USHCN data are in whole degrees F, so that is all you have. If these numbers are used to “do math” on any other numbers, the lowest precision going in is what you can take out. Since GIStemp ‘does math’ repeatedly blending data all over the place, NONE of the numbers from GIStemp can have reliable precision beyond whole degrees F.

    That this standard is repeatedly ignored explains to me why Mr. McGuire beat it into us so much…

    What precision can the UAH data reasonably carry? Who knows… You point a sensor at a patch of earth from space and exactly what is it measuring again? And how much does the sensor drift? And what do orbital changes do to the data? Cosmic ray bursts? (See the sea ice sensor failures for an example of what can happen). And what code is run on the data and adjustments are made?

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/thermometer-years-by-latitude-warm-globe/

    Gives an idea what kind of problems there are with thermometer change over time.

    So at the end of it all, we have a “too short for climate analysis” satellite record that MAY be more precise, calibrated against land data that are not, compared to a history that isn’t, to calculate a number that is fictional and meaningless.

    On this we hang the fate of modern civilization…

  64. rbateman (21:14:14) :
    The Robins know temperature to a degree or so. They have already came by and are on thier way south.

    I’ve had a bunch of odd birds down here that I’ve not seen before (and I think I saw robins about a week ago, but not now) I’m south of San Francisco.

    I usually have doves nesting under the awning. They came in early, nocked out a few batches, and about 2 weeks ago the “flock” seemed to disappear. I’ve heard exactly ONE dove in the last 2 weeks and it sounded lonely. It’s rather strange. Usually they are here much longer and don’t leave till it’s clearly cold. And I get a selection of several dove calls from nearby. This time they seemed to pack up and leave at a time when they usually start laying the last batch of eggs.

    There were some sparrow like things (sorry, not a big birder) that cleaned out my amaranth. Last year nothing touched it. They also did a number on the bean leaves ( there is a flock of them that I have seen having salad…) They too seem to have cleared out. There are also a couple that look sort of like a dusky grey jay that I’ve not seen before. And a little finch like guy with a yellow throat, that likes to pick bugs off the picture window, that nested here this year (again, not that I’d seen here before). The hummers are still here (they love Runner Bean flowers, a big nice scarlet color!) It’s been a very odd collection of birds this year.

    Either the neighborhood is much more attractive to birds, or some decided to “stop short” on the way north last spring.

  65. August Downunder

    Australia has just experienced an exceptionally warm August. Almost the entire country experienced above-average temperatures during the month, but the warmth was most extraordinary in the subtropics. Over most of the southern Northern Territory and the southern half of Queensland (away from the coast), maximum temperatures for August were more than 5°C above the long-term average. Maximum temperatures were the highest on record for August over 49% of Australia.

    Averaged over Australia as a whole, maximum temperatures were 3.20°C above the long-term August average, and daily mean temperatures (day and night combined) were 2.47°C above average. Both values are the highest on record for August by close to a degree. In terms of how far the month was above normal, the maximum temperatures in August 2009 are also the highest on record for any month, breaking the record of +3.11°C set in April 2005; the daily mean temperatures rank second behind April 2005.

    August was marked by some individual days which were exceptionally hot, especially in northern NSW and Queensland. State records were set for August in both states (37.8°C at Mungindi and 38.5°C at Bedourie respectively). Perhaps more exceptional were the margins by which some records were broken, and the number of days on which previous records were exceeded. Collarenebri broke its pre-2009 August record by 5.4°C, and numerous other locations, including Murwillumbah, Moree, Gatton, Miles and Taroom, broke August records by 4°C or more. Such margins are not unheard of at exposed coastal sites – where everything has to go right to achieve an extreme high temperature (not only having a very hot air mass, but having the wind in the right direction to prevent conditions being moderated by sea breezes) – but are virtually unknown at inland locations.

    Many locations exceeded pre-2009 August records on five or more days. An especially striking example was Windorah in western Queensland, which prior to 2009 had never reached 35°C in August. In 2009 it happened seven times, and their August record was lifted six times, eventually peaking at 38.0°C on the 29th.

    The extremely warm August combined with generally above-average (but not record-breaking) temperatures in June and July to give record or near-record winter temperatures in many areas. Australian daily mean temperatures for winter (1.33°C above average) fell just 0.01°C short of the 1996 record, and maximum temperatures surpassed the record set in 2002. NSW, Victoria and South Australia all had their warmest winters on record, which may come as a surprise to residents of the latter two states, in a season which was distinguished more by an almost complete absence of significant cold than by any major warm extremes.

    In terms of weather systems, the month was marked by a persistent high-pressure ridge over the subtropics, preventing cooler air from penetrating from the south into central and northern Australia (until the last two days of the month, by which time it was too late to make much difference). Pressures were also well below normal south of Australia, resulting in very strong and persistent westerlies south of Australia (which made it an extremely wet month in Tasmania). An interesting comparison exists with October 1988, which had very similar pressure patterns, and was also dry over the mainland and very wet in Tasmania. In October 1988 Australian mean temperatures were 2.16°C above average, which was a record at the time (it now ranks fourth). The difference of 0.31°C between the two months is close to the size of the warming trend over Australia in that 21-year period, and suggests that the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.

    Thanks to BOM

  66. Frank and Alex:

    Never did I predict a super el nino, you should go back on what I said. Which was “most models predict the emergence of an el nino”.

