Claim: More Climate Scientists Urgently Needed

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

“Settled” Climate Science apparently needs a lot more hands on deck to help explain to us how doomed we are if we don’t spend taxpayer’s money on climate stuff.

More climate scientists urgently needed for Australia, academy says

Peter Hannam

Australia’s climate research is in “urgent” need of dozens more scientists to help prepare farmers, businesses and governments for the expected worsening effects of global warming, the Australian Academy of Science said.

The academy’s assessment, prompted by last year’s decision by CSIRO to axe as many as 100 of 140 climate scientists, identified 77 extra research positions that should be created in the next four years.

“Climate change is affecting and will affect every business and every bit of the environment in Australia,” said Trevor McDougall, an academy fellow and professor at the University of NSW, who led the review.

Professor McDougall cited uncertainty over how a warming climate will alter rainfall and evaporation in the Murray Darling Basin, the country’s biggest food bowl.

Only Australians would prioritise such a topic, he said: “That’s an issue models in the northern hemisphere won’t even look at.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/more-climate-scientists-urgently-needed-for-australia-academy-says-20170802-gxnp6m.html

Interesting that “Northern” models aren’t expected to bother with climate change in the Southern hemisphere.

The earth’s climate is subject to hard thermodynamic constraints. Energy which powers extreme weather in one part of the world has to be deducted from the energy budget of other parts of the world, to make the sums balance. Global warming does not increase the power available to drive the heat engine which is the Earth’s climate – the power available to drive the Earth’s climate is pretty much fixed by the rate of energy delivered by incoming sunlight.

Ignoring an entire hemisphere would likely make it difficult to determine whether your apocalyptic regional model projections were violating global climatic thermodynamic constraints.

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “Claim: More Climate Scientists Urgently Needed

  1. If the science is settled….why more research people? Seems like you are just inviting more research to prove that not only is global warming, global cooling and climate change loaded with fraud, but we’d invent a dozen new ways to deliver fraud.

      • Yes, I think the paper is nonsense. In Australia, a couple dozen IT experts, devoid of morals and willing to do anything as long as the cash roles, in could solve the problem. Just follow the historical lead of BOM and go in and change all the climate data so that global warming is increasing dramatically.

      • Well, farming is a bit of boom/bust scenario on the local level, and pricing can make even the booms catastrophic. I won’t begrudge anyone who feels they aren’t getting fair wages for successful hard work providing a product necessary for life.

      • That farmer had a point. If ALL farmers are producing plenty, prices will drop drastically. The ideal situation for each farmer is that his OWN production goes up, while it goes down for the general population of farmers.

    • record grape harvests too
      at high prices for now also.

      abc radio was all over the supposed dearth of climate fiddlers early this am
      funny as! seeing the also HAD TO report the BOM enquiry as well

    • Sure! I can see him digging ditches…. we use orange for our prisoners, what color is it in Australia?

      • Bread. Oh wait thats not a colour, thats we Brits used to steal to get here! Cost me a blimmin fortune!

    • ‘Only Australians would prioritise such a topic, he said: “That’s an issue models in the northern hemisphere won’t even look at.”’ The guy does not know what he is talking about. He thinks [I’ll generously call it thinking] that there are “models in the northern hemisphere” which fall down from the table when they approach the equator.

  2. Quote: Australia’s climate research is in “urgent” need of dozens more scientists …

    This presupposes that there are presently scientists worthy of the name. Can anybody name one?

  3. Hannam; The full-blown resident alarmist at The Snyney Morning Herald. His articles are no longwr open for comment because his arguments and facts and science have been pulled apart time and time again. He should give up, but what else could he do for a day job?

  4. Absolutely we need more climate scientists, the kind who actually use the scientific method.

  5. ..Ignoring an entire hemisphere would likely make it difficult to determine whether your apocalyptic regional model projections were violating global climatic thermodynamic constraints…..

    Er…. I though that would be GOOD for climate science? Anything that makes it difficult to see that basic science is being violated is a positive benefit for them….

  6. Good news, Australia. A bunch of American Climate Scientists are about to find themselves ‘on the market’. You should be able to pick up a few dozen for cheap.

    Assuming you still really want them.

    ~¿~

    • Not so cheap perhaps. Emangela Merkron is going to provide stiff competition in that marketplace. My mony is still on Oz though as they have proper hysterical passion about enviro matters whereas the French are a bit laissez-faire at best and positively Rainbow Warrior-sinking at worst.

  7. “More priests, acolytes, and trained laity required to keep climate faith alive”.
    There, fixed the headline for you.

  8. “Climate change is affecting and will affect every business and every bit of the environment in Australia”

    There hasn’t even been any climate change. So calling the quote above wild hyperbole is an understatement.

