Friday, 17 January 2014

Newman, Schmidt and vital to Life Carbon Dioxide

Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Schmidt will be 66 in 2033; Maurice Newman, who shares a birthday with my wife and Adolph Hitler, will be 95 in 2033. That's if they both live that long.

Maurice Newman once tried to get "our" ABC to conform to its charter but was berated by the union:
ABC’s news and current affairs team who have interpreted Mr Newman’s remarks as an attempt to influence the ABC’s line on climate change. (link)
This week Mr Newman wrote an op-ed piece for the Australian headed
Mother Nature suggests the party's over for IPCC
The green delusion is finally confronting economic reality.
What we now see is the unravelling of years of shoddy science and sloppy journalism.  
He earned a retort from Professor Brian Schmidt. (link)
NOBEL laureate Brian Schmidt says he will place a $10,000 bet on the table after senior business figure Maurice Newman yesterday challenged scientific predictions that global temperatures are warming. 
Writing in The Australian today, Professor Schmidt, who won the 2011 Nobel prize for physics, says: "Despite myself also not being a climate scientist, I do have considerable knowledge of the science at hand. 
"I would be delighted to take him up on his implicit wager (and bet) in 20 years' time the Earth will be warmer." 
That brought out a few responses. (Link - Talking Point)

William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation:
BY big-noting himself with a lazy 10 grand, Brian Schmidt is bringing science into disrepute ("I'm ready to bet it'll be warmer in 2033", 16/1).

Betting on the continuation of a 300-year warming trend since the Little Ice Age is akin to betting on a favourite in the Melbourne Cup. Just as favourites do not win every race, so too all past warming trends have come to an end. Will the current trend cease before 2033 or after, or has it already ceased?

In stating that science is "about probabilities, not certainty" Schmidt casually disregards the fundamental building blocks of science. It is only when one does not understand the interaction between fundamental processes that one resorts to probabilities, or rudimentary computer models.

Scientists do a disservice to the community when they enter the realm of betting rather than admitting the required prediction is beyond current knowledge.
Professor Bob Carter:
BRIAN Schmidt alleges that the so-called extra heat that he believes is generated by human carbon dioxide emissions is present in the oceans. Perhaps he would like to explain why the first globally accurate network of measurement buoys (Argo) records no significant increase in ocean heat since its deployment in 2003. 
Geologist Dr Marc Hendrickx:
BRIAN Schmidt would be aware that the real debate is not about whether it will warm, but the amount of warming, and its effect. Based on the IPCC's current report, the range for future warming based on estimates of the climate's sensitivity to CO2 is quite broad and implies anything from inconvenience to catastrophe. 
Kevin Begaud (who may be a Past President of Warringah Council)
WHAT a joy it is to at last see, in a major newspaper, the beginnings of a scientific debate on climate change. Brian Schmidt may well be right and Maurice Newman ("Mother nature suggests the party's over for IPCC", 15/1) wrong in 2033, but the central issue is whether the alarmist and grossly exaggerated computer projections of IPCC and socialist government-funded scientists can be corroborated by scientific observations, which since 1998 has shown them to be wildly inaccurate.

Recent scientific papers and recorded data call into question alarmism over sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, the influence of water vapour, of ocean warming, sea level rises, polar ice loss, extreme weather claims, the natural effects of the Pacific and Atlantic oscillation systems, solar effects and so on; all of which are excluded under the IPCC charter.
Clive Huxtable, Beaconsfield, WA wrote:
It's our children and their children who will have to pay the price if we have got AGW wrong. 
Whether we are "right" or "wrong", Clive, if we cut vital to life carbon dioxide emissions, we will stop the "greening of the planet" and reduce plant life. That, in turn will reduce the plant's production of oxygen.
The main driving factor of the oxygen cycle is photosynthesis, which is responsible for the modern Earth's atmosphere and life on earth  
You are right. Life on Earth needs Oxygen. Plants need CO2. Plants do not distinguish between man's CO2 emissions and natural Co2 emissions. "It's our children and their children who will have to pay the price if we have got AGW wrong."

  
 H/t The Institute of Private Enterprise's Des Moore.


Climate Council's Deceitful Duplicitous Fraudulent Fibbing

Or Where's the Data?

 In Fact......

     Where's the Report?
      

