Saturday, 31 December 2011

The Correlation between CO2 and Temperature

Dr. Clark's prepared statement, including slides shown (added by Tom Harris), before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, The Environment, and Natural Resources. Uploaded by International Climate Science Coalition,

You can watch all the testimonies and Q&As formatted as individual YouTube videos at the following URL:

What are you doing New Year's Eve?

Backed by the Clayton-Hamilton Jazz Orchestra, the Canadian-born vocalist Diana Krall fills up the tempo of the song with holiday cheer. Her sound so intimate that you might swear the sexy singer is crooning exclusively for you at midnight on Christmas Eve. Krall excels with an approach mastered long ago: elegant delivery that gives extra polish to a very familiar global favorite. This segment takes you through a Diane Krall performance of "What Are You Doing New Years Eve". Credits:

What are YOU doing? Most interesting comment will win a year's subscription to this blog.

Friday, 30 December 2011

Urban Heat Island causes 56% of warming: Peer- reviewed

UHI -  Image NASA
A new paper by Kim, M K and Kim, S published in the Journal of Atmospheric Environment (LINK)
reports that UHI accounts for 0.77ºC over the last 55years whilst Greenhouse warming only accounts for 0.60ºC; that is UHI accounts for 56% of the warming against 44% for GHG warming.

Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954–2008)  Original Research Article
Atmospheric Environment, Volume 45, Issue 32, October 2011, Pages 5778-5783
Maeng-Ki Kim, Seonae Kim

► The quantitative estimation of the urban warming based on the Empirical Orthogonal Function.
► Urban warming of 0.77 °C for 55 years over South Korea.
► Greenhouse warming of 0.60 °C for 55 years over South Korea.
► Urban warming of about 56% of total temperature increase for 55 years

Thursday, 29 December 2011

The ABC's Alarmism strikes again - incorrect and misleading.

Purves: Tell him he's dreaming, son!
On the 7:30 report, the ABC report on Robert Purves is tagged:
In his first television profile, multimillionaire mover and shaker Robert Purves steps into the spotlight to support the science on climate change.
The video includes comments from GAIA worshipper and Part Time Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery. Tim is a hypocrite.  The Australian of 5th March 2010 quoted Tim Flannery's estimate of a 60 metre sea-level rise and yet he lives just above sea-level on the Hawkesbury.

Robert Purves is a multimillionaire who is throwing his money into the Climate Alarmist Black Hole. The Monthly describes him as one of  Australia’s Patrons of Climate Change Activism.

As well as being a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and supporting the core global team running Earth Hour, he has given millions of dollars to the WWF,  Purves has also funded Sustainable Business Australia, The Climate Group, the Climate Action Network Australia, the Copenhagen Climate Council and Clean Up Australia. He funds the Total Environment Centre and its Green Capital program and the list goes on. His connection with Professor Tim - Few people realise that Purves substantially funded the writing and extensive promotion of Tim Flannery’s book The Weather Makers.

Readers of this blog know that The Weather Makers has been exposed as a sloppy unscientific work by Dr Wes Allen's The Weather Makers Re-examined.

The Weather Makers is shown to contain
  • 23 misinterpretations, 
  • 28 contradictory statements,
  • 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 
  • 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 
  • 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 
  • 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish.
Is Greenland in danger as Purves and the ABC alarmists say? If Greenland was truly melting, wouldn't Professor Tim have changed his residence?

Map of Greenland from the 13th edition of The Times Atlas of the World (left) and a mosaic of MODIS satellite images of the same area acquired on the 14th and 15th August 2011 (UK Telegraph Image)
Earlier  this year, the publishers of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World tried to suggest incorrectly that Greenland lost 15% of its permanent ice cover. They had to scramble to correct this when a group of concerned scientists refuted their claim. (UK Telegraph)
We are extremely puzzled by this statement and the claim that ‘For the first time, the new edition of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World has had to erase 15 per cent of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover – turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland ‘green’ and ice-free’. We write to point out that a 15 per cent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years is both incorrect and misleading.
Stephen Wilde on Climate Realists writes:
In order to ascertain whether there is a global warming or cooling trend it is necessary to wait several years and then compare the volume and intensity of the cold polar air masses as a whole between the dates chosen. In this case I have chosen the years 2007 and 2011.
It is obvious to me that the isotherms have moved equatorward both over land and oceans and that the intensity of cold where it is most readily generated has increased, especially over the Greenland icecap and Northern Russia. 

Surely "our" alarmist ABC is also both incorrect and misleading.

h/t Bev and Rae

'Organised Hypocrisy' at Durban COP17

From Real  Clear

Image: Wikipedia

'Organized Hypocrisy' at Durban Climate Talks

By Lee Lane 
"Organized hypocrisy" saved the recent UN climate talks in Durban South Africa. The phrase refers to a common feature of diplomacy. Statesmen often tacitly agree to pretend to believe each other’s duplicities. The fiction saves all involved from the inconveniences that would result were the lack of agreement to break into the open.
Thus, in the accord reached at the talks, the so-called Durban Platform, each of the major players achieved its most prized goal. Success was possible, though, only because the Platform strictly avoided mandating costly steps to lower the output of greenhouse gases.

Instead, countries agreed:
To launch a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.
That so much verbal sludge was needed even to describe the form of the hoped for future deal, speaks volumes about the discord that lurks beneath the surface.
Mr Lane describes the hypocrisy of reporting that China and India have pledged to cut their GHG emissions when in fact their only commitment is to agree to further talks. The United States won the right to do no more than whatever the Asian powers might accept. In future, the United States, in rejecting demands that it make GHG cuts, will be better able to defend itself by pointing to the derelictions of China and India.