    Over 30 years or more, what have we had? A rise of a tenth of a degree, if that? In fact there’s good evidence that the 1930s was actually hotter than today (it WAS hotter in the USA in the thirties, and the US had by far the most extensive set of reliable temperature gauges, so of course the greatest weight should be given to the US data, and from that we can conclude the 1930s was likely hotter globally than today).

    And what have we had, like a quarter an inch of sea level rise since 1980?

    Over decades there’s been a minuscule, fully undetectable level of “dangerous” sea level rise. And the wild-eyed climate loons say that we’re going to go from a quarter inch in ~ 40 years to suddenly 60 meters rise in 80 years? Absolutely laughable.

    Btw, Algore was just called out in his CNN “climate change town hall” on the non-existent sea level rise. See: Al Gore Schooled on Climate Change By the Mayor of an Eroding Virginia Island.

    An excerpt from the link above:

    Mayor James Eskridge, of Tangier Island, Va., was one of the lucky audience members that got to ask Gore a question — one Gore was not prepared to answer.

    Here’s what Eskridge had to say:

    “I’m a commercial crabber, and I’ve been working the Chesapeake Bay for 50-plus years. And I have a crab house business out on the water. And the water level is the same as it was when the place was built in 1970. I’m not a scientist but I’m a keen observer, and if sea level rise is occurring, why am I not seeing signs of it? Our island is disappearing, but it’s because of erosion and not because of sea level rising, unless we get a seawall, we will lose our island. But, back to the question, why am I not seeing signs of the sea level rising?”

    Gore seemed blindsided by the question..

    Again, and without any disagreement from anyone, the crabber said: the water level is the same as it was when the place was built in 1970. NO sea level rise.

    Here’s a video of that exchange with Gore and the crabber:

    Got to love the first comment at the link:

    Nothing has risen but Gore’s bank account!

  9. …factors that are unique to the southern hemisphere and more exposed to the impacts of climate change.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/03/australias-shortage-of-climate-scientists-puts-country-at-serious-risk-report-find#comment-103104831

    The Guardian’s on message.

    Climate change to cause humid heatwaves that will kill even healthy people
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people

    Presumably, these extreme-hypothetical heatwaves will be hypothetically unique to the southern hemisphere.

    • we did actually have some humid hot days in Victoria this summer, it was weird
      almost like being in queensland without having to travel
      seeing as those who can move to qld for the climate and the humidity which seems to help arthritics and asthmatics
      i doubt anyones going to drop dead;-)

  10. It should be noted that the Academy review justifies the call for additional climate scientists on the basis that “accurate climate modelling may avoid costly unnecessary investments by helping work out the difference between natural climate variability and climate change itself “.
    ” In Queensland they went ahead and built a desalination plant at the cost of $2 billion but in fact that was in response to the millenium drought, which wasn’t really an indication of climate change at all, but just the regular climate variability,” Professor McDougall said.
    Precisely.
    But there is ” climate change” and then there is ” regular climate variability”?
    How does one tell the difference?

  11. And we should include geoscientists to find the precious minerals that go into lithium-ion batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, computers and cell phones. We also need them to find hydrocarbons for the petrochemicals that go into electric cars, fertilizers, phone & computer casings, buildings, paints etc, etc. Yes indeed, mining and fossil fuel extraction will continue on for a long time yet.

  12. Only ‘scientists’ would think more scientists is the answer.

    If a region is going to warm / cool / get wetter / get drier / get stormier / have higher sea levels or whatever, more scientists won’t help. They need engineers to work on solutions but the problem is the engineers will look at the scientists numbers and say – that can’t be right – let me check. At which point the scientists will cite confidentiality (or something else) to avoid handing over their work.

    • When a materials scientist at Nasa or Boeing develops a new alloy, he doesn’t say “this new alloy is 20% stronger – let’s put it on an aircraft – what do you mean you want to check it – you’re anti-science”.

      That’s not how the real world works – just climate science.

      • Because, alarmists realize that more real engineers are not good for climate science.

        Lies, grant hogs, press release science, models that predict disaster, funny math, twisted statistics, etc. are very hard to get by engineers.

        What Australia, and the rest of the world’s, climate science need are more test and software engineers.
        But, that would destroy “climate science’s” never ending supply of wrong way hot models.

        That’s a good idea, Put together teams of engineers to fully evaluate climate models. That will destroy climate science’s hot running models would destroy extensive chains of “settled science” dependent on climate science’s specially tuned models.

        Siccing data, software and process engineers on climate science’s data adjustment process would be great too.

  13. It might just be me, BUT 77 – Weren’t Cook’s 97% consensus based on 77 of 79 respondents.

    They must be taking the piss!

