Guest essay by David Archibald
For the first time a major political party has gone into an election with an anti-green platform and won big time. Specifically the Conservative Party platform for the Ontario election on 7th June promised:
- This means no carbon tax or cap-and-trade schemes.
- Stop sweetheart deals by scrapping the Green Energy Act.
The Conservatives made some other promises too but what was interesting about dropping the carbon tax etc. was the lack of agonising over the science, the planet, polar bears, the Great Barrier Reef or anything else. While the Trump administration recently hired a climate agoniser to head NASA, and the head of the EPA hasn’t moved against the endangerment finding on CO2, Ontario voters in a record turnout voted to make global warming a non-problem by forgetting about it, and getting on with their lives.
Ontario may or may not have had global warming in the late 20th century but there is a whole continent that missed out on it together. The following chart shows the lower troposphere temperature anomaly for Australia since the satellites went up in 1978. The data is from Dr Roy Spencer’s group at the University of Alabama, Hunstville.
Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years. Since global warming has to start in the atmosphere, there has been no global warming in Australia. No Australian under the age of 40 has experienced global warming. Given the way the Sun is going, they are likely to miss out altogether.
If they missed out on global warming, perhaps they have experienced sea level rise? No luck there either. One of the longer sea level series is from Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour with records from May 1914. This is how that data plots up:
There appears to be a slight rise but that is deceptive. The first record in May 1914 was a mean level of 1.111 metres. The last record, for February 2018, is 1.018 metres – 93 mm lower. There can be other interpretations of what it all means but there is no emergency. There isn’t even a trend, unless flat counts as a trend. And in the end the voters are likely to pull an Ontario and decide that there are things that are more important. The Conservatives in Ontario promised to spend C$100 million on autism.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
Regarding the legal notice I saw when I loaded this site:
“We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!”
With what I’m seeing on the legal front in the EU, any sort of exposure over there is getting dangerous. Among other threats, Article 13 is coming up for a vote, https://saveyourinternet.eu/home , which may require online forums operating in the EU to implement harsh filtering and censorship to avoid copyright liability.
hanelyp
Thankfully the UK is getting out from under the EU cosh.
If takes too long, or Brexit is soft, I’ll trust my trusty VPN https://www.privateinternetaccess.com
Cheap, unlimited and fast.
And I completed the petition.
you hope. Theresa the appeaser wants to stay in. I get the feeling that’s what will happen
No – haven’t you been watching?
May has turned her arse up to the EU – not to flash the brown eye but to take a right good shafting from them.
Everything she said she’d stand up to, within a week she had capitulated – EU Army? We’re committed to paying for that even after we (so-called) “leave”. Fishing rights, nope. Border controls, nope. Customs Area? Nope, stuck in the EU field there too.
The truth is that we will not be leaving – it will be just “name only” and we will still lose all of our sovereign rights and self-determination.
We have been betrayed by the very people we elected to run our country FOR us.
I hope you’re right but democracy is becoming very fragile in the UK. The people were told that the result of the referendum on Brexit would be implemented and we would take back control of our borders, money and laws. Now it’s looking more and more that the people have been, bit by bit, stitched up by the Remain establishment of which Mrs May is part.
If we don’t get the full Brexit (as above) as promised I fear climate change will be the least of our problems. We cannot be part democratic, but only when it suits the establishment.
Our problem is Parliament is supreme.
Above monarch AND people.
All UK parties are warmist and support the Climate Change Act. In or out of the EU makes little odds, if any.
We’re stuffed.
But….but…what will all those people currently employed measuring how bendy a banana can be do then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94
The cookies AFAIK are to keep you signed in so you don’t have to re-enter your credentials every time you want to post a comment.
As for the EU, there is a hilarious video by Nigel Farage listing the criminal convictions and dodgy Soviet affiliations of the incoming EU Commissioners. The European Commission is effectively the top executive body of the EU, with both the power to source legislation and oversight over how that legislation is implemented.
The company I work for in the UK is now scared to do just about anything. The new laws means the fines can be absolutely massive and are tied to the earnings of the company. We have to check with lawyers before we do anything. Something that was a little job and would take 30 minutes can now wait two days for clearance. We have all had PGP installed and have to encrypt everything, even a single line of data that might just be something like Name,DOB and marital status.
Frankly hanelyp, I don’t give a damn.
Mustn’t confuse them with the facts ….
they might choose the red pill …
Anti-Green. Pro-conservation, rational and reasonable.
A lesson here for the brand new New Conservative party in New Zealand. Pick it up and run with it, PLEASE!
What New Conservative Party?? You mean the rebranded Old Conservative Party?
It took us 15 years of pain but 40% of us finally woke up. No champagne uncorking yet, we have a 3 party system so the liberals (lefties in Canada) and socialist NDP still had almost 60% of the vote. In our case 40% is generally enough provincially or federally to win an outright majority of seats. Now we will experience an onslaught of negative media hype trying to destroy the conservatives, and boy has it started. We have an editorial from our national broadcaster the CBC (=ABC in Aus or BBC in UK) saying that the conservatives only won due to the white heterosexual vote, even though they also outright won the non white vote according to polls.
Wait til they say that all the women who voted conservative did so because their husbands, boyfriends, or sons ‘pressured’ them into it.
Waterloo, home of the University of Waterloo, head office of BlackBerry, host to Sandvines, Open Text and hundreds of others, elected a lady I believe to be an engineer. Is that correct?
Maybe some common sense will enter the fray.
Mistake No 1 – politicians/political parties are not subject to truth in advertising laws
Mistake No 2 – believing ANY politician (or would-be politician)
Mistake No 3 – using anything from Australia showing CO2 is not an evil, nirvana-destroying gas that escaped from Pandora’s box
See the straight-faced lie of our former liar-in-chief (Gillard):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ&w=1161&h=653
While politicians can get away with lying to voters once they are in power and use excuses such as ‘circumstances have changed’ or ‘now we have seen the books we (always unfortunately) cannot hold to our pre-election promises’ it does not matter what the data shows.
Worst of all is the weasel-words they are fond of using to demonstrate that we are dumb and it is our faults for not understanding what their words mean:
E.g. an Emissions Trading Scheme is not a carbon tax
Thanks for ruining my pre-breakfast day with sensible sounding policies and Australia in the same article (but WUWT will remain my go-to, must read every day site)
I live in Ontario Canada. I voted in that election Unfortunately many of Ford’s own people believe in global warming. I think even he does, but he hates taxes so much that is the overriding factor . The other elephant in the room is Trudeau our PM. See below for what Trudeau wants to do and he will force it by way of the Supreme Court. Only 2 provinces out of 10 are opposing him. Ford in Ontario and the province of Saskatchewan.