    On top of that, I don’t care about the monthly temperature anomaly, only about the long trends. I did not pop up predicting the end of the world last month because of a very large positive one, so you won’t hear me on this one either.

  67. Phil. (13:40:47)

    So how do you get your suntan, Phil? You might also consider taking some Vitamin D supplement.

  68. DavidK (01:29:31) : August Downunder
    Australia has just experienced an exceptionally warm August. …

    An interesting comparison exists with October 1988, which had very similar pressure patterns, and was also dry over the mainland and very wet in Tasmania. In October 1988 Australian mean temperatures were 2.16°C above average, which was a record at the time (it now ranks fourth). The difference of 0.31°C between the two months is close to the size of the warming trend over Australia in that 21-year period, and suggests that the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.

    I just downloaded the temperature data from the Aussie Govt website. (Upto 2008)

    1. From 1988 to 2008 the annual average temperature trend is 0.103C/decade. For 20 years this would give an increase of 0.206C, or 0.21 and not 0.31. It isnt close to the size of the warming trend.

    2. The SH cooled by over 0.4C over July. I know you aussies have a mighty opinion of yourselves, (though we just thrashed you in rugby and netball), but australia is not the SH.

  69. Richard (04:41:04)

    Read again, slowly:

    An interesting comparison exists with October 1988, which had very similar pressure patterns, and was also dry over the mainland and very wet in Tasmania. In October 1988 Australian mean temperatures were 2.16°C above average, which was a record at the time (it now ranks fourth). The difference of 0.31°C between the two months is close to the size of the warming trend over Australia in that 21-year period, and suggests that the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.

    They are talking about comparisons between 2 months – your take on it is different.

  70. DavidK (05:04:59) Ok I downloaded the August temperatures (Raw) data.

    From the Raw data

    1. The October 09 anomaly is 2.47 C. That of 1988 0.6 C – a whopping difference of 2.13 C. No other year even comes close to this. The next highest is 1998 with 1.49

    2. The October 1988 to October 2009 trend comes to 0.39C/decade or 0.82 C over the 21 years.

    3. If we remove this huge anomalous anomaly then the trend for Oct 1998 till Oct 2008 comes to only 0.15 C/ decade. The last month pulls up the trend making a huge difference to it.

    4. Even if we accept those figures above (where have you taken them from?) there are alternate explanations to “the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.”

  71. Here are the anomalies from the 1961-90 average: Aug 1988 to Aug 2009
    0.6, -1.32, -0.25, 0.28, 0.09, 0.59, -0.39, 1.13, 0.69, -0.14, 1.49, 0.78 , 0.02, 0, 0.25, 0.47, -0.12, 0.24, 1.07, 0.88, -0.94, 2.47

  72. I just noticed the blighter is comparing October anomalies with August? Ridiculous. First thing you have got to do is compare like with like to try any meaningful analysis.

  73. Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:50:44) :
    Phil. (13:40:47) :
    “Not likely since the UV you mention doesn’t make it through the atmosphere!”

    So what is it that burns my fair skin on a sunny day?

    The statement that I was responding to was the following:

    diminished UV solar output of the current solar cycle (more marked than in the visible spectrum)

    The portion of the UV spectrum that has a ‘more marked’ response than the visible doesn’t make it through the atmosphere.

  74. Richard (various above)

    I ‘took’ the figures from the Special Climate Statement #18 Exceptional winter heat over large parts of Australia released by the Australian Government’s Bureau of Meteorology.

    You can find it here

    I don’t know your background and I am certainly not an expert in multivariate time series analysis. Nevertheless, I doubt BOM is engaged in any conspiracy – they say it like it is, whether we like it or not.

    I admire your tenacity and if I have paraphrased wrong, my apologies.

    However, the fact remains – climate is changing (as it always has/will) – this time before our very eyes. There is serious debate within the scientific community with respect to climate sensitivity and attribution (contrary to popular belief), the outcomes of which will only be known through the rigours of the scientific process.

    In the mean time, it would be prudent to tread very carefully – because if the politicians, captains of industry and their respective bean-counters get it wrong, we will be giving generations down the track a legacy that will make the dinosaur extinction (poetic license) look insignificant.

  75. DavidK (18:15:40) : I am a humble engineer, not an expert in anything, but I know a bit of maths and science and can reason things out for myself.

    “Saying it like it is” has various interpretations. Some say that showing pictures of the Statue of liberty and Trafalgar square under the sea, like Al Gore did, is saying it like it is. I dont think so.

    Its warm now-a-days (the last 30 years). Whether it is in any way unusual taking into account our past climate, whether will continue or not, whether it is being caused by us, whether imposing tax and committing economic hara-kiri will fix it, even if we are, are all moot points.

    At the moment I do not see any signs of catastrophe other than the advocated course of the climate alarmists.

  76. Richard

    “Saying it like it is” has various interpretations. Some say that showing pictures of the Statue of liberty and Trafalgar square under the sea, like Al Gore did, is saying it like it is. I dont think so.

    I agree. Al Gore is a politician (some would say propagandist), not a scientist. Scientists (the vast majority at least) just want to do their job and lead an otherwise normal life. Al Gore got the Peace prize for one simple reason: he brought the attention of the world onto something that will (whether you believe it or not) threaten world peace.

    Its warm now-a-days (the last 30 years). Whether it is in any way unusual taking into account our past climate, whether will continue or not, whether it is being caused by us, whether imposing tax and committing economic hara-kiri will fix it, even if we are, are all moot points.