The Conniving Conmen from the Climate Council have issued another Fraudulent Forecast. We know this because it is reported here and here and here and here, here, here, etc

As an example, "our" ABC:
Heatwaves in Australia are becoming more frequent, hotter and are lasting longer because of climate change, a report released today by the Climate Council says. 
The interim findings of the report, titled Australian Heatwaves: Hotter, Longer, Earlier and More Often, come as southern Australia swelters through a heatwave....
Amazingly, none of the "news" reports contains a link to the actual report. They refer to an interim report titled Australian Heatwaves: Hotter, Longer, Earlier and More Often but there is no link to that supposed report.

The Climate Council website does NOT have the report. Does any report actually exist? Were all these news reports created from a Press Release? Did any of the Main Stream Media ask for a copy or a link to the report? Did any of the Main Stream Media ask for back-up to the statements?

Above is how the announcement appeared on the manoeuvring mob's facebook page. Multi-magnification of the fine fine print in the bottom right hand corner shows:



(Sources listed in Climate Council Report Australian Heatwaves Becoming Hotter and Longer)

But Where's the Report?

We have sent an email request to the Climate Council (info@climatecouncil.org.au):
Could you please supply a copy of your interim report Australian Heatwaves Becoming Hotter and Longer and also supply a link to your back-up sources as mentioned on your facebook page. 
=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  

From the NineMSN report:
Based on records stretching back more than 100 years, Melbourne is facing its longest run of 40 degree days since 1908. 
Meanwhile, Adelaide is heading towards 46C on Thursday, close to its all time high of 46.1 set on January 12, 1939.
From a Thursday report headed Adelaide is the Hottest City on Earth today:
The maximum temperature so far in Adelaide is 44.2C at 3pm, although it has been several degrees warmer in the northern suburbs. (link)

UPDATE:

No answer to my email request to the Climate Council to date. Still no publication of the report, indeed no mention of the report on the Climate Council site.

Was the press release just an alarmist scare and there is no report?

UPDATE:
The Climate Council have virtually admitted that their is NO INTERIM REPORT. See above, they had told the MSM that the results were from their INTERIM REPORT. Reply from Climate CONcil:


Dear Geoff,

thanks for your interest. The full report will be available at the end of February. The press release was for the interim findings only. We will notify our supporters once the report is available and publish it on our website.

Thank you once again,


Katherine - for Tim and the Climate Council

IPCC Projections exceed Observed Temperature by 0.13 degrees C - Monckton

“The cut of almost half in the IPCC’s best estimate of near-term warming between the pre-final and final drafts of its Fifth Assessment Report signals the IPCC’s abandonment of the models.”




RSS Satellite Graph now shows no Global Warming for 17 Years & 4 Months*

*Remote Sensing Systems Satellite Data on Mean Surface Temperature Change: 208 Months September 1996 to December 2013


Press Release from Lord Monckton Foundation.

The Lord Monckton Foundation’s monthly Global Warming Projection Index number for January 2014 is 0.13 Cº. That is how much the IPCC’s latest central projection of global warming over the 9 full years January 2005 to December 2013 has overshot the observed temperature trend. Note that the Index now takes account of the sharp cut by almost half in the IPCC’s best estimate of near-term global warming.

If the 108-month IPCC overshoot were to continue for 100 years, the IPCC’s prediction would exceed the measured trend by 1.5 Cº. Though the IPCC projects that the world should have warmed by 0.12 Cº (1.33 Cº/century) since 2005, the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite datasets shows cooling of 0.01 Cº (0.16 Cº/century). The predicted and actual trends continue visibly to diverge.

The trend in CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa shows a rise of 18 μatm since January 2005, equivalent to 198 μatm/century. On its own, this CO2 increase should have caused a radiative forcing of 0.25 Watts per square meter, or 0.35 W m–2 after including the influence of all other greenhouse gases. Even without temperature feedbacks, according to the IPCC’s methods this forcing should have caused 0.1 Cº warming. Adding in the IPCC’s temperature estimates of temperature feedbacks and of previously-committed global warming should have caused up to 0.3 Cº warming since January 2005. None has occurred.

Lord Monckton said:
“The cut of almost half in the IPCC’s best estimate of near-term warming between the pre-final and final drafts of its Fifth Assessment Report signals its abandonment of the models.”