Standards, subsidies and taxes. The bane of the free market. Standards should only be used to prevent injuries or bad health effects. Subsidies should only be used to prop up a company that produces a domestic product that is key to national security. Taxes should only be used as a government income source. Too often however the government uses standards to interfere in the life of all its citizens. At the same time governments subsidize almost everything. Taxes are collected for all sorts of reasons. Ex: liquor and tobacco taxes, estate or inheritance taxes, gift taxes, company asset taxes, and carbon taxes.
It is this last one that irks me the most. Carbon taxes are ridiculous. One of 3 things can happen. 1) The company can refuse to pay them and move out of the country or threaten to move out before they are enacted. In this case everybody loses. 2) The company can pay them and then raise their prices so that with business as usual no emission reduction of CO2 occurs. In this case only the company loses if it also exports its product. The consumers don’t lose because the carbon taxes are supposed to be given back to the public at large. However the general price level of all carbon related goods goes up so that inflation goes up. However since no decrease in CO2 emissions occurs, there was no reason to have the tax in the 1st place. 3) The company can change its source of fuel to a lower carbon entity at a higher cost and pass on its necessary price increase to its customers. The customers have no choice because all the competitors have to do the same thing. In that case there is a reduction in CO2 emissions but since the atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less, everybody loses.
It is this third scenario that factors into my main point. Even if you believe in AGW(human caused global warming/climate change) , here are the stark facts of trying to do anything about it. PM Trudeau in Canada plans on introducing a tax on the emission of CO2 and all greenhouse gases except water vapour, starting January 1, 2019.
Canada puts out 1.5 % of world total of CO2 and has not had any increases for 11 years.. China puts out 31% of the world total and increased their output 4.1% in 2017 and is on track for an equal 4% increase after the 1st quarter of 2018.
In 1991 Norway was the 1st country along with Sweden to introduce a carbon tax, and they have found that their tax was responsible for reducing their increases of emissions by only 2.32% compared to a 0 rate on carbon. However Norway’s CO2 emissions still went up. To top it all off Norway found that the carbon taxes reduced their GDP by 0.06%.
In the Norwegian scheme there were so many exemptions that the effective coverage of the carbon taxes was only 64% of industrial production. The Norwegian price for carbon is around $25 Can per ton. Trudeau has promised to introduce Canada’s carbon tax at $10 per ton in 2019 and increase it $10 per ton every year until $50 per ton by the end of 2023. However the differing prices between Norway and Canada will not have any significant effect on the results because there is very little opportunity for any company in Canada in at least 7 of the provinces, to switch to a non CO2 producing fuel because those 7(except Manitoba,B.C. and Quebec) do not have significant hydro power; so the companies will simply pay the tax to stay in business. Theoretically this should not amount to any significant reduction in CO2 because Canada is different from Norway in a fundamental way. In Norway any firm has access to hydro elecricity.
However we will take Trudeau’s word for it and assume that all 75% of planned reduction of Canada’s contribution to the 2030 targets will be met. Ireland achieved a decrease in emissions after 4 straight years of increased emissions despite a carbon tax. British Columbia despite having a carbon tax since 2008 has not achieved any decrease in CO2 emissions.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that that the average climate computer model forecasts an increase in temperature of 3C by the end of the century (82 years from now) if the world doesn’t reduce its carbon footprint. The said reduction of temperature goal is 1.5 C by end of century in order to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C.
Canada has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions per Paris agreement by 2030 of 33%. 33% of 1.5 % = 0.5% of world total
In the 1st phase of reductions which will culminate by 2023, if all 75% of the planned CO2 emissions are met ; this will reduce our greenhouse gas footprint by 75% of 33% = 24.75% with the other 25% of 33% = 8.25% being part of a revised carbon pricing scheme between 2023 and 2030.
75% = 0.75 and 0.5% = .005
So you have 0.75 * .005 = 0.00375 Don’t forget that carbon trading and a carbon price dont actually guarantee that any reductions will ever occur.
But if the promised reductions do occur then you multiply by goal of 1.5C so that you have 0.00375 * 1.5 = 0.005625 C
That is a reduction of a little over 5 thousandths of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years. Whether Canada will do any better is a function of how many exemptions and what discount carbon tax %’s are actually determined for each specific industry. Even so since this is the 1st phase only, Canada’s goal in this phase is to cut 75% of a third of its emissions which = 24% . There is a big difference between Norway’s result of 2.32 % reduction and Canada’s goal of 24%. However Canada’s emissions have been flat since 2007.
Since China’s increase last year as per the above is .3 * .041 = 0.0123 or 1.23% of world total
Canada’s reduction will be .75 * .005 = 0.00375
That means China’s increase for 1 year is 0.0123/ 0.00375 = 3.28 times the amount of Canada’s reduction for each year if the emissions go lower in Canada to the same degree as the increased price effect after 5 years. Dont forget that Canada’s reduction is only at a maximum effect by 2022 because of the increasing price of $10 per ton per year. In the 1st year 2019 or any other year, the reduction could be the whole amount or any amount depending on how many firms simply pay the tax vs the number that switch to a non carbon or lower carbon fuel source. China has refused to decrease its output and only promised to try to limit their increases by 2030. China is not a developing country because it has 45% of the world’s skyscrapers.
Ah taxes. Theft disguised as a necessary evil of the greater good. How about voluntary donation. If people genuinely care, they will fund it.
You will never ease suffering if the foundation of your society is violence. Taxation is violence. Don’t agree? Refuse to pay and see how long it takes for storm troopers with guns to knock down your door. Why people refuse to accept this is beyond me. Must be some sort of childish void that losing Santa fills.
What will all of this cost Canada?
Price of carbon by 2022 will be $50 per ton by 2022 and at 700 million tons = 35 billion $ Can. However since the carbon tax will start in 2019 at $10 per ton, the yearly taxes will be assuming no exemptions 2019= 700 m * $10 = $7 billion 2020= 700m * $20 = $14 billion 2021 = 700m * $30 = $21 billion 2022= 700m * $40 = $28 billion 2023 = 700m * $50 = $35 billion So total cost over 5 year period is $112 billion and assuming no other increases the yearly rate will remain at $35 billion per year indefinitely. Of course all this assumes that 100% of the emmissions will be covered. If as in Norway, only about 2/3 of industry is covered by the the new tax, then take 1/3 off of these figures which will then be a total of $74 billion over the next 5 years instead of the $112 billion that I stated above. .
This will still leave Canada short 66 million tons of its Paris commitment to cut by 2030 and Trudeau has said that Canada will meet its commitment by 2030.
What will this cost each household in Canada?
Minimum of $1100 Can and maximum of $2500 Can depending on rebates given back by each province. Some provinces have promised to give all of it back.
THIS IS ABSOLUTE MADNESS.
My Prime Minister Trudeau is worried about a trace gas in the atmosphere absolutely essential for all life while not worrying about the 5 trillion pieces of plastic that are in the seas. ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFULL
Warming should be good for Canada.