    Moot? I think we all would like a scientist/engineer to get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a statistician the Fields, for debunking AGW, whatever … but until they do (and they should keep trying) we all should take measures to adapt to a changing climate (some groups and species are less able to) and live/grow in a more sustainable way.

    At the moment I do not see any signs of catastrophe other than the advocated course of the climate alarmists.

    I also agree, unless you take into account some of the warning signs espoused by population ecologists … to do with bees, or fish, or corals, or various other flora and fauna. Us, on the other hand, will do better. There are extremists on both sides and imho, they should pull their heads out of their nether-nethers. Ergo, the vast majority of scientists are NOT alarmists.

    You wonder where that will go. I wonder where this will go.

  77. DavidK (20:26:55) : “I think we all would like a scientist/engineer to get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a statistician the Fields, for debunking AGW..”

    I think it already has been debunked and no one will get the Nobel prize for that.

    “You wonder where that will go. I wonder where this will go.”

    This is what “this” says:

    “The increasing climate variability of recent times, state the paper’s authors, may be interpreted as a signal that the near-term future could bring a transition from glacial and interglacial oscillations to a new state — one with permanent Northern Hemisphere glaciation in Earth’s mid-latitudes.”

    Their reasons and scenario is plausible. Glaciation is more plausible than runaway warming- but if this be so should we be spending billions of dollars trying to sequester CO2 which the AGW proponents say will cause warming? Should we be trying to stop electricity production which will keep our heaters going? Would that make any sense?

    “Early Warning Signals Of Change”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133625.htm

  78. Richard, whoever “debunked” it would have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of money and a whole lot of stress – they would have been lauded by everyone all over the world and given all the media attention and kudos they would rightly deserve … it hasn’t happened.

    We are headed for another glaciation (in about 30k years, give or take) and there are going to be bumps and wiggles along the way. It is on the cards that we are having some influence over the next bump but hopefully, we can do something about it. No reasonable person is saying we have to live like neanderthals, and no reasonable person is saying we are in for catastrophic or runaway warming.

    You ask 3 questions, I think they are based on a false premise (near term glaciation) but my answers are:

    1. Short answer – No. We should not pander to the coal lobby. “Clean” coal is a misnomer and CC&S is way off (if at all). But, coal will be around for a while yet, we just have to wean ourselves off it.

    2. Of course not, we have to utilize a range of technologies in the weaning-off stage (and be more efficient in our energy use).

    3. See 2

  79. DavidK (01:40:48) : “Richard, whoever “debunked” it would have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of money and a whole lot of stress …

    If it were so simple, David; but it is not. None of this is about cold, hard, scientific fact. It is about power, and who can apply it most effectively. It would not be too far-fetched to use the term “good or evil”. I would be content to stand, a watcher in the dunes, if science was weighing this up in a dispassionate manner. It is our shame that this is not so; therefore even the scientific illiterates such as me feel compelled to step forward and call foul.

    I am with Richard Feynman as quoted in today’s lead story on WUWT? (German Climate Adviser: “industrialized nations have already exceeded their [carbon] quotas” – Pay Up): ”There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools.”

  80. Well done for mentioning the UAH data this month, I suppose it was too inconvenient to mention it last month.
    can any of the sun worshippers explain how their beliefs in the power of the mighty sunspots is not working in actually cooling global temperatures? Surely there must be at least a flicker of cooling after such a prolonged spell of solar minimum, maybe you are not praying hard enough?

  81. “Flanagan (22:40:07) :
    Remember 2007 is the warmest year.”

    According to the MET (anomalies, global, mean):

    1998 0.52
    2005 0.47
    2006 0.42
    2007 0.40
    2008 0.32

  82. DavidK (01:40:48) : Richard, whoever “debunked” it would have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of money and a whole lot of stress – they would have been lauded by everyone all over the world and given all the media attention and kudos they would rightly deserve

    That statement is naive in the extreme. You think the Nobel Committee is wandering around looking for every bearded naked man running around in the streets and yelling Eureka? And then handing him the prize double quick? Followed by a ticker parade down Times Square? The Nobel committee doesnt work like that and more importantly science doesnt work like that.

    The Nobel Committee usually takes it time and in my opinion perhaps sometimes also gets it wrong. They gave a Nobel Prize to some guy who claimed to have deciphered the bees language by the way they waggle their bottoms. I read the protests of the lady who said he had got it wrong and she did experiments to actually prove it so, in Nature about 4 -5 years ago. She sounded convincing, but unfortunately the world is not very enthused about waggling bees and the Nobel Committee, just like any committee, are loath to admit they have got it wrong.

    They get it wrong the other way far more often. They do not give the Nobel Prize to someone who deserves it.

    In any case a theory or hypothesis is debunked by the weight of evidence. Most people who believe in AGW use this argument:- Hey a lot of smart intelligent people believe in it – so it must be true.

    The people who point this out (contrary evidence) of course deserve kudos. It took a long time and effort for James Randi to debunk Homeopathy, and all the other junk fit to be debunked, and a lot of people still believe in it.

    The average person in the world isnt that smart and can be easily fooled.

  83. From Icecap.us

    Sep 07, 2009
    Excerpts from a scientific paper by Dr Martin Hertzberg

    By Dr Martin Hertzberg

    Martin Hertzberg 2009, “Earth’s radiative equilibrium in the solar irradiance”, Energy & Environment v.20 no.1&2, pp.85-96 (Special double-issue: Natural drivers of weather and climate, 278p.)