Read More at Real Clear Science.

Lee Lane is a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute. Before joining Hudson, he was a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of Strategic Choices for Bush Administration Climate Policy, published by AEI Press. 

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

Warm is Better - Peer-Reviewed Paper

CO2 Science reports a peer reviewed paper published in the International Journal of Environment Research which shows that the alarmists are wrong again. Warm is better than cold - an increase in temperature leads to a decrease in the mortality rate.

What was learned
Wichmann et al. found -- during the warm half of the year (April-September) -- that a rise in temperature actually had an inverse or protective effect with respect to CVD mortality (a 1% decrease in death in response to a 1°C increase in apparent temperature), which finding is rather unusual but has also been observed in Dublin, Ireland, as reported by Baccini et al. (2008, 2011), while they found no association with RD and CBD mortality. And at the other end of the thermal spectrum, during the cold half of the year, all three associations were inverse or protective, which finding, according to the researchers, is "consistent with other studies (Eurowinter Group, 1997; Nafstad et al., 2001; Braga et al., 2002; O'Neill et al., 2003; Analitis et al., 2008)."

What it means
Whereas climate alarmists continue to emphasize the primarily negative impact of summer heat waves on human death rates in low- and mid-latitude regions of the earth, essentially neglecting to report what happens there during winter cold spells, Wichmann et al.'s summer results tell a dramatically different story that is likely typical of higher latitudes. And they additionally portray what tends to happen nearly everywhere in winter, noting that during that cold part of the year "only protective effects [of warming] were observed," as may readily be seen to also be the case throughout the world by perusing the materials we have archived in our Subject Index under the general heading of Health Effects (Temperature -- Hot vs. Cold Weather), where the number of warming-induced deaths avoided in winter significantly over compensates for the number of deaths caused by an equivalent warming in summer.

Wichmann, J., Anderson, Z.J., Ketzel, M., Ellermann, T. and Loft, S. 2011. Apparent temperature and cause-specific mortality in Copenhagen, Denmark: A case-crossover analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8: 3712-3727

Read more at CO2 science HERE

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

The Alarmist Sleight-of-hand Shell Game

Russell Cook has written for Anthony Watts' Watts up With That - see The End is Near for Faith in AGW
When the public learns about huge faults in the skeptic scientist accusation, combined with the faults in the IPCC, the result may send AGW into total collapse.
Russell's latest piece appeared on JunkScience on Christmas Eve.

Monumental fault in manmade global warming notion hiding in plain sight

I don’t mean promoters of the issue comically spinning failed predictions for more frequent hurricanes and warmer snow-less winters into covering any hot/cold/wet/dry extremes. Or Al Gore’s Texas-sized carbon footprint undermining demands for ours to to be minuscule. Sure, the IPCC also has appearance problems as a supposedly ‘unbiased’ organization, caught red-handed with assessments authored by people in environmentalist groups, and its own “ClimateGate” scientists behaving badly doesn’t help, either.
We have an arguably more far reaching problem – one that imperils the issue itself, and the mainstream media’s basic integrity.
Russell continues by adding that "This plain-sight problem is invisible.." by anyone accepting the flawed science of the CONsensus.
This monumental problem only becomes evident when we point to skeptic scientists claiming human activity is not a significant part of global warming. The immediate, predictable diatribe is, “Skeptics are few in number, don’t have published papers to their credit, and are on the payroll of big coal & oil.” The problem fades out of sight again when no one challenges those assertions.
Try asking instead, “You can prove any of that?”, and watch what happens.
If the response is that anyone defending skeptic scientists is an ignorant, mind-numbed talk radio listener / right-wing blog reader / Fox News zealot, or is a person who won’t give up their SUV to save the planet, then you see the problem plain as day. This is a sleight-of-hand shell game to ensure the public never thinks there may be legitimate scientific opposition criticism.
A second opinion ought to be welcomed, especially if it’s good news that the little warming we do see is a natural process.
 Regular Readers of this blog will be aware that we are critical of the Main Stream Media (MSM) and how they have forsaken journalistic scepticism for climate alarmism advocacy. Russell points to Al Gore's discredited Movie - "An Inconvenient Truth" and his following book as an example of how the MSM have failed in their duty of even-handed reporting.
Identical words from the same memos in Gore’s Senate office as much as four years prior to Gelbspan, the man he credits with discovering them – a huge red flag if there ever was one. And not a word about this contradiction in the mainstream media. Had reporters taken just a few hours of their time to talk to a now-former employee of that coal organization – as I did just recently – they would have been told that these specific memos were a rejected proposal for the PR campaign, and were never actually implemented, thus they would not have been seen by other fossil fuel company executives. There was no industry directive to “reposition global warming”, period.
Legitimate scientific criticism could wipe out the so-called global warming crisis. What’s been the response for twenty years? Don’t debate skeptic scientists, assassinate their character – but hide the evidence proving their corruption.
The monumental fault in global warming is right there in plain sight, and the mainstream media either can’t spot it or offers strangely vague answers when I try to alert them about it. This issue showcases a genuine divide of inexcusable proportions: We have 1% of the media elite who have committed journalistic malfeasance for over twenty years, and we are the 99% who no longer trust them! Expose this problem for all to see, and we knock down not only the politics of global warming, we also potentially put news reporting back to the way it should be done, telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Russell Cook’s collection of writings on this issue can be seen at “The ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists,” and you can follow him on Twitter at QuestionAGW