In Canada we will take 3C extra any day even in the summer
Larkana, Sindh. How do you think they’d enjoy another 3 degrees?
Ever heard of polar amplification zazzy?
Yah just like happened in the 60s and 70s. Only back then is was called an Arctic Front
Strange how winters on the west coast are getting colder and longer
You need a quick one liner: Business do not pay taxes, Customers pay taxes.
Alan, you’re leaving out a few things.
1. Ontario and Saskatchewan will likely be joined next year by Alberta when the Notley government goes under. And prospects for New Brunswick are not looking very good either. So there’s two more possible anti-CO2 tax provinces, one for certain. Make no mistake, Jason Kenney is making the federal government the principal enemy in his campaign, not the current Alberta Premier.
The consequence of all this is that it’s simply impossible for a federal government to enforce a carbon tax over the objections of the two largest economic provinces in the Dominion.
2. Trudeau’s government is running out of mandate. He has to go to the polls in 2019. So he’s only got about 18 months left. Much of his existing legislative mandate is in ruins such as electoral reform. The one thing he is passing, marijuana reform, is also in some trouble with the Senate imposing a load of government-hostile amendments to the bill. And let’s not forget that his government is also in serious trouble over Kinder-Morgan.
So much as he may like to impose a CO2 tax, he’s running out of room.
Isn’t Ontario the Canadian equivalent of New YorkNoVaMaryland? How can the conservatives carry such a #woke province? Zoolander’s other eyebrow must be drooping.
Consider what happened in Ontario when they shut down coal plants and expanded wind generation, electricity rates increased by more than 70% in a short period of time. It’s easy to motivate voters against environmentalism when it’s put them in the poor house.
Around here (Comifornia) you still routinely hear ads selling residential solar, citing how “cheap” it is compared to standard utility rates. And completely ignoring how utility rates have been driven up by mandates for utilities to support residential solar by buying surplus generation.
Yeah…. but your PM will just double down on the federal carbon tax and that goes for every province that doesn’t currently have or is planning a carbon tax scheme. Andrew Scheer hasn’t publicly said he WON’T introduce a carbon tax …… so that means right now it’s in the works.
Wow. Great example for Rabbit Run’s post:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/06/tobis-rule.html
It really is fascinating how trolls keep dragging out the same dis-proven claims over and over again.
Linking to high-traffic sites like this one gets them redirects to their lower-traffic sites “over and over again.”
Speaking of “over and over again”.
If you really aren’t the arm-waving, one trick pony you seem to be….show us where this proof is.
It’s always in the pudding.
Every graph on that site is fake and made up. Greenies keep believing in their fake religion of CO2 warming
Every graph from actual scientists is made up. Every graph from non-scientists are real.
And that’s how rational people see things.
No one has shown or proved that any skeptic fudged or faked any data. On the other hand NOAA , NASA and NCAR, and the Met office along with BOM and the New Zealand government agency that tracks global temperature change have all been caught fudging the graphs and some of them have been caught faking some of the data. This has happended a lot more than once and was even admitted to by some of the scientists in their emails. We skeptics will never forget climate gate. The only reason 2 of the scientists were not charged in England was that the statute of limitations had run out.
A skeptic has no reason to lie about climate change or global warming. All we get are howls of derision from the wider public cause they think we are nuts. So why would we do this and subject ourselves to ridicule. Just to try to win an argument. ? If that is what you think , then you are nuttier than the nuttiest that I thought greens could ever be. The real reason is THE TRUTH. We know the truth about CO2 and we will fight this hoax to our everlasting breath. When we are presented with graphs we have never seen, we investigate the source. If a line of reasoning makes sense backed up by good data then we change our minds. That is what science is all about. Unlike the global warming religion which is NOT science.
“We know the truth about CO2”
Wow. And what is that truth? What explains the warming besides CO2? This should be interesting.
“What explains the warming besides CO2?”
Is the following argument necessarily true?
“Jimmy isn’t at school today, therefore, he must be on a family trip.”
If not, then do you see where your argument similarly fails?
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html
Your argument seems to be: Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it’s concentration is rising, and there are no other forcings that can explain the earth’s warming to this degree, and the fingerprints of CO2 are present, then…
There must be something other than CO2 warming the planet and all climate scientists are wrong.
No, that’s you restating your argument, with which I’ve already dealt.
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html
Is Jimmy necessarily on a family trip if he’s not at school?
Allay,
The reasoning of the IPCC is exact that: “we have examined all possible natural causes and without CO2 we can’t explain the warming since 1950, thus CO2 is the cause of the warming.”
Problem is that there was zero warming 2001-2014 with strong increasing CO2 levels (and now after the 2015-2016 El Niño about back down again). That is called “the pause” or anything else to hide the non-warming. So what did compensate the effect of the extra CO2? And if that effect is so strong in cooling, isn’t that also responsible for the warming in previous periods?
Problem is that the IPCC does not know and can’t know every detail that influences climate and thus can’t be sure that CO2 is the main control knob. A few large influences like (deep) ocean currents, the influence of clouds and by what mechanisms clouds are influenced,… These have much more effect than the influence of increasing CO2 from 290 to 410 ppmv in the atmosphere.
What warming? Not where I’ve lived for 50 years
Yes, the globe means where Mick lives, and temperature is based on whether he is sweating today.
“Every graph on that site is fake and made up”
No Alan, you have been tricked into thinking that. There is nothing fake about any of that data. Its got nothing to do with greenies or religion. Why don’t you check for yourself?
Recentism as in sea level is rising! as wave is coming and sea level is falling! as trove is passing IS funny, but there IS also the point that is your trend is smaller than hourly variation, then it is not very important.
However, I do find some of your criticism valid, and will offer you one +1 vote. You’re now in -7. Oops. I gave you a minus vote. Tough.
Ontario? There is an Ontario in Canada, isn’t there? Is there one in Australia or is this actually about politics in Hungary? Why do so many writers assume that the name of every city they know is also known to everyone else in the world?
Very true! Some years ago I booked a flight to Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, (where I wanted to go) but I accidentally indicated I’d pick up my rental car from the airport in Waterloo, Iowa, USA (where I was not). It pays to be specific! 🙂
Trends for both charts are up. A cherry pick today via a point to point line today is different from one next month.
Doug Ford doesn’t make much sense other than “I promise I’ll cut taxes, just you watch” and speaks like his brother Rob.
As I said, recentism (using the “last” number) is stupid, but it is used by both warmists and non-warmists, and has the point that variation is large compared to the calculated trend.
I’d rather not see this kind of approaches.
In all, it’s actually about 30% of Earth’s surface, i.e., land where global warming has little to no effect.