    “Many interacting regions, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, are involved in the complex radiative balance. Unverified models do not realistically represent that balance, and it would be absurd to base public policy decisions on them.

    “… the controlling factor in determining the average temperature of the Earth is its absorptivity to emissivity ratio.

    Even for those portions of Earth that are not covered with clouds, the assumption that the ocean surface, land surfaces, or ice and snow cover would all have blackbody emissivities of unity, is unreasonable.

    It is certainly true that in the absence of an atmosphere, temperatures would drop drastically at night as the darkened portions of Earth lost infrared energy by radiation to Space; however, with all the incoming solar radiation being concentrated on the daytime half of the surface, daytime temperatures would rise as drastically as the night time temperatures would fall.

    If the near-surface air temperature is not representative, is it realistically possible to measure the average temperature of the entire mass of absorbing and emitting entities with sufficient accuracy to make a meaningful comparison between the data and the predictions?

    How high in altitude should one go in the atmosphere to include it all?

    Similarly, how deep in the liquid fluid of the oceans should one go in order to include the mass below the ocean surface that influences the heat and mass transport processes near the ocean surface and in the atmosphere above it?”

    “… looking at the problem in depth, it may be more realistic to conclude that its resolution may be unattainable given our limited understanding of the complex processes involved, and the lack of data available for the current thermodynamic state of those entities.

    The heat and mass transport from that enormous ocean reservoir to the atmosphere are the dominant factors in determining temperatures and weather conditions over the entire globe.

    It is implausible to expect that small changes in the concentration of any minor atmospheric constituent such as carbon dioxide, can significantly influence that radiative equilibrium.

    Further quotes by this accomplished research scientist:

    “In 1994 I tried to get an analysis of the then prevalent state of climate science published in Nature and Science, but they weren’t interested. I even sent a copy of it with a long letter to Burt Bolin, who was then chair of the IPCC. He replied to the effect that who was I to challenge the decades of work of so many distinguished scientists. He also argued that I was being disrespectful by referring to the some of the theories of the global warming advocates as “catechisms”. After studying the issue more carefully and reading the well researched papers of the skeptics/realists, I now think that the AGW arguments do not deserve to be referred to as either “theories” or “catechisms”. In reality, they are elaborate hoaxes.”

    “I tried explaining to [those] Senators that in order for them to accept the Gore-IPCC-Hansen theory as valid, they will first have to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics!”

    Compiled by Hans Schreuder, 7 September 2009

  84. Roger (4:19)
    Ah yes, power and control – even the churches are into it. And just watch the bun fight in Copenhagen. I’m not so sure all the scientific bodies and institutions are trying to pull a ‘swifty’ though.

  85. Richard (10:59)
    That statement wasn’t referring to the Nobel Committee.
    It was referring to any recognized body or institution that agreed that AGW was, well … bunkum. And it will only take one very robust piece of work to do that. Personally, I think Roy Spencer might be onto to something. Unfortunately, I don’t think he is there yet – but good on him for persevering.
    Your disdain for the Nobel Committee is noted and I do understand how science works, thanks.

  86. We’re following the ENSO quite closely in Australia at the moment (higher drought and fire risk probability for the forthcoming summer). The hysterics here (Bureau of Met, National Climate Centre and CSIRO) all predicited a super El Nino (a la 1998) at the start of the year, but this is not eventuating. The Japanese Marine and Space Agency called a Modoki El Nino 6 months ago, and latest observations are still showing this is more likely (ie. more warming in the western Pacific instead of the Eastern). This could be the reason for the SH not exhibiting a warming trend when many were expecting it.

  87. Ron de Haan (15:29)

    One has to explain why the ‘hoax’ and why by so many.

    Consider this:
    The UN understands there are real issues about ‘climate change’. Moreover, they also understand that humanity has embarked on a course of unfettered consumerism and growth – with all the stresses and strains that that puts on energy supply, food resources, national/international security, etc.

    Is it possible that they are using ‘climate change’ (real or not) to urge humanity to grow and develop in a more sustainable way?
    And don’t get me talking population growth when the power and control (thanks Roger) are vested in religious dogma to go forth and multiply for the glory of God (apologies to Roy, but hey).

  88. To: DavidK

    You wrote: “The UN understands there are real issues about ‘climate change’. Moreover, they also understand that humanity has embarked on a course of unfettered consumerism and growth – with all the stresses and strains that that puts on energy supply, food resources, national/international security, etc.”

    The UN was functional for perhaps 10 years after its founding. Now, it has become little better than a venue for bashing the big, bad, evil United States of America.

    Please recall that scientists, especially those working in an area of political sensitivity such as AGW, are perfectly human and have a perfectly human desire to see their names in the newspapers. When they find that issuing provocative statements gets them recognition, and possibly increased funding, just what do you think will happen?

    Recall that during Al Gore’s years in the Senate, he served on the committee which directed the National Science Foundation (NSF).

    The well-known skeptic Dr. Patrick Michaels stated it succinctly: “If you have all the money on one side, and all the scientists on the other, pretty soon you will have all the scientists on the side with the money.”

    Another item to remember is that the world is believed to have had much higher CO2 levels in the distant past–more than 20 times the current levels–without triggering some kind of runaway reaction. Yes, the environment might not be to OUR liking–but it certainly will not destroy all life. Your throwaway comment about “making the dinosaur extinction look insignificant”, poetic license or no, well, that bit of exaggeration is way off base.