h/t Marc Morano and Climate Depot 


Monday, 26 December 2011

The MWP WAS a Global Phenomenon

The findings of Neukom et al. go a long ways towards demonstrating that:
Reconstructed mean summer SSA temperatures. Adapted from Neukom et al. (2011).
  1. the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon that was comprised of even warmer intervals than the warmest portion of the Current Warm Period, and that 
  2. the greater warmth of the Medieval Warm Period occurred when there was far less CO2 in the air than there is nowadays, which facts clearly demonstrate that the planet's current -- but not unprecedented -- degree of warmth need not be CO2-induced.  
Neukom, R., Luterbacher, J., Villalba, R., Kuttel, M., Frank, D., Jones, P.D., Grosjean, M., Wanner, H., Aravena, J.-C., Black, D.E., Christie, D.A., D'Arrigo, R., Lara, A., Morales, M., Soliz-Gamboa, C., Srur, A., Urritia, R. and von Gunten, L. 2011. Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field reconstructions for southern South America covering the past centuries. Climate Dynamics 37: 35-51.

In order to know how unusual, unprecedented or unnatural the global warming of the 20th century was, it is necessary to do what the eighteen authors of this important paper did, so as to be able, as they describe it, "to put the recent warming into a larger temporal and spatial context."
Working with 22 of the best climate proxies they could find that stretched far enough back in time, Neukom et al. (2011) reconstructed a mean austral summer (December-February) temperature history for the period AD 900-1995 for the terrestrial area of the planet located between 20°S and 55°S and between 30°W and 80°W -- a region they call Southern South America (SSA) -- noting that their results "represent the first seasonal sub-continental-scale climate field reconstructions of the Southern Hemisphere going so far back in time."

Read more HERE.

Harsh Political Reality exposes MSM Alarmism

From the New York Times by Justin Gillis:
New York Times Photo

Harsh Political Reality Slows Climate Studies Despite Extreme Year

At the end of one of the most bizarre weather years in American history, climate research stands at a crossroads.
Scientists say they could, in theory, do a much better job of answering the question “Did global warming have anything to do with it?” after extreme weather events like the drought in Texas and the floods in New England.
and later in the article:
This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments,  Republicans in the House blocked it.
The idea had originated in the Bush administration, was strongly endorsed by an outside review panel and would have cost no extra money. But the House Republicans, many of whom reject the overwhelming scientific consensus about the causes of global warming, labeled the plan an attempt by the Obama administration to start a “propaganda” arm on climate.
You can tell that the author is coming from the Alarmist side when he uses phrases such as "reject the overwhelming scientific consensus.."

Jane Lubchenco,  the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said her agency had been deluged with information requests regarding future climate risks.

Ken Schlichte writes:
This article incorrectly suggested that climate change was responsible for this year’s Texas drought.  The rejection of a climate change “propaganda” arm headed by NOAA’s Jane Lubchenco distributing this type of climate change misinformation is appropriate.  The NOAA National Climatic Data Center figures below indicate the following:

  •        The Texas annual temperature trend from 1895 through 2010 was perfectly flat.
  •        The Texas annual temperatures trended downward at a rate of 1.19 degrees F per decade from 1998 through 2010.
The 2011 Texas drought was produced by extreme weather conditions, not by climate change.

Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.
For official data, please contact the NCDC Climate Services and Monitoring Division at
Annual 1895 - 2010 Data Values:
Annual 1901 - 2000 Average = 65.04 degF
Annual 1895 - 2010 Trend = 0.00 degF / Decade
Annual Temperature

Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.
For official data, please contact the NCDC Climate Services and Monitoring Division at
Annual 1998 - 2010 Data Values:
Annual 1998 - 2010 Average = 65.78 degF
Annual 1998 - 2010 Trend = -1.19 degF / Decade

Ken Schlichte is an expert forest soil scientist in western Washington.


Saturday, 24 December 2011

Erroneous and ill-informed SMH

Jo Nova wrote a piece critically analysing "Paul Biegler's some words of wisdom in The Age" and one of the comment referred to a Sydney Morning Herald essay.

December 23, 2011 at 5:02 pm · Reply
This article in the Sydney Morning Herald to-day is just as erroneous and ill-informed.

No turning back to the dark ages” by Trevor Danos.

A quote: ” …where modelling can challenge consensus.” ??? – Are not we told that ‘modelling is the consensus.’

Another quote: “The opinions of Lord Monckton and the radio shock jocks might be loud but they are ill-informed, grossly biased and at odds with the weight of science.”  !!!!

Funny that Danos says that he admires  Galileo who was in a similar position to the sceptics. As you know, Galileo believed in the Sun being the centre of Earth's orbit when the prevailing incorrect theory was that all the planets and the Sun were in orbit around the Earth. He was made to recant and was held under house arrest for the remainder of his life.

He says "we learn to admire the rational, objective methodology of science together with science's other virtues - an open mind to new ideas, a rejection of dogma and authoritarianism, a correction of error without concealment and an encouragement of collective action and collaboration."
As the Climategate e-mails show there has been none of this from the Climategate CRU.

He says: "Empirical studies are being openly and shrilly derided." Ferenc Miskolczi's peer-reviewed papers come to mind and the shrill derision they have brought including The Australian Government who HERE on their website said; "Miskolczi’s paper was not published in a high impact peer-reviewed journal."