30% may be correct. Since part of your percent is the “little warming” portion, then it is safe to say that 70-80% of the earth shows warming. That coincides nicely with the fact that warm records outpace cold ones more than 2:1.
Most if not all our temperature records, heatwave frequency and drought records in Canada, like those of the US, were in the decade mid 30s to mid 40s. My prairie homesteading family suffered this directly. Sweetgrass Saskatchewan still holds the high for Canada of +47C from July 1937.
Ive made the point that the 0.8C warming from their 1880s was much steeper than the jiggered temps that tout 0.8C rise between 1980 and 2000 – it had all occurred by the late 1930s without significant CO2 rise. Had Hansen not pushed the 30s temperatures down 0.3 – 0.4C and bent the 40 yrs of cooling that followed and had some of the same scientists certain we were heading into a manmade ice age, the 1990s wouldnt be hockey-sticking up dangerous warming. The 1998 el Nino wasnt thought to be a record at the time.
Since, we have learned that Greenland, Europe, Siberia, South Africa, Paraguay, Ecuador, and just a day or two ago China’s record temperatures were also in the 1930s. The patterns look the same and this fact will ultimately, after the clime syndicate is put out of business, lead to correcting temperatures back to a non- event by such strong corroborative information.
This shows it nicely, from the year 1900, forward.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/
The proxy records, rather than being merely the corroborating regional supports of weather tends and pseudo-cycles, etc., has now become the more reliable record, than the belief-based tweaking of ‘direct’ observation ‘records’ (perverted and false Weather Bureau bullsh|t).
The massive swing to conservatism is unstoppable at this time. The psychotic left are hell bent on the total demolition of Western culture along with a quite literal white genocide.
What do they do to half-white people like Obama? Do they get off with a fine? How white does one have to be to fear for their personal safety under the psychotic left’s regime?
obviously more than half…..he campaigned as half black….and immediately became America’s first black president
100%.
Kathleen Wynne the recently previous liberal premier was a nut job SJW as nutty as Trudeau, and looked like a male looking female Bill Nye. The liberal party lost so bad they lost official party status with only 7 seats. Trudeau will NOT be PM come 2019. Wynne is now requesting Doug Ford the new premier change the rules so they can have official party status. The nerve 🙂
Here is what is really happening and is going to happen as we move forward. This phony global warming scenario will be over!
AGW will be proven wrong as global temperatures fail to show any further warming much less now in a cooling trend.
Overall sea surface temperatures now in a nice down trend. This being due to very weak solar (UV/NEAR UV LIGHT ) which is what determines sea surface temperatures not the phony CO2/INFRARED relationship versus sea surface temperatures.
The North Atlantic now -.60c below 1981-2010 means needs to be monitored along with land areas in the high Arctic. This is a place where change could impact the global climate.
AGW THEROY – not one of the basic premises has come to be from the lower troposphere hot spot, to distinct stratospheric cooling, to a decrease in OLR, to a more zonal atmospheric circulation to overall sea surface temperatures warming.
ENSO a natural CLIMATIC FACTOR was responsible for the recent warmth not AGW. One can see this by looking at the MEI index over the past few years.
My two solar conditions for cooling are now present which are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (which started in year 2005) and within this sub solar activity in general a period of very low average value solar parameters (which started in year 2018/late 2017) whose values are greater in degree of magnitude and duration of time which commonly occurs between typical solar minimums between normal sunspot cycles.
The theory is simple which is very low prolonged minimum solar conditions result in overall lower sea surface temperatures (less UV/NEAR UV LIGHT )and a slightly higher albedo(due to an increase in explosive volcanic activity and an increase in snow/cloud coverage the result lower global temperatures.
The geo magnetic field modifying the solar activity.
The upshot is a climatic regime change which happens in decades if not years. Since post Dalton times till now the climate has been in the same climatic regime. It is common to have temperature fluctuations of +/- 1 c within a climatic regime due to ENSO/VOLCANIC ACTIVITY.
When the climate changes to another climate regime it usually happens at the top of the previous climatic regime and changes in the opposite direction. This is what I think is taking place now with year 2018 being the transitional year. If one looks at the climatic history that is what it shows more often then not.
In addition if one looks at the climatic history they will see the climate of today is in no way unique, and that every period of prolonged solar activity has been associated with lower overall global temperatures.
I say if my theory is correct AGW will be proven wrong prior to year 2020.
Salvatore, I generally agree with your assessment of naturally-caused global cooling, starting anytime in the next few years. I’ve been writing this for many years – here is a recent post. I hope to be wrong – getting old and hate the cold.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/06/10/new-hell-climate-change-gets-certified-schellnhuber-prophesizes-end-of-civilization/
Hi Pierre,
Hope you are well.
These fanatics will believe in catastrophic global warming until Hell freezes over.
For the record, I predicted that natural global cooling would commence by 2020 to 2030, in an article published on 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald. I am now leaning closer to 2020 for cooling to start.
I hope to be wrong. Humanity suffers during cooling periods.
Best, Allan
You never outgrow your need for panic. I’ve lived through at least six doomsday scenarios that sweep over society like waves from time to time, sea levels notwithstanding. People — some people anyway — have a deep inner need to believe the world is coming to an end unless we do something DRASTIC. And SOON.
It’s usually about 3% science, and 97% being hard up for kicks. The alleged threat never goes away — there are still plenty of H-bombs out there, for instance, but daily headlines and ghoulish descriptions of thermonuclear annihilation are rare nowadays. Carl Sagan sort of turned into a parody of himself in his later career, the way Al Gore is now.
Nobody seems terribly worried about influenza mutating into something that knocks off a billion people or so, even though it could happen almost without warning. Screaming Mimis are a bore in the end. Chalk it up to doomsday fatigue.
Boondoggle: How Ontario’s pursuit of renewable energy broke the province’s electricity system
I figure that 12c/kWh at retail level is not expensive – probably forty years since Australia has retail prices at that level. Average retail price in Australia is 35c/kWh. In South Australia, including the service charge, price tops 60c/kWh (obviously at that price they do not use much so the service charge becomes a factor in the unit price).
You would think Australians would be kicking out any government that set rules that enabled tripling the wholesale electricity price but there is no major party offering anything different.
There remains very strong support for ambient generation in Australia. Anyone suggesting otherwise is immediately labelled a denier – see comments here:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/whats-behind-scare-campaign-on-rooftop-solar-blackout-threat-78729/#comment-3945053333
Greenies will rename it : Fort Denizen
No no, follow the gourd!
As an Ontario resident, I am so thankful, this could not have come soon enough. So important to stress, Rob Ford is on record saying scraping the carbon tax will be his FIRST order of business. That is a huge statement. Of course the usual (left) media is stating “The obvious solution to make up for the lost revenue is to simply run a deficit.” This just proves once again, carbon taxes are about revenue generation, not reducing CO2. Our leader and CO2 warrior Justin Trudeau just bought an oil pipeline Kinder Morgan Trans mountain for 4.5 Billion.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/christine-van-geyn/doug-ford-carbon-tax-promise_a_23457365/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4255416/justin-trudeau-kinder-morgan-trans-mountain-seats-bc/
Doug Ford.. but I second that emotion.