  14. After reading about the brouhaha in New South Wales regarding the temperature records, I thought I’d take a look at NOAA’s temps for the area from their GSN data. I loaded the data into an Oracle database, used PL/SQL to get a 30-year daily average from 01-JAN-1981 to 31-DEC-2010 as a baseline for each of three stations I picked at random that had good data. Then I used this baseline to get daily anomalies for 2016 for each station, and finally, graphed them in Microsoft Excel with a trendline. If anybody can spot something wrong with my approach, please let me know. These are the charts I ended up with:



    • I see the problem.

      The trend lines are all going down! That’s not good for The Narrative.

      • The down-slope in a chart covering a single year simply reflects that the hottest/coldest days of any year always arrive a month or six weeks after the solstice.

      • Weather. It is what climate is all about! Without it climate would be at the bar at 10:30 in the morning getting soused and mumbling about its glory days.

      • “The trend lines are all going down! That’s not good for The Narrative.”

        That’s because Mosher and his fellow “scientists” haven’t Mannipulated the raw data with their AlGoreithims – yet.

    • You used a straight line for something that’s obviously not linear. I would suggest a sinusoid as the better base function.

    • Oh, and you didn’t label your graphs in any meaningful way. No axis labels, no description of what it was. No name for the site or methodology. If I understand your actions correctly, all you have shown is “X/Y/2016 – average of X/Y during previous 30 years”. That is a meaningless number by any measure.

      Just be glad I’m not my high school chemistry teacher. You don’t mess with Southern ladies when they know you are wrong.

      • benofhuston:I’ll put better versions up later today, but I threw these together early this morning before I left for work. The data comes from NOAA’s site ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/, and the names on the graphs are of the weather stations I used. The axes weren’t labeled, true, but the dates marching along the X-axis should have been indicative of what those values represented, and the Y-axis was the anomalies.

        Not sure what to make of your complaint that “all [I] have shown is ‘X/Y/2016 – average of X/Y during previous 30 years'”. I was under the impression that the average daily temps averaged over thirty years is the baseline average temp for that station, and then subtracting that from the daily average over a year or more gives the anomalies for that station. If that is incorrect, I stand corrected, and await hearing of the proper method for determining a station’s anomalies.

  15. The UK Grantham Institute is also seeking scientists:

    http://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/get-involved/see-our-vacancies/

    Job Title: Lecturer in Climate Change and the Environment – 4 posts
    Department: Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Faculty of Natural Sciences
    Salary: £46,970 to £52,350 per annum (approx. 62-69,000 USD)

    “The successful candidates will have a broad knowledge of global climate and environmental issues and an awareness of relevant government and business interests, preferentially having provided advice on such areas to stakeholders in government and business. Evidence of attracting research funding and/or bids for other financial support, or an equivalent measure of impact, together with experience of planning and undertaking effective collaboration with external partners, are also essential.”

    • “Evidence of attracting research funding and/or bids for other financial support, or an equivalent measure of impact, together with experience of planning and undertaking effective collaboration with external partners, are also essential.”
      This pretty much tells you all you need to know about this,,,,,,institution. Looking for money and recruiting protestors.

      • Oh, that would certainly move a candidate to the top of the list! Makes them a twofer and eliminates the possibility that someone who actually knows anything about accounting would get their fingers into anything damaging to the agenda.

  16. … the power available to drive the Earth’s climate is pretty much fixed by the rate of energy delivered by incoming sunlight.

    The other half of the heat engine is how the heat moves off the planet again. The arctic and the antarctic are very different. It is much easier for heat to flow into the high arctic than into Antarctica because of the nature of the winds and currents. We also can’t ignore the fact that Antarctica is higher than the arctic. link link We wouldn’t expect conditions in the south to be the same as those in the north … other than the fact that both are darn cold.

  17. I don’t thnk we need a single new climate model.

    And I don’t think we need even more “its worse than we thought” studies.

    Everything possible has already been proposed. And somehow we need more of that?

  18. I can just hear the consternation in France now, as Australia opens a bidding war to entice anti-Trump US climate scientists to move there. My only question is when are these rummies actually going to start leaving? i so want to be able to say “don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

  19. More climate scientists needed… perhaps if the BOM employed ONE, it would be sufficient.

    Clearly, although the BOM employs lots of people, it doesn’t employ any scientists. I cite the fraud that is “homogenization” as complete and sufficient proof.

  20. “Peter Hannam
    Australia’s climate research is in “urgent” need of dozens more scientists to help prepare farmers, businesses and governments for the expected worsening effects of global warming, the Australian Academy of Science said.

    The academy’s assessment, prompted by last year’s decision by CSIRO to axe as many as 100 of 140 climate scientists, identified 77 extra research positions that should be created in the next four years.”