First, science has lost some of its purity and has become conflated (and confused) with technology or philosophy or both. This situation is further aggravated when scientists enter policy debates and write policies for governments.

He has hit the nail on the head here. The problem with the Climategate CRU is that they have been messing in politics.

Finally, there have been regrettable instances of scientific fraud or scientists not conducting themselves with integrity.
We need no more proof of that than the Climategate e-mails.

The catastrophe of the climate change debates is that the community of science researchers has reached consensus......

As Josh puts it so well,  in his balloon cartoon, consensus has degenerated into CON.

Read more at the Sydney Morning Herald.

Must be Santa

Who's got a beard that's long and white? Must be Santa.

h/t Dale S - Just Grounds

Thursday, 22 December 2011

UAH Satellite data vs IPCC Climate Models blog reported that

The end of November 2011 completes 33 years of satellite-based global temperature data, according to John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Globally averaged, Earth’s atmosphere has warmed about 0.45 Celsius (about 0.82° F) during the almost one-third of a century that sensors aboard NOAA and NASA satellites have measured the temperature of oxygen molecules in the air.
This is at the lower end of computer model projections of how much the atmosphere should have warmed due to the effects of extra greenhouse gases since the first Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) went into service in Earth orbit in late November 1978, according to satellite data processed and archived at UAHuntsville’s ESSC.
“While 0.45 degrees C of warming is noticeable in climate terms, it isn’t obvious that it represents an impending disaster,” said Christy. “The climate models produce some aspects of the weather reasonably well, but they have yet to demonstrate an ability to confidently predict climate change in upper air temperatures.”

That release caused a barrage from the AGW Alarmists. John Christy and Roy Spencer responded:
Earlier this week we reported on the latest monthly global temperature update, as we do every month, which is distributed to dozens of news outlets. With 33 years of satellite data now in the hopper (essentially a third of a century) we decided to comment on the long-term character, noting that the overall temperature trend of the bulk troposphere is less than that of the IPCC AR4 climate model projections for the same period. This has been noted in several publications, and to us is not a new or unusual statement.
Suggesting that the actual climate is at odds with model projections does not sit well with those who desire that climate model output be granted high credibility.
I was alerted to this (Washington Post) blog post within which are, what I can only call, “myths” about the UAH lower tropospheric dataset and model simulations. I’m unfamiliar with the author (Andrew Freedman) but the piece was clearly designed to present a series of assertions about the UAH data and model evaluation, to which we were not asked to respond. Without such a knowledgeable response from the expert creators of the UAH dataset, the mythology of the post may be preserved.
The first issue I want to address deals the relationship between temperature trends of observations versus model output. I often see such posts refer to an old CCSP document (2006) which, as I’ve reported in congressional testimony, was not very accurate to begin with, but which has been superseded and contradicted by several more recent publications.
These publications specifically document the fact that bulk atmospheric temperatures in the climate system are warming at only 1/2 to 1/4 the rate of the IPCC AR4 model trends. Indeed actual upper air temperatures are warming the same or less than the observed surface temperatures (most obvious in the tropics) which is in clear and significant contradiction to model projections, which suggest warming should be amplified with altitude.
The blog post even indicates one of its quoted scientists, Ben Santer, agrees that the upper air is warming less than the surface – a result with which no model agrees. So, the model vs. observational issue was not presented accurately in the post. This has been addressed in the peer reviewed literature by us and others (Christy et al. 2007, 2010, 2011, McKitrick et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010.)
Then, some people find comfort in simply denigrating the uncooperative UAH data (about which there have been many validation studies.) We were the first to develop a microwave-based global temperature product. We have sought to produce the most accurate representation of the real world possible with these data – there is no premium in generating problematic data. When problems with various instruments or processes are discovered, we characterize, fix and publish the information. That adjustments are required through time is obvious as no one can predict when an instrument might run into problems, and the development of such a dataset from satellites was uncharted territory before we developed the first methods.
The Freedman blog post is completely wrong when it states that “when the problems are fixed, the trend always goes up.” Indeed, there have been a number of corrections that adjusted for spurious warming, leading to a reduction in the warming trend. That the scientists quoted in the post didn’t mention this says something about their bias.
Read more HERE.

Roy also replied - addressing comments made by Ben Santer in the Washington Post blog:
People who claim (like Roy Spencer did) that it is “impossible” to separate human from natural influences on climate are seriously misinformed,” he wrote via email. “They are ignoring several decades of relevant research and literature. They are embracing ignorance.” “Many dozens of scientific studies have identified a human “fingerprint” in observations of surface and lower tropospheric temperature change,” Santer stated.
In my opinion, the supposed “fingerprint” evidence of human-caused warming continues to be one of the great pseudo-scientific frauds of the global warming debate. There is no way to distinguish warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide from warming caused by a more humid atmosphere responding to (say) naturally warming oceans responding to a slight decrease in maritime cloud cover (see, for example, “Oceanic Influences on Recent continental Warming“). 