Ontario Premier is Doug Ford not Rob!!!
“The Land That Global Warming Forgot”
It’s hardly “Land”. But it also just isn’t true for Australia. UAH gives the trends since 1979 at the bottom of their data file. Australia is 0.18 °C/decade, considerably higher than global 0.13 °C/decade.
“Nick Stokes
“The Land That Global Warming Forgot”
UAH gives the trends since 1979 at the bottom of their data file. Australia is 0.18 °C/decade, considerably higher than global 0.13 °C/decade.”
0.05c, 5 100’s of a degree, is considerable? That’s well within error ranges.
“That’s well within error ranges.”
Indeed, error ranges on UAH for an area like Australia are large. But no-one seemed to notice them when the article said:
“There has been no increase over the last 40 years. Since global warming has to start in the atmosphere, there has been no global warming in Australia. No Australian under the age of 40 has experienced global warming. “
And it just isn’t true. It may be uncertain that warming is greater than global. But it is not certainly zero. The evidence favors greater than global.
Nick,
I am sure a man as wise as you wpild be fully aware of the level of homogenization in Oz>>>
This is UAH satellite data
Only since 79. We came out of a cold period. It’s a cherry pick
“It may be uncertain that warming is greater than global. But it is not certainly zero. The evidence favors greater than global.”
St. Thomas More wrote, “A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation” while imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1534.
In it he “coined” the now well known idiom, “grasping at straws”, which appears to be applicable here.
Well, so far you’ve explained the origin of the term.. And that’s all you’ve done. Care to actually do the bit that matters and explain exactly what you are responding to that is grasping at straws, and why you think that label is reasonable?
Sure – if it is uncertain that warming is “greater than global,” how can it be true at the same time that warming is greater than global?
Maybe “grasping at straws” is the wrong characterization after all…now it looks more like contradiction.
Australia has been experiencing warm records over cold one at about 5:1.
That’s expected when warming occurs.
If records are the standard, then shouldn’t I believe that these sufficiently contradict your premise?
Why are your warm records better than my cold ones (hint: why is your faith more rational than mine)?
The winter that wouldn’t end: cold continues, sets records
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/the-winter-that-wouldnt-end-cold-continues-sets-records/70004626
2017–18 North American cold wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_North_American_cold_wave
First Week of 2018 Was the Coldest on Record in Dozens of Cities in the East
https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/2018-01-09-coldest-first-week-of-january-on-record-east-2018
Your cold records are duly noted. Yes, everyone agrees that there are both warm and cold records.
But everyone ALSO agrees that there are more warm records set than cold records in the past few decades.
This “well I can show you cold snaps” nonsense is absurd. Nobody forgot to record them. They are in the part we call “cold records” and is why the 2:1 ratio is so alarming.
“This “well I can show you cold snaps” nonsense is absurd.”
Agreed! Now you’re beginning to get it!
E.g., just like your “well I can show you hot snaps”?
(BTW, you argued for 5:1 in the first post, now it’s down to 2:1. You’re losing ground fast.)
Only when you use a 1961-1990 baseline, as the BOM does.
Yeah I think David Archibald shot himself in the foot by showing the full 40 years of UAH data which clearly shows a warming trend. Usually a cherry-picked section of the data is shown to make it appear there is no trend.
It is not 40 years but the pause is strong in Australia ; since begin 1998 the trend is flat.
And taking into acount the Pinatubo cooling the trend from 1990 on is very small.
Santer showed this for the globe:
Even warmist Carl Mears from the RSS says: the troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict. Note that this problem has been reduced by the large 2015-2106 El Nino Event, and the updated version of the RSS tropospheric datasets.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_trop30v4.png
RSS-tropics model and observations
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_trop30v4.png
I have to agree with Nick in this one. Article says stable……data shows higher than global average
If you control for the Urban Heat Island Effect, the entire globe is the land that global warming forgot.
Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/forensic-science-why-michael-mann-chose-only-the-past-1000-years-to-reconstruct/
There is no urban heat island effect. BEST proved that.
I see lots of downvotes for Curry’s work. Very interesting.
Interesting. I live in Arvada, Colorado. I work in Denver, Colorado, approximately 8 miles as the crow flies. It is consistently 5 to 6 degrees warmer in Denver, nearly without fail, year round.
No UHI?
Reeeeeheeeeeheeeeaaallllyyy?
Find a new religion bub, this one severely limits your logical capabilities
David, FYI, sea level measurements at Fort Denison, Sydney go back to 1886. Is there a reason you only start at 1914?
There are 2 series of tide gauge data for Fort Denison
1/ 1886 – 1993
2 1914 – 2016
I think there is a trend rise of about 11cm over 100 years
But currently there is also a sinking which would give 4cm drop over the same time.
So about 7 cm of sea level rise over 100 years.
You will note the the Govt. series starts in 1914.
“Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years.”
David Archibald plots UAH troposphere temperatures over Australia, thinking this backs his point. But he doesn’t show the trend, which shows a warming rate over Australia of 0.17°C/decade. That is 30% faster than warming for the rest of the globe at 0.13°C/decade since 1979.
UAH data: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
“David Archibald plots UAH troposphere temperatures over Australia, thinking this backs his point. But he doesn’t show the trend, which shows a warming rate over Australia of 0.17°C/decade. That is 30% faster than warming for the rest of the globe at 0.13°C/decade since 1979.”
Mat cites the 0.13 degree per decade warming, thinking this backs his point. But the 1990 IPCC report predicted 0.3 degree per decade, and suggested this was a low estimate because feedbacks were likely to kick in.
The same report predicted seas to rise 6mm a year. It’s been half that.
The trend isn’t a friend of AGW.
Chip, IPCC projections are for surface temperatures. The above data are based on satellite observations of the troposphere (and include part of the stratosphere – see Fig 7 of link below). So the the 1990 projections you’ve provided can’t be compared directly as the troposphere is expected to warm more slowly than surface, and the stratosphere is expected to cool.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
In any case, I’m not making a statement of comparing projections to observations, I’m simply pointing out that David’s assertion of no warming over Australia is incorrect.
An interesting thing about Ontario is its well documented history of extreme weather events. Environment and Climate Change Canada documents details of weather statistics for hundreds of locations, some records date back to the 1800’s.
What these figures show is that extreme weather events such as high temperature values, frequency of days over 30 degrees C, wind speeds, heavy snow falls, extreme cold days, etc. have become more benign with increasing CO2 levels. Trends in extreme rain events being more localized very greatly from site to site but show no overall trend.