  89. Chris R
    The bun fight in the UN (or UNFCCC) is about politico-socio-cultural ideology as you rightly observe. Notwithstanding, even the US (as a major major player) acknowledges the problems associated with global warming, or as the Bush Administration preferred, climate change.

    It was you who opine “it has become little better than a venue for bashing the big, bad, evil United States of America.” I beg to differ, but that gets us nowhere, as the current Administration has let it be known.

    As I have said above, there are extremists on both sides. Put another way, the so called “alarmists” have not got a monopoly on “issuing provocative statements” (your words). Indeed, the author of this current article has himself ‘pre-published’ a scientific paper on this very site without due process (which he is well versed in) … that in and of itself is very provocative, imho.

    Your last para has been thrashed out time and time again so I presume no matter what I say will not make any difference to you. All I would suggest is for you to read my above comments again – and the contained links.

    It is my qualified opinion that we are not about to head into “some kind of runaway reaction” and it is very disconcerting to think that a lot of people (here and elsewhere) have a propensity to misrepresent or distort what scientists say. There are some who do this deliberately, there are others who do this in ignorance. Either way, they most often do it based on their own preconceived ideological perspective (as you have so aptly demonstrated) and as has been said by others … science doesn’t work like that. Let me go further, there are some that are anti-science … and they can come from either the ‘left’ or the ‘right’, look it up on Wiki.

    As far as my “throwaway comment” – lighten up.

  90. DavidK (16:33:44) : That statement wasn’t referring to the Nobel Committee.

    Maybe not but you had said “I think we all would like a scientist/engineer to get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a statistician the Fields, for debunking AGW..” You’re niggling with words here.

    Your disdain for the Nobel Committee is noted

    Wrongly, as are most of your other conclusions. I have great respect for the Nobel Committee. But even they are not infallible. To question them, to you seems to be the ultimate sacrilege. Your blind unquestioning respect for authority seems to be the reason why you accept the AGW hypothesis with such unshakable faith.

    and I do understand how science works, thanks.

    If you do then maybe you should examine the hypothesis critically. Newtons law of gravitational attraction was confirmed by the calculated reappearance of Haley’s comet to the precise day and hour predicted.

    Examine the contrary evidence to the hypothesis and see if the predictions of the AGW hypothesis hold good.

  91. Richard

    You’re niggling with words here.

    Which recognized body or institution has accepted that AGW is bunkum? Just saying it is doesn’t make it so.

    Wrongly, as are most of your other conclusions.

    In your opinion.

    Your blind unquestioning respect for authority seems to be the reason why you accept the AGW hypothesis with such unshakable faith.

    Please don’t assume Richard, you don’t know anything about me. For what it’s worth, I don’t “accept the AGW hypothesis with such unshakable faith” … science is not a religion no matter how much you would like to tar me with that brush.

    If you do then maybe you should examine the hypothesis critically.

    I have, it’s my job.

    Examine the contrary evidence to the hypothesis and see if the predictions of the AGW hypothesis hold good.

    Repeat … I have, it’s my job.

  92. Alexej Buergin (10:13:43) :
    I should have mentioned the lack of mention of a record south hemisphere temperature anomoly being mentioned last month, that would have placed the headline of this post in context and at give at least some illusion of balance

  93. @ DavidK (01:29:31)
    August was marked by some individual days which were exceptionally hot, especially in northern NSW and Queensland. State records were set for August in both states (37.8°C at Mungindi and 38.5°C at Bedourie respectively). Perhaps more exceptional were the margins by which some records were broken, and the number of days on which previous records were exceeded.

    Isn’t it great? The newsletter from our local fruit and veg delivery firm (run by Aussie farmers) tells us things are really good for them:

    At present this weather has been very good to growers here and around the country however those rains are still needed. This time of year is also the time when many growing regions finish and other start producing.

  94. “”” Harry Eagar (20:06:48) :

    I do not believe anybody knows the global temperature to a ten-thousandth of a degree.

    I don’t even believe anybody knows it to a full degree, but we might debate that.

    Did everybody skip 7th-grade arithmetic? “””

    Well we aren’t even sure what the temperature is at the earth’s center, so I’m quite positive that we have NO IDEA what the mean global temperature is; but certainly humans couldn’t suvive at that high a temperature.

    But then we can’t even measure the surface temperature properly in accordance with the rules for sampled data systems; and even if we could; there is no simple relationship between the mean global surface temperature (if we knew it) and the radiation balance of the earth’s energy , since temperature and emission are non linearly related, and then the net energy flow is highly dependent on local thermal processes. So MGT tells you nothing about energy balance.

  95. DavidK (23:30:21) : A policeman was caught here two days ago driving with over twice the limit of alchohol. An instructor no less. The almost unanimous opinion here is that he should lose his job. I should imagine he would have had even less sympathy if he had pulled himself up and declared – dont tell me about drinking and driving I teach it every day.

    You posted a long piece about it being the hottest August in Australia, it was in New Zealand also. But the SH as a whole cooled in August. And the warmth has brought benefits. That is the the broader picture – telling it like it is, so to speak.

    You admit that Al Gore has exaggerated and created an alarmist image. Yet you condone it because you say he brought the attention of the world onto something that will “believe it or not” threaten world peace. You mention belief and then ask not to be tarred with that brush.