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Cold is bad; Warm is good - New Study

From CO2 Science:
Image From: The London Bridge Experience

What was learned
The seven scientists were able to demonstrate, in their words, that "climate change was the ultimate cause, and climate-driven economic downturn was the direct cause, of large-scale human crises in pre-industrial Europe and the Northern Hemisphere." In addition, they say it was cooling that triggered the chain of negative responses in variables pertaining to physical and human systems. Initially, for example, they found that agricultural production "decreased or stagnated in a cold climate and increased rapidly in a mild climate at the multi-decadal timescale," while the time course of crisis development was such that "bio-productivity, agricultural production and food supply per capita (FSPC) sectors responded to temperature change immediately, whereas the social disturbance, war, migration, nutritional status, epidemics, famine and population sectors responded to the drop in FSPC with a 5- to 30-year time lag." Thus, the dark ages they delineated by these means were AD 1212-1381 (the Crisis of Late Middle Ages) and AD 1568-1665 (the GCSC), whereas the golden ages were the 10th to 12th centuries (the High Middle Ages), the late-14th to early 16th centuries (the Renaissance), and the late-17th to 18th centuries (the Enlightenment).

What it means
Several centuries of European and Northern Hemispheric data reveal that warming and warmth beget human wellness, while cooling and cold produce human misery.

Zhang, D.D., Lee, H.F., Wang, C., Li, B., Pei, Q., Zhang, J. and An, Y. 2011a. The causality analysis of climate change and large-scale human crisis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: 10.1073/pnas.1104268108. 

Read More: CO2 Science.

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

Jingle Bells (Australian) - Colin Buchanan

Spin: 2011 to be Perth's hottest year ever

Narelle Towie writing in Perth Now (link) writes:
METEOROLOGISTS say 2011 will be Perth's hottest year in history - our third consecutive hottest year since records began.
Perth's mean daily maximum temperature from January to November was 25.3C, topping the 2010 record of 24.9C, according to the WA Bureau of Meteorology.
"When we factor in the seven-day forecast, for us not to break the record we would have to have average temperatures of less than 20.7C (this month) and we really don't think that is going to happen," bureau weather services manager Neil Bennett said.
Analyst Chris Gilham doesn't agree.

Chris Gilham analyses the data:

They're so keen to promote global warming they can't even wait a couple of weeks till 2011 is finished! Perth's had 10mm above the annual average rainfall and what have seemed showery, cool to mild conditions throughout spring and now into summer, with a little burst of heat at the beginning of December hitting 37.6C. Even Christmas Day looks like it'll probably be less than 30C. Hooray!

The BoM's Monthly Weather Review is at This is based on observations from all available years of data at all WA stations with a temperature record longer than 30 years.

Below are WA's monthly readings so far for 2011:

Jan - 29.7C - 1C above average
Feb - 27.9C - 0.9C below average
Mar - 25.3C - 1.3C below average
Apr - 23.1C - 0.1C below average
May - 18C - 0.9C below average
Jun - 15.5C - 0.4C below average
Jul - 15.9C - 1C above average
Aug - 17.6C - 1.1C above average
Sep - 19.6C - 0.1C above average
Oct - 23.4C - 0.2C above average

i.e. the long-term average of the 10 months from Jan to Oct in WA is 21.66C, but this year it was 21.60C. Rounded, WA was .1C cooler than the historic average from January to October. If all of WA is regarded as a climate change guinea pig, the poor little thing is getting chilly. My monitoring of 32 sites across WA found temps fell about .14C in November, so I think the guinea pig might need a blanket. In essence, northern and inland WA has been more below average than the South-West coastal strip has been above average.

OK, much of the Sunday Times story is about Perth, not WA. The BoM states that Perth temperatures spiked in the 1970s and have continued to climb each year, particularly over the past decade and consistent with climate change.

Perth's temperature history began in 1897 atop Mt Eliza (elevation 61m) with the establishment of station 9034 (Perth Regional Office). In 1963 the station was moved about 300m and in 1967 it was relocated about two kilometres to inner city Wellington St, East Perth (elevation 19m). Station 9034 was closed in 1992 and the Stevenson Screen was moved four kilometres north to establish the Perth Metro station in Mt Lawley (9225), with the 9034 historic record adjusted for baseline equivalence for both the Perth Metro and Perth Airport stations. The 9034 temperature chart is:

There's that spike in the 1970s and Perth temperatures increasing by about .7C after the thermometer was moved from the top of Mt Eliza in West Perth to Wellington St in East Perth. It's sort of like Perth's very own hockey stick.

It's worth noting that the only known direct temperature comparison between West Perth and East Perth is within records of the 11 year mean from 1897 to 1907 on Mt Eliza at 63.9F (17.72C) and the same 11 year mean at Perth Gardens (elevation unknown but at Supreme Court Gardens near the Swan River and about the same elevation as Wellington St) at 64.9F (18.27C). That's almost 0.6C warmer at the lower elevation in the same city and the same weather day by day, a similar shift to the Wellington St increase in the chart above.

This is BoM HQ data so obviously the appropriate adjustments have been made to counter the effect of the two kilometre relocation. Hmmm.

OK, Perth Metro in Mt Lawley became the source of Perth's daily weather records as of 1994, covering the past couple of decades of below average rainfall during which almost all of Perth's historic record maxima have been broken. Let's have a look at the three different stations that have recorded the temperatures of "Perth" since 1897:

Thanks to the colder inland minima getting colder (low rainfall and little nighttime cloud cover), Perth's mean temperature has been stable and even dropped a tiny bit over the past 20 years. Yes, it looks like the maxima have been getting hotter over recent years but maybe the Sunday Times opening sentence would be a bit more accurate if it read:

"METEOROLOGISTS say 2011 will be Mt Lawley's hottest year in history - the suburb's third consecutive hottest year since records began in 1994."

As for Perth Airport's High Quality temperature record, this is 9034 data (Perth Regional - Mt Eliza/Wellington St) from before 1992 adjusted to be equivalent with Perth Airport after 1993, as is apparent in the chart below drawn from GISS data.