The facts are counter to the media narrative but it’s extremely difficult to get straight answers on the topic from out media and government.
The winter of 2017/2018 saw Toronto break cold records that had stood for 150 years. So you have a majority of voters in a land gripped by ice for half the year spending tens of billions on CO2 policies that everyone secretly admits will have zero impact in temperatures.
People are nuts.
And secretly wish is was 3C warmer! If energy becomes expensive in Canada it will not be a nice place to live.
“The Land That Global Warming Forgot”
Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years. Since global warming has to start in the atmosphere, there has been no global warming in Australia. No Australian under the age of 40 has experienced global warming. Given the way the Sun is going, they are likely to miss out altogether.
This is a joke right? I hope he’s joking.
As usual, Stokes missed the point.
The point that was made is that after 40 years, the CURRENT temperature is not warmer. That graph line drawn by the computer averages out colder and warmer temperatures and since there were colder temperatures earlier in the period the line trends upward and miraculously we get an increase. That is called missing the point. Similarly for sea level.
So why not just feast your eyes on the -0.4 at the end.
“So why not just feast your eyes on the -0.4 at the end.”
Well, this month you can. But last month it was 0.68°C. And the month before, 0.59°C.
At the other end, the first month Dec 1978 was -1.20°C. Pretty powerful warming since then, huh?
That’s the point about using a stable measure like trend. Otherwise you get a different story every month. And of course, in favorable months a post pops up here.
Ending on a Super El Nino helps increase the trend.
Yes. The record has ups and downs. You can’t just erase a subset.
Nick, exactly. They drew the cherry pick that suited them.
Any mathematician will tell you the trend is up. Heck, ask a class of students (any age) if they think the trend is up.
Spoiler: It’s up.
Only an idiot would draw a line between the first and last carefully chosen points.
No you are wrong. You get warm months, you get cold months. You cannot just pick the month you want and declare that the “temperature”.
The data has to be averaged over a statistically significant length of time to show the trend. Don’t worry, the climate scientists know this and they know how to do statistics correctly.
So that is down to what is it, three countries only now that implement a carbon tax?
If you campaign on saving the planet with a carbon tax ….. your not getting in …. hope Canadian’s smarten up ASAP.
Is the writing on the toilet wall?
“Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years.”
The graph of the UAH data shows a warming trend, even in the lower troposphere. The surface data collected by the BOM shows a warming trend as well.
Hilariously…a trend higher than the rest of the globe…the exact opposite of Archibald’s misapprehension.
The headline should have read:
The Land That Global Warming took an inordinate interest in.
Big deal both the US and Australia have a trend 1.8C per century and we are supposed to be scared of this? This is supposed to melt all the icecaps and drown us all? Or maybe you think that 2C will kill off millions because they will die from the heat? the trend could easily go the other way and probably will based on previous century cooling. We in Canada will have to pay $74 billion extra taxes in the next 5 years just so we can get the world average temperature down by 0.0037125 C by the year 2100. Yes You read that right 3 thousandth of 1 degree C. That is Canada’s contribution to global warming prevention. This makes me so angry that I want to slap any greenie in the face that I see to get them to wake up to reality.
Luckily it’s not only Canada. It’s a global problem, Canada just needs to pull it’s weight.
“have a trend 1.8C per century” A trend that is likely to accelerate. The increase since pre-industrial is pushing 1C already.
And yes, it is a big deal. It is clear sea levels are rising.
I am surprised that some people have missed my point about the article being wrong. Oh well.
And yet there are shitloads of stupid laws and political decisions in Oz based on this “non-event”.
I agree with you Casey.
Alberta Einstein said:
“Nothing is infinite except the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the universe.”
However, regarding your use of units:
The official SI spelling of this unit is “$hitloads”, especially when referring to the trillions of dollars squandered on global warming hysteria.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Shitload
“A Shitload is considered a base unit for quantity, much like the foot or the metre is for length. It is represented by the symbol ‘$’ in the scientific community. This should not be confused with the dollar sign (also ‘$’), though in most cases they have the same meaning in application.
Though once believed to be a representation of varying quantities due to differing opinions of different individuals, the Shitload has been discovered to be a fixed quantity based on the principles of quantum mechanics and some other stuff. A Shitload is one of the SI Units, and can now be defined as 8.3264∗10^9 units, or 8326400000 …”
Re Ontario’s imbecilic, costly and destructive “green energy” policies – I knew this was false nonsense soon after I started studying global warming alarmism in 1985.
My co-authors and I confidently wrote in 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – THE ALLEGED WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY KYOTO ADVOCATES SIMPLY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.”
Source:
DEBATE ON THE KYOTO ACCORD
PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals, THE GLOBE AND MAIL and LA PRESSE in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
The good people of Ontario finally woke up and threw out the global warming alarmist scoundrels and imbeciles, after a decade or more of costly and destructive green energy nonsense by Doltan McGuinty and Kathleen Wynn.
Next time Ontario, just listen to your Uncle Allan, who has your best interests at heart – my family settled over 200 years ago in Glengarry County, the oldest county in Ontario. I cherish our heritage there and I can assure you that I’ve got your back.
The explorers David Thompson, Simon Fraser and Alexander Mackenzie all lived at times in Glengarry, and major rivers in western and northern Canada are named after these three intrepid gentlemen. For our American friends, Lewis and Clark on their historic trek had copies of David Thompson’s maps of their destination on the Pacific Coast.
This post is from 2010 – note the last line, where the scientist blamed the unusual cold weather on global warming – classic!
In Britain, pensioners are burning books to keep warm…
Hard-up pensioners have resorted to buying books from charity shops and burning them to keep warm. Volunteers have reported that ‘a large number’ of elderly customers are snapping up hardbacks as cheap fuel for their fires and stoves. Temperatures this week are forecast to plummet as low as -13ºC in the Scottish Highlands, with the mercury falling to -6ºC in London, -5ºC in Birmingham and -7ºC in Manchester as one of the coldest winters in years continues to bite. One assistant said: ‘Book burning seems terribly wrong but we have to get rid of unsold stock for pennies and some of the pensioners say the books make ideal slow-burning fuel for fires and stoves. A lot of them buy up large hardback volumes so they can stick them in the fire to last all night.’
–Metro News, 5 January 2010
Why? Because energy costs in Britain are skyrocketing, due in part to foolish, ineffective green energy policies (Doltan McGuinty and Jeff Simpson, please take note):
Household gas and electricity bills are expected to rocket fourfold to nearly £5,000 a year by the end of the decade to meet Government-imposed green targets. And the price heavy industry will have to pay by 2020 is so high that energy-dependent firms could be wiped out, causing thousands of job losses, said an industry spokesman.