    Some academy assessment claims a need for more “climate scientists”?

    Government and grantors will just love such news.
    Hire more desk bound bottom echelon parasitic fakirs to advise and counsel hard working farmers.

    Yeah, that will go over big with the electorate. Higher energy and higher food prices and the same old weather.

  21. The Best of Al Gore’s End of the World Paranoia from CNN’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Special:

    via Mark Dice

  22. Fixed the article (bold mine):

    “Climate change REGULATIONS are affecting and will affect every business and every bit of the environment in Australia,” said Trevor McDougall, an academy fellow and professor at the University of NSW, who led the review.

  23. I thought they already solved this supply issue using psychologists, actors, and ex-politicos.

  24. Australia really has the climate bug bad, it sure is the crash test dummy, how long will it go on? There seems to be a revolt coming, I hope.

    • And the media will go ape feces nuts when the people actually do rise up and drag these greenism hucksters into the streets.

  25. “urgent need of dozens more scientists to help prepare farmers, businesses and governments for the expected worsening effects of global warming…”.
    That’s easy money right there. They’ve handed you the script, but you can ad lib the details as you desire. More flooding events, more droughts, more fires, etc. etc.
    The one requirement: lack of moral scruples. Essentially, you’d be a climate whore.

  26. The number one priority of any organization or group is to increase their empire. For government agencies they have to make themselves more important, or seem more important, to maintain and increase future budget levels. For private companies or organizations, they are going to put a guy in charge who will grow the organization, make them more money, keep the jobs of the people employed.

    There is a documentary called “What the Health” that looks at the American Diabetes Association, American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association, and asks their leaders why they condone diets that have been shown in study after study to cause diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. None of the spokespersons of these organizations have an answer, but the answer is clear, these organizations profit from more people getting the disease they were established to treat. If they found a away to prevent diabetes, cancer, or heart disease, then their entire empires would be gone. The same with climate scientists and the IPCC, if global warming is not an issue then there is no need for the IPCC and as we have seen lots of climate scientists are out of a job.

    Early in the 20th century Polio was the world’s most feared disease. Then they developed a vaccine, great for humanity, but anybody making a living studying polio was out of a job. The worst thing that could happen to any of these large associations built to study a particular disease would be a cure for their disease. The worst thing that could happen to climate scientists is for all the pockets funding their studies and jobs to decide global warming is not an issue. So they must keep pumping out the “its worse than we thought” stories to build up their perceived importance.

  27. You can see why Australia would need more “climate scientists”. All that tampering with and “modification” of temperature data is busy, hands on, labour intensive work!

  28. “…Interesting that “Northern” models aren’t expected to bother with climate change in the Southern hemisphere…”

    I don’t think that is what he meant. I think he meant “northern” as in models developed in the US, Canada, Europe, etc.

    In any case, he hasn’t a prayer getting accuracy on the small scale he wants.

    • Ah, he wants Australian physics as opposed to English physics. An then models based on physics. BTW, how would you model a tornado on a 100×100 km grid?

  29. I wonder though if more scientists like myself (Climatologist – a naysayer) are also required to balance the continued blind eye cast towards other possible causes of the recent warming- THE SUN! Thank-you Rod Chilton.

  30. To paraphrase Knute Rockne, climate scientists are a dime a dozen, what we need are a few good ones who understand and practice the scientific method. The drivel that comes out of academia these days is mind boggling!

  31. Australian Acad. of Sci.: Do you have climate science credentials?
    Applicant: I have a PhD in Studies Studies.
    AAS: Perfect. Can you do the laugh?
    Applicant: Muhahahahaha!!!
    AAS: Great. Don’t forget and do that in public. Sign here.

  32. Well this answers my questions about end of climate alarm and jobs. With climate departments in universities puffed up over the brief decade of warmer weather, and legions of them in government and other institutions, to whom and what are they going to teach now that it’s over. It also answers my question about the flooding of the manly pursuit of climate science of late with female student researchers who will suffer personally the sustainability concept.

    Bloodletting at CSIRO that canned 150 (one hundred and fifty!!) climaticians who argued themselves out of a job with the science is settled mantra were, in a way, lucky because they got first dibs on declining bank teller and insurance sales jobs. Not very lucrative but it spared them the tension of the climate blues neurosis that the Pause had inflicted and is poised for a part deux reprise over the next few decades. Just be sure to count your change and read the fine print closely at the bank and your front door.

    The profs will segue into Anthropogenic G Kooling , of course, but that grift has already been done, and the Fakestream Media once bitten will be shy. Maurice Strong, who created this carnival is dead and what is left to carry on are largely useless idiots.

  33. It sounds like someone has a son or daughter just about to graduate in global warming and needs a job.

Comments are closed.