Looming catastrophe in Antarctica - Not

A comment by Anonymous to a previous post "Watching (BY) the deniers and deceivers" contained some statements needing responses. Anonymous is a nervous nellie here not having the courage to use his real name but has outed himself in boast posts over at "Watching (BY) the deniers." Courageously over there he has outed himself as the cooloolafool John Byatt.
Everywhere we look globally we see very unstable climate changes happening quickly and without any warming.
Now, I am assuming, from the tone of his comment, Mr Byatt didn't mean "without any warming" but really meant "without any warning." Am I correct there, anonymous? Was it a Freudian slip?

Mr Byatt goes on:
We cannot lower temperatures NOW.

Well, I doubt if we can ever have an effect on global temperatures - up or down. There is no proof that CO2 causes runaway warming. In fact the hypothesis has been falsified. (Link)

As to temperatures, it has been reported that 2010 was the hottest year ever. It was stupid for any scientist to make such a generalisation.

See 2010 the 'warmest' year? See also my post on doctored figures here. So, perhaps we are not doomed after all.
Note the downward temperature trend line (although 8 years is not a long enough sample)
Back to An's comment:
"An Antarctic ice shelf used as a runway is breaking away forcing an emergency airlift to close summer operations on the continent."
Here is the temperature record for McMurdo and surrounding stations:

Essentially unchanging to cooling over the last 30 years; so what is causing the ice break is not warming; my bet is the ice has grown so far over the sea that it is losing its support; often when ice breaks off in the Antarctic it is not due to warming but ice growth. Note that the "warmest" summer temperature is greater than MINUS 14º. Long way to go before the ice melts.


  1. I just watched the report on a "probable" cyclone off northern QLD this weekend. It's Thursday, two days before, and the Weather Bureau is not sure if it will or will not develop.

    If we now had the Oxygen Tax would they be able to better predict, or do something about it (other than pay themselves better salary packages and buy new computers)? Thought not.

    It'd be handy to know the wind speed and direction along the straight at Randwick on any given weekend, but they can't tell me that either. Too busy inventing better Excel spreadsheet models to say what they want to hear about hailstorms 63 years hence.

    It is a dead set con, an invention and a scam to augment diminishing tax revenue sources. When you've got as many people here and overseas who rather like sitting on their lazy clacker waiting for gummint to feed 'em then they've got to find the funds from wherever they can.

    Comrade Dear Leader (in exile) just bought a beachside home and Comrades Combet and Arbib bought theirs a couple of years back. State Labor governments have spent squillions on seaside desal plants (that don't work).

    I'll consider what their shrill voices are saying when they start to act like they're demanding we do.

  2. Analyzing Temperatures over Recent Years

    Another common argument is that global temperatures have leveled-off over the past decade, or that there has been no global warming since 2000. It is true that a linear trend fit over just the past 10 years of data shows little to no warming, but this argument is somewhat misleading.

    Climate change is a multi-decadal phenomenon, and short-term temperatures are strongly affected by natural variability.

    To best assess if the warming over the past 40 years has continued into the most recent decade, analysts can do a simple test: Calculate the trend in temperatures for the period from 1970 to 2000, and use it to predict what temperatures over the last decade would be expected to have been prior to actually knowing them.

    Reviewing actual temperatures from 2001 to 2010 indicates how the trend changes. If the 1970-2010 trend is higher than the 1970 to 2000 trend, then the last decade was warmer than expected.


    The figure above shows global land temperatures from 1970-2000 (in black) and 1970-2010 (in red), with the trends for both. The results show clearly that global land temperatures over the past decade were considerably warmer than would have been expected given the prior temperature record.


    Ocean temperatures over the past decade have been pretty much consistent with the prior temperature trend, with similar variability as seen in the past.


    Combining both land and ocean temperatures shows that global temperatures over the past decade have been warming slightly faster than would otherwise have been expected given the prior temperature trend. This analysis should help put to rest spurious arguments that global warming somehow “stopped” over the past decade.


  3. Hi John; persistent little cut and paster aren't you? Why don't you do your won graphing at WFT? That would quickly show you that the decadal rate of temperature increase from 1980, the modern, AGW affected period, shows not an increasing rate of increase but a declining one after the hot 1990-2000 decade:


    What you can do here is replace the HadCrut data with the UAH and RSS satellite data which both showed slight cooling before the warm decade of the 90's [remember the Pinker paper John; what happened in the 90's?]; then replace it with GISS data which is the outlier amongst the big 4 temperature indices; even it shows no increase in the decadal rate of temperature; you can check the data [not raw] at the WFT site.

    Please John, if you have a brain and not just an insulting manner, educate yourself a bit.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!