–Tom McGhie, Daily Mail, 3 January 2010
But not to worry, this record cold around the world is allegedly caused by global warming:
Freak snowstorms and record low temperatures sweeping northern China are linked to global warming, say Chinese officials. Tomorrow morning the mercury is forecast to plunge to minus 16, a 40-year low, after a day-time maximum of minus 8. The head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, Guo Hu, linked the blizzard-like conditions this week to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming.
–The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 January 2010
And there’s a lot of cold out there, all over the world:
ARCTIC FREEZE AND SNOW WREAK HAVOC ACROSS THE PLANET
The Times, 5 January 2010
Arctic air and record snow falls gripped the northern hemisphere yesterday, inflicting hardship and havoc from China, across Russia to Western Europe and over the US plains.
There were few precedents for the global sweep of extreme cold and ice that killed dozens in India, paralysed life in Beijing and threatened the Florida orange crop. Chicagoans sheltered from a potentially killer freeze, Paris endured sunny Siberian cold, Italy dug itself out of snowdrifts and Poland counted at least 13 deaths in record low temperatures of about minus 25C (-13F).
The heaviest snow yesterday hit northeastern Asia, which is suffering its worst winter weather for 60 years. More than 25 centimetres (10in) of snow covered Seoul, the South Korean capital — the heaviest fall since records began in 1937.
In China, Beijing and the nearby port city of Tianjin had the deepest snow since 1951, with falls of up to 8in and temperatures of minus 10C. In the far north of China, the temperature fell to minus 32C. More than two million Beijing and Tianjin pupils were sent home and 1,200 flights were delayed or cancelled at Beijing’s international airport.
The same far-eastern weather system took its toll of Sakhalin, the Russian island off Siberia, which was hit by blizzards and avalanches. Farther west, in northern and eastern India, more than 60 people, mainly homeless, died of exposure. Thousands of schools were closed. In Uttar Pradesh, the state neighbouring Nepal, the authorities spent £1.3 million on blankets and firewood for needy households.
Western Russia suffered a deep freeze as snow swept across the Baltic and north-central Europe, leaving the worst devastation in Poland, where 13 people died, bringing the toll from the cold this winter to 122.
Up to ten skiers died or were missing in avalanches. The worst incident was in the Diemtig Valley in Switzerland on Sunday, when avalanches hit a group of skiers and then the rescuers who went to their aid. Eight people were pulled from the snow alive, but four died, including an emergency doctor, and three more were missing.
In Italy, emergency services struggled with rare cold and ice. Motorways in the northeast were closed and military helicopters were sent to Sicily with medical aid.
In the United States, heavy snow fell again on the northeast.
In Burlington, Vermont, a record 33in of snow fell in a weekend storm. The previous record in a three-day period was set in 1969. Residents of the Northern Plains were warned to expect lethally cold temperatures of about minus 30C.
The icy conditions of Western Europe, which broke records in half a dozen countries in December, are expected to last for at least another week.
Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked this week’s conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming.
Full story
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6975867.ece
– Allan MacRae
So is the decadal trend up or down Allan?
zazove asked:
“So is the decadal trend up or down Allan? ”
Which trend please zazove? Let me assume the Global Temperature trend:
One hypothesis (below) says that the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND IS ESSENTIALLY FLAT SINCE 1982, with Nino34 SST’s averaging flat and warming of the atmosphere caused by the recovery from two century-scale volcanoes, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+.
Nino34 SST is an excellent predictor of global atmospheric temperature 4 months later, except when the atmosphere is cooled by major volcanoes.
Excerpt from the posts below:
“… look at the blue line (a function of Nino3.4 SST), which shows NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD FROM 1982 TO 2016.”
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/climate-scientist-air-pollution-cleanup-may-be-major-driver-of-global-warming/#comment-2363299
[excerpt]
SUMMARY:
Industrial pollution does not have much impact on global temperature. Major (century-scale) volcanoes like El Chichon and Pinatubo definitely do cool the planet – by up to about 0.5C, fully dissipating after about 5 years.
The details are all here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/report-ocean-cycles-not-humans-may-be-behind-most-observed-climate-change/#comment-2157696
Formula:
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom (four months earlier) + 0.15 – 8*SatoGlobalMeanOpticalDepthIndex
Sato Global Mean Aerosol Optical Depth at 550 nm https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/climate-scientist-air-pollution-cleanup-may-be-major-driver-of-global-warming/#comment-2363266
Richard Keen wrote:
“Compared to the murky decades of the el Chichon and Pinatubo, the clear stratosphere since 1995 has allowed the intensity of sunlight reaching the ground to increase by about 0.6 Watts per square meter,” says Keen. “That’s equivalent to a warming of 1 or 2 tenths of a degree C (0.1 C to 0.2 C).”
…
“In other words,” he adds, “over the past 40 years, the decrease of volcanic aerosols and the increase of greenhouse gases have contributed equally to the total warming (~0.3 C) observed in global satellite temperature records.”
I wrote a similar conclusion in 2016 – see my post below. From my graph, it is clear that the peak cooling effect of volcanic aerosols from El Chichon and Pinatubo was 0.4C to 0.5C, not 0.1C to 0.2C as Keen stated, and each volcanic aerosol event took about 5 years to fully dissipate.
There is NO need to attribute any of the observed warming to increasing atmospheric CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/spectacular-drop-in-global-average-satellite-temperatures/#comment-1813307
I plotted the same formula back to 1982, which is where I [edit: 1982 is when the NOAA Nino3.4 data starts] started my first analysis. Satellite temperature data began in 1979.
That formula is: UAHLT Calc. = 0.20*Nino3.4SST +0.15
It is apparent that UAHLT Calc. is substantially higher than UAH Actual for two periods, each of ~5 years, BUT that difference could be largely or entirely due to the two major volcanoes, El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
This leads to a startling new hypothesis: First, look at the blue line (a function of Nino3.4 SST), which shows NO significant global warming over the entire period from 1982 to 2016. Perhaps the “global warming” observed in the atmosphere after the 1997-98 El Nino was not global warming at all; maybe it was just the natural recovery in global atmospheric temperatures after two of the largest volcanoes in recent history.
Comments?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1618235531587336&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Silly me expecting a one word answer.
Here, let me help you – up.
Used to be down
Since when? It’s been up each decade of your life.
Nonsense zazove – you are apparently uneducated and boorish.
No net warming since 1982 is the short answer, based on Nino34 SST’s, a much more reliable indicator that atmospheric temperatures.
Why are you exclusively looking at Nino34 SST? Please, no more links to yourself. That is not a citation.
More nonsense from you zazove and alley.
You do not understand the scientific method, are severely math-challenged, and are simply repeating warmist propaganda.
The reason I quote my own work is because I am supplying the evidence that my statements are supported by the evidence.
If you could learn to read graphs and understand math and data, then perhaps you would understand what is being written. As it is, you are merely wagging your foolish tongues.