Like Mt Lawley, Perth Airport temps haven't gone anywhere since Wellington St closed.

Most Perth people would probably rate any day at 40C or more as "hot". It might be relevant to note that throughout 2011 since January 1, there has been only one day which snuck above 40C at Perth Metro - 40.4C on Jan 29. If the BoM's forecast continues to the new year, Perth might have only one day above 40C in 2011. This isn't a rarity but it's interesting looking back at previous years and the number of days that exceeded 40C.

Mt Lawley
2011 - 1
2010 - 6
2009 - 2
2008 - 3
2007 - 6
2006 - 1
2005 - 1
2004 - 4
2003 - 5
2002 - 2
2001 - 0
2000 - 2
1999 - 0
1998 - 4
1997 - 6
1996 - 3
1995 - 1
1994 - 3

Changeover and temps based on Perth Airport
1993 - 2
1992 - 1

Wellington St
1991 - 6
1990 - 2
1989 - 3
1988 - 3
1987 - 1
1986 - 1
1985 - 5
1984 - 4
1983 - 0
1982 - 2
1981 - 2
1980 - 3
1979 - 3
1978 - 5
1977 - 4
1976 - 1
1975 - 2
1974 - 3
1973 - 3
1972 - 3
1971 - 2
1970 - 2
1969 - 3
1968 - 6

Mt Eliza
1967 - 1
1966 - 0
1965 - 4
1964 - 2
1963 - 0
1962 - 5
1961 - 6
1960 - 0
1959 - 3
1958 - 0
1957 - 0
1956 - 4
1955 - 1
1954 - 0
1953 - 0
1952 - 1
1951 - 1
1950 - 5
1949 - 2
1948 - 1
1947 - 0
1946 - 0
1945 - 2
1944 - 0
1943 - 0
1942 - 1
1941 - 0
1940 - 2
1939 - 2
1938 - 0
1937 - 1
1936 - 1
1935 - 4
1934 - 2
1933 - 4
1932 - 1
1931 - 1
1930 - 3
1929 - 1
1928 - 0
1927 - 1
1926 - 1
1925 - 0
1924 - 1
1923 - 2
1922 - 1
1921 - 4
1920 - 2
1919 - 0
1918 - 1
1917 - 0
1916 - 0
1915 - 2
1914 - 1
1913 - 1
1912 - 3
1911 - 0
1910 - 0
1909 - 0
1908 - 1
1907 - 0
1906 - 2
1905 - 0
1904 - 2
1903 - 1
1902 - 0
1901 - 1
1900 - 2
1899 - 0
1898 - 4
1897 - 2

Since 1994, Mt Lawley averages 2.77 days per year above 40C
From 1967 to 1991, Wellington St averaged 2.87 days per year above 40C
From 1897 to 1966, Mt Eliza averaged 1.35 days per year above 40C

If these "hot" days in Perth have increased since 1897/1966 because of climate change and not location change, then it must be accepted that due to climate change Perth has had less annual "hot" days in the last 20 years than it endured from 1967 to 1991. So far in 2011 it looks like "Perth" will have less "hot" days than the annual average for all years since records began.

And to save you counting, Perth has had 218 days at or above 40C since 1897.

As for Perth's unseasonal December thunderstorm rain (the wettest December day in 65 years) being caused by sea temperatures rising 1C in the past 50 years, it's worth checking the BoM's SEAFRAME monitoring of sea air temperatures since 1991, particularly the three WA locations of Esperance, Hillarys and Broome which haven't budged an inch for 20 years ...

For more detail about the temperature recording history of "Perth", see

Kim Jong-il dies

Larry Pickering:
Kim Jong very Il

Chinese coal Companies Combine?

Image: Wikipedia
Businesss Spectator reports:

Yancoal Australia, Gloucester Coal
Yanzhou Coal has reportedly engaged Gloucester Coal in preliminary discussions about a merger that could create Australia’s largest independent coal producer, valued at $8 billion. The Financial Review has learned that Yanzhou’s local arm, Yancoal Australia, is speaking to Gloucester about a possible backdoor listing of its Hunter Valley Coal assets. This could be crucial to satisfying its agreement with the Australian government to list at least 30 per cent of its local assets by the end of next year, an agreement struck over the $3.2 billion purchase of Felix Resources.
If a merger proposal is agreed upon and put to shareholders, it brings about the interesting scenario where a Chinese firm is on either end of the transaction – Yanzhou Coal on the bidder's side and Hong Kong’s Noble Group on the Gloucester side, with 65 per cent of the target.
It marks a historic period in the history of Australian coal. New Hope is in the middle of a sales process, right on the back of Peabody Energy’s purchase of Macarthur Coal. Meanwhile, the $5.1 billion merger of equals between Whitehaven Coal and Aston Resources is expected to make the largest independent coal producer, unless of course this deal gets up.

See also: Santa Baby, bring me coal

Monday, 19 December 2011

Man for Manne - Carter makes sense.

Wanted (by NCTCS)
On ABC's the Drum, Professor Bob Carter addresses a piece by Professor Robert Manne:

Warming denialism is in the political eye of the beholder

Robert Manne commences his essay on the human-caused global warming that he presumes to be dangerous with the statement: "For several decades I have engaged in ideological disputes".
And therein lies the problem, for ideology is the business of politics whereas global warming is the business of science.