    Science has to be dispassionate. You cannot bend scientific evidence to justify some alleged moral end.

    The science of AGW is contaminated by politics and activism. Whereas I agree there may not be any conspiracy amongst most scientists, if you study the Hockey stick story the conclusion that there has been lying and tampering with the evidence is inescapable.

    When I say the AGW hypothesis has already been debunked, I mean that the alternate theories out there need further evidence. The flat Earth theory was debunked a long time ago. But no one sailed around the world till much later.

    Milankovitch was not accepted in his time. Neither was Arrhenius – the usurped father of AGW. Arrhenius thought warmth was a good thing and that CO2 would save us from the next ice age.

  96. “”” Richard (22:52:08) :

    DavidK (16:33:44) : That statement wasn’t referring to the Nobel Committee.

    Maybe not but you had said “I think we all would like a scientist/engineer to get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a statistician the Fields, for debunking AGW..” You’re niggling with words here.

    Your disdain for the Nobel Committee is noted

    Wrongly, as are most of your other conclusions. I have great respect for the Nobel Committee. But even they are not infallible. To question them, to you seems to be the ultimate sacrilege. Your blind unquestioning respect for authority seems to be the reason why you accept the AGW hypothesis with such unshakable faith.

    and I do understand how science works, thanks.

    If you do then maybe you should examine the hypothesis critically. Newtons law of gravitational attraction was confirmed by the calculated reappearance of Haley’s comet to the precise day and hour predicted. “””

    I guess you haven’t seen many comets have you ? Comets hang around for months or weeks, so to claim that the return of Haley’s comet was predicted down to the day and hour of appearance is complete nonsense.

    Most notable Haley’s comet trivia; Mark Twain was born and died both times that Haley’s comet was prominent in the sky. Could win you a beer at a bar; maybe ?

  97. George E. Smith (13:38:47) – All that just to contradict me on the day and the hour? I was talking about the first appearance. Would you settle for the year?

  98. Jerome (04:35:06)

    Isn’t it great? The newsletter from our local fruit and veg delivery firm (run by Aussie farmers) tells us things are really good for them:
    At present this weather has been very good to growers here and around the country however those rains are still needed. This time of year is also the time when many growing regions finish and other start producing.

    That is great Jerome, for those particular farmers … and I hope they get the rains soon.
    Unfortunately, as you may be aware, most of the “country” the local newsletter alludes to has been in the grips of a very severe and prolonged drought (however those rains are still needed seems somewhat understated). This “country” is traversed by the Murray-Darling and its basin is considered the major food bowl of Australia.

    You might find My Country interesting.

    On a more general note: there are some benefits to a warmer and wetter world, particularly in the short term (maybe a couple of decades). However, the costs far out way the benefits, in the longer term. I only hope your local farmers don’t have to pick up and travel to where the rain is, like some other farmers are seriously considering doing.

  99. Richard

    Most people ‘don’t do science’. It’s not their vocation, their job, their life. These people (for most part) don’t have the ability, capacity or resources to do the science. For these people, they must “believe” or have “faith” in whom or what they see in the multimedia, because they can’t do the science themselves (nor should they be expected to). Therefore, because of this impediment (for want of a better word) their belief/unbelief or faith/non-faith (in AGW for example) is purely based on their ideological perspective.

    Corollary: I have lost count the number of times people (accountants, carpenters, doctors, truckies, engineers, teachers, mechanics, etc, etc) tell me or my colleagues how to do our jobs. Beware I should tell my plumber or mechanical engineer that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

    Let me put it this way: the ‘science’ of ‘climate change’ is not perfect, nor is it absolute – but it is very good. As I have said, we hope real sceptics (in the scientific sense) like Roy, or Dick Lindzen, are on to something (e.g. negative feedbacks). However, they are not there, yet – believe it or not :)

    You cannot bend scientific evidence to justify some alleged moral end.

    Now you accuse me of bending scientific evidence. Methinks you protest too much – have a nice day.

  100. DavidK (21:32:34) :Now you accuse me of bending scientific evidence…

    I did not accuse you of bending scientific evidence. What I said was quite clear. Al Gore bends scientific evidence and you condone it. Also that scientific evidence with regard to global climatic history has been tampered with and distorted.

    ..Beware I should tell my plumber or mechanical engineer that they don’t know what they’re talking about…..For these people they must “believe” or have “faith” in whom or what they see in the multimedia, because they can’t do the science themselves ..Therefore ..their belief/unbelief or faith/non-faith (in AGW for example) is purely based on their ideological perspective…

    I disagree with you there. I would not tell my plumber he was wrong if he forecast that my tap would leak after a year. But if my plumber told me and the government, and the Govt listened to him, that because of a leak in the water mains I would have to pay tax, cycle to work, do without electricity, close down my factory, while he jets to Europe to discuss whats wrong, then I would have to examine his arguments.

    People can weigh the arguments and have informed debate and judgement even if cannot “do” science. There is plenty of information thanks to the internet. They do not have to rely on faith or base their opinions on ideology.

  101. DavidK (21:29:09) : Interesting that you send that link which says that the droughts are now all of a sudden due to “climate change” aka AGW. The models say so. Raise the temperature due to the sun and no drought, but raise it due to CO2 and viola – drought.

    Funny how in the past it was thought that Australia was prone to drought “because of its geography” . That no longer holds good apparently.