The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the IPCC and its minions have a perfectly negative predictive track record – NONE of their scary predictions have materialized. That means that the IPCC has NEGATIVE scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything the IPCC or its minions say [that means YOU, ultra-minor minions].
Yes, all scientists and people with the most basic background in science could have answered that.
What if you asked that question in the sixties?
It seems that cold core lows are getting stronger and this results in very cold winter outbreaks in those storm tracks.
Am I missing something here? Graphs are displayed. Statements about trends are made.
But I’ll be damned if I can see any effort to actually calculate trends. Shouldn’t that be the first thing you do if you are going to talk about trends?
The only figures actually mentioned are in this statement:
“The first record in May 1914 was a mean level of 1.111 metres. The last record, for February 2018, is 1.018 metres – 93 mm lower.”
Is this how we calculate trends now?
Just think about it Phil. Here is a government record of sea level that is over 100 years long and the first record, which you can access by following the link, is higher than the last record. Just keep repeating that to yourself, and anyone who will listen, until the feeling that the seas are rising goes away.
What does that have to do with anything I’ve said?
If you have some wisdom about what a trend is, how to calculate a trend, what the results mean, and why you didn’t bother to do or explain any of that, I’m all ears.
Have at it.
We get it, Philip. Two endpoints aren’t a trend. But it’s not like David cherry-picked annual rainfall or a parameter that is essentially random each year. Sea level has supposedly been rising in a consequential amount decade after decade, and yet over 100 yrs apart, you have the same level. It just puts things into perspective. It doesn’t mean the trend is zero or negative.
Just a note the overall sea surface temperature are now under +.10c deviation from 1981-2010 means down from +.35c last summer that is a drop of .25c or .45f !!
This is equal to 1/2 of all the global warming going back to the Little Ice Age and has taken place in less then a year.
My earlier post on this thread mentions what is happening to the climate and why.
For sure…I am not a fan of global temperature claims. Regional at best. After all, we all experience day max and night mins that simultaneously range from -50C to +50C. Somewhere in this an average (?) of about 15C is calculated.. Just maths and meaningless in relation to living comfortable, safe, healthy lives. maybe take a look at locations people live and take holidays too. Lower or upper troposphere is still not surface. Temperature without wind chill is also a big difference in comfort zone.
Waaayyy too many decimals in use and without them we wouldn’t even know there has been any change this century. one is probably more likely to die of the stress worrying about something a century away that may never eventuate.
“The Conservatives in Ontario promised to spend C$100 million on autism.”
the alarmists won’t go so cheaply.
The question for all Canadian politicians who want to tax carbon:
“Given that CO2 is supposed to warm the planet and your carbon tax is supposed to reduce CO2, therefore cooling the planet, how much colder do you want to make Canada? ‘
Oh, Canada! While confirming the rumor that snowfall is predicted for northern Quebec on June 21, I also discovered Labrador fishing lodges can’t open because they’re still under 6 ft of snow. Clearly, the folks at weathernetwork.com think these “extreme weather events” are CO2-caused, as the website features stories like this one:
How can kids handle climate change? By throwing a tantrum!
Buy the book “The TANTRUM that SAVED the WORLD” and let Michael Mann and Megan Herbert indoctrinate your child into bad behavior!
Also, don’t miss:
CANADA IN 2030: Future of our water and changing coastlines
Antarctica lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice in blink of an eye
Covering Greenland in a blanket is one way to fight climate
Racism and climate change denial: Study delves into the link
Links to those articles and other balderdash are at:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/kids-picture-book-tantrum-that-saved-the-world-delivers-empowering-message-about-climate-change-action/104689/
But but it’s hotter snow
David Archibald makes this claim:-
“Australia’s atmospheric temperature has been a paragon of stability. There has been no increase over the last 40 years. Since global warming has to start in the atmosphere, there has been no global warming in Australia. No Australian under the age of 40 has experienced global warming. ”
__________________________
He also supplies a link to the data: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Without even having to do the calculation themselves, every so-called ‘sceptic’ (or ‘skeptic’) on this site should have been able to see that the claim is nonsense. UAH publishes the decadal trend at the foot of each column, showing that Australia is estimated to have warmed faster than the rest of the globe during the UAH period of measurement (0.18 C/dec for AUST vrs 0.13 for Globe).
The only person who seems to have spotted this is Nick Stokes. For his trouble he was accused of ‘cherry-picking’. Not one ‘sceptic’ here checked Archibald’s claims for themselves, or if they did, they chose to ignore the fact that his claims were flat wrong. Blatantly false. Perhaps ee need to reflect a little on what the term scepticism/skepticism actually means.
No, Matt spotted it 2 hours after Nick.
What has amazed me is the LACK of scepticism of these self-proclaimed skeptics. Its a joke.
zazove,
I stand corrected. Well done Matt.
It’s the sheer scale of David Archibald’s incorrect claims that astonish me, not the fact that they go unquestioned by most ‘skeptics’ here. He uses noisy monthly data for his chart and, a tell-tale sign, omits to add the linear trend line (as Roy Spencer does too).
But even eyeballing the UAH AUST chart without a trend line it’s clear there’s an upward trend. This stands out more clearly in the smoother annual data (and when a trend line is added, of course).
You poor babies. How you have suffered!
Very classy Mr Archibald.
Make a claim that there is no positive trend. Don’t calculate or cite any trend figures. Refuse to acknowledge the calculated trend for the data you rely on when it is directly presented to you. And then call the people pointing this out babies.
I know it’s not nice to mock someone’s religion. But why should I deny myself such a simple pleasure?
David,
We’re not the ones misrepresenting the data. You are.
You’re not even attempting to justify your statements or deal with criticisms. If you actually really care about any of this, then why aren’t you even attempting to deal with the issues raised? Are you just another troll?
It seems like you’re more interested in taking pleasure in the frustrations of others when you refuse to engage in good faith over the issues raised than you are in the actual issues.
Thos interested in the question of how much Australian temperatures have changed will have incomplete understanding until they read and absorb this analysis:
http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html
Briefly, the best climate/weather people in Australia at the time published some official records in the 1940-50 era. Their summaries are NOT consistent with the BOM studies that have been made since, using much the same input data.
Any understanding of Australian historic temperatures needs to reconcile this difference.
Geoff,
It is a dumb article. The data that they dig out from CSIR etc is just the same as the unadjusted data you can find on GHCN unadjusted, for example. They make a big thing about differences from ACORN, but it is well known that ACORN is homogenised. That is the point of it. But there is nothing special about those old print data sources.
What is dumb is the method of averaging. They just take a bunch of stations that they find in a year book and average the absolute temperatures, without regard to either area weighting or forming anomalies. The result is that the average varies not with the climate in any year, but the kinds of stations that happen to be in the mix for that year.