Bob writes that, despite what Manne says,  science is apolitical. Manne promises to "outline the bare bones of that argument"
There is therefore nothing new, and much that is both old and discredited, in the list of hypothetical warming scares that Manne presents, so why is he so mystified that public opinion remains unmoved? Mystified, what's more, to the degree that a large part of his article is devoted to trying to account for the public's perceived recalcitrance about warming alarmism. Well, according to Manne the explanation goes like this.
The fault lies with "an army of climate change denialists", scattered worldwide, who are funded by the fossil fuel industries to serve their selfish and devious ends (which, obviously, include the provision of cheap and convenient energy of all types to consumers: how naughty is that).
Gee, here we are, running a fledgling political  party on a pittance. PLEASE, Robert Manne, can you get those imagined fossil fuel funding folk to fork out finances our way!
Not content with thereby having assassinated the characters of hundreds of highly qualified and meritorious scientists around the world, Manne concludes by turning his attention once more to the obstinately recalcitrant public. His intended triumphant, but actually lame, conclusion is that
Citizens of the consumer society are unwilling to risk the loss of any of their comforts. However they wish to feel good about themselves. The climate change denialists... offer them the alibi for doing nothing they so desperately need.
Well, as someone who presumably counts as both a citizen and a reprehensible denialist, you can sure count me in on that. For as Lord Monckton so memorably put it, the correct response to a non-problem – which is what the threat of dangerous human-related global warming has turned out to be - is indeed to have the courage to do nothing.
Bob wonders why Manne and other similar commentators cannot understand that science is based upon evidence, not opinion.
But some time ago now, the penny dropped for me. That penny is the fact that most big environmental scares, including especially the global warming one, are not about science, nor even about the environment. Rather, they are about politics.
And that is an art that is undeniably practised with great skill by both the IPCC and by Latrobe University's Professor of Politics, Robert Manne.