    Earlier they had The “Federation drought” 1895-1902, The 1914-15 drought,
    The World War II droughts 1937-45, The 1965-68 drought, Short but sharp – The 1982-83 drought, The long El Niño – 1991 through 1995. Not to mention when Australia’s interior dried out 50,000 years ago leading to the loss of more than 85 percent of it’s megafauna. For none of them was CO2 mentioned.

    But these are modern times.

  102. Richard, your latest.

    How would you have it? Suppression, censorship – I understand this has happened recently in NZ and Canada, as well as the US a few years back.

    Anyway, it is still too early to be so definitive. I am waiting on more satellite data.

    When you asserted;
    “I just noticed the blighter is comparing October anomalies with August? Ridiculous. First thing you have got to do is compare like with like to try any meaningful analysis”
    I knew you hadn’t a clue about multivariate analysis, even though you “know a bit of maths and science and can reason things out for (yourself)

    But when you say;
    People can weigh the arguments and have informed debate and judgement even if (one) cannot “do” science. There is plenty of information thanks to the internet
    It just demonstrates to me you are blowing smoke.

    In fact, you are quite content to continue to distort and misrepresent. You only see what you want to see, Richard.

    Take your blinkers off and read that link again.
    Wait, let me help:

    “But not all experts agree. Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief, Rob Freeman, told a water summit in Melbourne last week he believed the extreme climate patterns that have dried out south-east Australia would not prove to be permanent.

    Some commentators say this is the new future. I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that’s not helpful to take,” he said, expressing confidence that wetter times would return.”

    He does have to back this up though, Richard. Maybe you should point Freeman in the right direction.
    My last.

  103. DavidK (01:44:08) “My last.”

    I trust you do not mean your last comment here, David. Whilst I am on the other side of a barbed wire fence to you on AGW, I gain considerably from digesting your commentary, and find many meeting points of opinion. Perhaps the greatest divide is your belief that science (or one part of science) is acting responsibly by sounding a general alarm in the interests of mankind. I believe money and power-seeking drive AGW alarm, and that the supporting science is highly paid dressing.

    AGW bears the bloodline of historical scams.

    When sober science puts balanced opinion before the world for consideration then I support the world considering. Tossing a burning brand into a quiet mob camped down for the night can have only one result. Stampede. That is what has been done, and I’ll ride with those who seek to turn the mob and quiet them down… but I would miss having you and Richard to follow.

  104. DavidK (21:32:34) :

    “Corollary: I have lost count the number of times people (accountants, carpenters, doctors, truckies, engineers, teachers, mechanics, etc, etc) tell me or my colleagues how to do our jobs. Beware I should tell my plumber or mechanical engineer that they don’t know what they’re talking about.”

    I take exception to this paragraph… i may not tell an accountant or a plumber or a mechanic how to do their job… But ill keep a very sharp eye on what exactly they are doing, and billing me for. It would be an extremely naive person who would blindly trust strangers. Ive certainly caught mechanics trying to pull swifties on me. And have put then straight about it in quick order.

    Most people may not have the time or resources to do science themselves. But many people have diverse interests that arnt necessarily related to their occupation. Im a farmer, but for a hobby i design and fabricate expanders/compressors. I like physics, it interests me greatly. And i wouldnt tell you how to do your jobs, but if you’re saying you’re expecting blind faith from the likes of myself, you will be sorely disappointed.

  105. Roger

    I appreciate your thoughts. I think power and control drive the ‘human condition’ Roger (with or without “AGW alarm”). I would like to be optimistic, but it’s getting ugly.

    When sober science puts balanced opinion before the world for consideration then I support the world considering. Tossing a burning brand into a quiet mob camped down for the night can have only one result. Stampede. That is what has been done, and I’ll ride with those who seek to turn the mob and quiet them down

    I couldn’t agree more Roger, perhaps we only need one more amigo Roy?

    Problem … the mob here would only want to lynch me. So, yes – I won’t be back.

    Your quip about ‘scams’ is let go for the keeper, sorry.
    I will continue to do what I do best … dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s in my work. As I’ve said, it’s up to others to determine what to do about the conclusions. Sad really, I think now, more than ever, it is incumbent on genuine scientists to step in and help explain the work they do, the conclusions they make and how they can help.

    I’ll leave with one question for you to ponder: How can the scientists best co-ordinate and disseminate the findings of their research, assuming what we have is not good enough?

    Regards and good bye

  106. MikeE

    I don’t “expect blind faith”, that is abhorrent. I was quite prepared to explain and answer questions here about ‘climate science’ in general and my sphere of work/expertise in particular – land/ocean/atmosphere systems: all things water. I would add, most farmers I meet are grateful for my help.

    Nevertheless, it appears that the explanations/answers are not accepted if it disagrees with the wannabe scientist’s ‘point of view’. I can’t help these people, and there appears to be preponderance here. And yes, most say I’ve got it wrong and some want to tell me how to do my job.

    Best wishes

  107. DavidK (00:52:38) — In case you drop by one more time, David, this may give you a little heart… or chuckle:

    Humor Dedicated to Professor Alexander

    HYDROLOGY
    A student came to the golden gate,
    his head was bent down low.
    He weakly asked the man in white,
    which way he was to go…

    “What have you done?” Saint Peter asked,
    “that you should come up here?”
    “I studied hydrology down below,
    for many and many a year.”

    Saint Peter opened wide the gate.
    and gently pressed the bell.
    “Come inside and choose your harp,
    you’ve had your share of hell!”

  108. DavidK (00:58:45) :
    “Nevertheless, it appears that the explanations/answers are not accepted if it disagrees with the wannabe scientist’s ‘point of view’. I can’t help these people, and there appears to be preponderance here. And yes, most say I’ve got it wrong and some want to tell me how to do my job.”

    i wouldnt assume that, i m sure there are many who come here like myself, who seldom post, but read. Some of the more enlightening “discussions” are heated ( you should see the solar guys go at it hammer and tongs) Ive found this thread interesting. There is nothing wrong with having counter points o view. And backing up youre arguments with observations/facts. There should be diverse views on something as complex as climate.

    Well thank you David and others for an interesting thread.

  109. DavidK (01:44:08) Richard .. When you asserted; “I just noticed the blighter is comparing October anomalies with August? Ridiculous. First thing you have got to do is compare like with like to try any meaningful analysis” I knew you hadn’t a clue about multivariate analysis,..

    For once we are in complete agreement. I dont.

    In that long post of yours I noticed the following: Australia had an exceptionally warm August. It was put down to a pressure pattern and compared with a similar pattern in OCTOBER 1988. October 1988 was also very warm. That pressure pattern produces unusual warmth – So far so good.

    Now comes the assertion which requires a leap in logic. “The difference of 0.31°C between the two months is close to the size of the warming trend over Australia in that 21-year period, and suggests that the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.”

    I can examine the facts behind that assertion and here they are:
    1. The annual trend from 1988 to 2008 0.103C/decade which would give an increase of 0.206C, or 0.21 and not 0.31, it doesnt give a similar warming trend
    2. The October to October trend also doesnt give it.

    To me then to suggest that “the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009”, is dubious. I may not be to you but thats the way I look at it.

    As for the other points you have raised MikeE (19:54:56) has said it for me.

    No one is wanting to lynch you. A person reading those exchanges might gather the impression that you were trying to put me down.

    I am sure that farmers are grateful for the work you do for them. There was nothing personal in what I wanted to say.

    Sometimes a layman is better at discerning the wood for the trees as that bloggers and laymen just might have have a better handle on sea ice extent than the majority of Arctic experts themselves article seems to indicate.

  110. The poem I quoted above ( Roger Carr (04:00:43)) was from a student to his professor, Will Alexander, a vitally concerned gentleman worth paying attention to. One story from the professor is quoted from and linked below:

    How dare they…

    “Let me make one point abundantly clear. Since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 not a single person in South Africa has died as a result of provable climate change. But thousands have died from poverty-related starvation, malnutrition and disease. How dare those who call themselves scientists deliberately suppress this information? How dare they ignore the suffering of all these people? How dare they steadfastly refuse to participate in multidisciplinary studies where their alarmist theories can be demonstrated to be without foundation?

    “Climate alarmism is like a runaway fire. It started quietly with a genuine concern. It was like lighting a match beneath a pile of flammable material. The environmentalists and politicians took over. The fact that the basic science is demonstrably false is no longer an issue.”

    Climate alarmism is a runaway fire
    By Professor Will Alexander
    Via Email, 21 August 2009
    An Honest Climate Debate

  111. DavidK (01:44:08) : “..Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief, Rob Freeman, ..believed the extreme climate patterns that have dried out south-east Australia would not prove to be permanent. Some commentators say this is the new future. I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that’s not helpful to take,” he said, expressing confidence that wetter times would return.”
    He does have to back this up though, Richard. Maybe you should point Freeman in the right direction.

    No I cannot point him in the right direction. He is probably already in the right direction.

    He probably disbelieves that the climate models crunched out in the supercomputers actually reflect reality or can forecast into the deep future with any accuracy.

    Maybe he basis his opinion on past climatic history when droughts have been broken and hopes this one will be also.

    Maybe he realises that Australia is prone to drought because of its geographical location, corresponding to the Sahara in the Northern hemisphere.

    Maybe he realises that even if the drought were to last for a while longer, it would be futile and a criminal waste of money to attempt to break the drought through cap n trade or carbon taxes.

    Maybe he sees that such an action is exactly equivalent to the human sacrifices that more primitive cultures made to try and relieve similar situations.

  112. In RE: Hank Hancock (19:11:52) :

    Careful, Hank. If we are still recovering from an ice age the long term trend is up – a fact which may yet breathe life into greeniac alarmist crackpot theories.

  113. In RE: DavidK (16:48:48) : “Is it possible that they are using ‘climate change’ (real or not) to urge humanity to grow and develop in a more sustainable way?”

    Ah, Al Gore’s excuse – it’s OK to lie as long as you’re lying to get people to do what you want them to do.

    First, the claim that humanity is growing in unsustainable ways has been around as long as I’ve been alive and will remain long after I’m dead.

    Second, the answer to unsustainable living is not to trap a large segment of the world’s population in unsustainable habits while retarding the progress of those closest to the goal of discovering and implementing sustainable practices.

    Third, whether we are causing any measurable climate change or not, the answer isn’t to create a massive government entity who’s members spew carbon as they jet from one exotic location to another to talk about what we should do while we do exactly the opposite.

    After all the meetings, all the propaganda, all the lies, all the accusations, has the IPCC or anyone gotten either India or China to commit to real contributions to “stopping climate change”, as if that were even possible?

Comments are closed.