Saturday, 17 December 2011

Bring the costly AGW scare to an end - Monckton

From Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot
Making the police state work for you
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in London
Now that six policemen from the Norfolk and Metropolitan forces have invaded the home and “borrowed” the computers of “Tallbloke”, the first blogger in the UK to reveal the existence of the 5000 Climategate 2.0 emails, you may ask why the British police seem so much more interested in tracking down and punishing the whistle-blower/“thief” than in dealing with the many crimes by crooked IPCC “scientists” that the emails expose.
There is a good reason why the police have gone after the whistle-blower and yet have not moved against those whose far more serious crimes the emails he released expose. Though the University of East Anglia has complained to the police about the “thief”, no one has complained about the climate crooks whose crimes the University seems so zealous to conceal.
Until now, those of us who have dared to question how much “global warming” a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration this century may cause have been altogether too nice to lodge a criminal complaint with our local police precinct. That must now change. This note proposes a way forward.
What offenses have been committed? Serious frauds, that's what. Some of the most prominent Climategate emailers appear, on the face of the evidence in the emails, to be engaged with each other and with others in an elaborate series of connected deceptions calculated to enrich themselves and their associates, impoverish everyone else and destroy key industries and national economies wholesale by systematically and often greatly exaggerating the supposed threat and costs of anthropogenic “global warming”, the certainty of the science that underlies the IPCC's claims, and the effectiveness of the various methods proposed for the attempted mitigation of anthropogenic “global warming”, while correspondingly understating the benefits of that warming and the costs of its attempted mitigation.
So, why don't the police go and feel their collars rather than picking on the blameless “Tallbloke”? Not least because the police are by no means as expert in understanding the ins and outs of climate physics and economics as we are. They simply don't get the significance of the emails because no one has ever explained it to them.
The true significance of “hide the decline”, for instance, is not at all evident on a superficial reading of the emails. The police will not, therefore, read the emails with our eyes, unless we help them to understand their shocking significance.
If we explain to the police how the various frauds evident in the Climategate emails work, and how they are connected to each other and to additional frauds designed artificially and dishonestly to magnify the supposed threat of “global warming” in the IPCC's documents and to minimize the egregiously disproportionate cost of trying to make “global warming” go away, they will understand and – more importantly – they will act, for that is what the law requires them to do.
In many jurisdictions, fraud is a common-law offense: that of obtaining a pecuniary advantage for oneself, or inflicting a pecuniary disadvantage upon another, by deception. The twin tests are money gain or loss, and deception.
In the United Kingdom, the Fraud Act 2006 has given fraud a very detailed, statutory definition, which may be summarized as the obtaining of a temporary or permanent gain (whether by keeping what one has or by getting what one does not have) or the infliction upon another of a temporary or permanent loss (whether by not getting what one might get or by parting with what one has), the gain or loss being in money or other real or personal property (including things in action or other intangible property), with the intent either of obtaining a gain for the offender or for another or of causing loss to another or of exposing another to a risk of loss, whether by dishonestly making an untrue or misleading express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading; or by dishonestly failing to disclose to another person information which the offender is under a legal duty to disclose; or by dishonestly (by act or omission) abusing a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interest of another person.
In some jurisdictions, “serious fraud” is defined as a fraud that either involves offenders in a position of public trust or very substantial sums of money or both. The connected frauds revealed in the Climategate emails involve both.
The test for money gain or loss is automatically passed by all of the connected frauds that have led to the exaggerated claims of the IPCC and its supporters: for the massive loss to taxpayers and to users of gasoline and electricity, to name but many, is already well documented.
Each fraud that we allege, therefore, must be a clear, demonstrable instance of a specific deception by an identifiable person that contributes to the overall deception. Some examples –
Suppose, for instance, that a particular graph appearing thrice in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report uses a bogus statistical technique so as falsely to demonstrate that the Earth is warming ever faster and that we are to blame. That may be a mistake. However, if a report by a competent statistician demonstrates that the technique is indeed bogus, and if, say, a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report is asked to have the error corrected but refuses to do so and instead writes attempting to justify the false graph on deceptive and erroneous grounds, then that lead author may be guilty of fraud. It is then open to any citizen of his or her nation to go to the police and make a complaint. The deception lies in the willingness of the lead author to leave the erroneous graph uncorrected, knowing that it conveys incorrect information calculated falsely to exaggerate the influence of Man on the climate. The perpetrator's omission to act as a reasonable lead author would act is fraud.
Suppose that the lead author of an IPCC chapter admits that he allowed a flagrantly incorrect value to appear in the Fourth Assessment Report because “I wanted to influence governments”, and suppose that notwithstanding the objections of the “reviewers” the erroneous value was printed, and suppose that for several months the IPCC, at the highest levels, tried to conceal the deception. That is fraud.
Suppose that a politician has gotten rich by preaching about “global warming” in an unduly alarmist way. Suppose that in a widely-publicized presentation he shows details of an experiment that was not conducted in the purported fashion and did not, therefore, confirm the official story-line to the degree he was suggesting. That is plainly a deception. It is fraud.
Suppose that a senior official of an international meteorological organization is filmed saying that global mean surface temperature trends should be taken over 30 years, and that his interlocutor politely points out that those 30 years largely coincided with the warming phase of the great ocean oscillations and that, therefore, the trends should be taken over 60 years so as to remove the exaggeration by including the cooling phase as well. Suppose that the official then tells his interlocutor that he does not wish to be lectured, and then makes a false complaint to the UNFCCC secretariat that he has been harassed. In isolation the episode is insignificant. But in the context of the wider series of connected frauds by this and other organizations, the official has furthered or attempted to further the deception by initially attempting to conceal the fact that the 30 years in question fell largely in the warming phase of a natural ocean oscillation and then, upon being challenged, by making a false allegation against his interlocutor. The official's misconduct – in the wider context – is not merely gross unprofessionalism. It is fraud.
Suppose the keeper of a global temperature record, on receiving requests to supply the data and methods underlying the compilation of that record, refuses to comply, corresponds with other “scientists” about how to avoid complying with freedom-of-information requests, and thereby succeeds in concealing for many years several fundamental defects in the keeping and processing of the data. In isolation the episode may be put down to mere incompetence combined with an understandable desire to avoid a deserved professional humiliation. However, in the context of the wider series of connected frauds, a jury might well find such an episode to constitute fraud, in that a false air of reliability and respectability has been created so as to give the IPCC process a specious air of scientific integrity.
Notice how each such episode – in isolation – might well provoke little more than a shrug of the shoulders from the prosecuting authorities, because they do not realize how the fraud fits into the grander scheme of those who are by a multitude of related artifices and deceptions driving the climate scare beyond all scientific justification. However, look at the frauds I have described, but this time look at them not in isolation but together. It is only then that the sheer, breathtaking, arrogant enormity of the overall scheme of deception becomes visible to those who have not observed it before.
Next steps: I have begun drafting a memorandum for the prosecuting authorities, together with all evidence necessary to establish not only the existence of numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud in relation to the official “global warming” storyline but also the connections between these instances, and the overall scheme of deception that the individual artifices appear calculated to reinforce. In each instance, the perpetrators of the fraud will be named and their roles described.
Once the report has been completed, it will be reviewed carefully by experienced criminal lawyers in each of the national jurisdictions in which the perpetrators reside. The report will then be submitted to the prosecuting authorities in each jurisdiction, with a complaint lodged by lawyers acting for citizens of that jurisdiction against perpetrators there. No complaints can be lodged against the IPCC or the UNFCCC, for they are beyond any national jurisdiction. However, individual “scientists” can be brought to book in the countries where they normally reside.
Here is how you can help. If you consider any specific aspect of “global warming” science to contain an element of fraud as defined and illustrated here, then please – in strictest confidence – get in touch and let me have as much detail as possible. Be specific. Name names. Give details. If you can, supply or point me to backup evidence.
Since the information you will be supplying to me is in contemplation of criminal proceedings, it is privileged and no libel suit would succeed even in the unlikely event that the perpetrators discovered you had contacted me. Your details will be kept confidential, and will not appear in the report or be passed to any authorities.
Don't be coy. It is all too easy to fall for the line now being ever-more-anxiously peddled by some of the more notorious fraudsters – that science cannot thrive in an atmosphere where scientists who publish honest research in good faith can find themselves having to answer charges in a criminal court.
Let one thing be quite clear: the test for the felony that is fraud is a high one. The lawyers who will be reading the memorandum when it is complete will not allow any element of the fraud to go forward as a complaint to the prosecuting authorities unless there is a clear, prima-facie case that wilful deception has occurred. Honest science is not under attack here: only dishonest science. And a dishonest scientist can no more claim immunity from prosecution than anyone else.
Don't hang back. This is your chance to make the police state work not for Them but you, and to bring this costly scare to an end.

Friday, 16 December 2011

Howard launches manual against the AGW scam.

The former Prime Minister, John Howard has launched a book which argues the theory of human-induced global warming is a scam. 

The book, 'How to Get Expelled From School' from the respected geologist Professor Ian Plimer, rejects the questionable scientific opinion on climate change.

Listen to the interview on the ABC's AM here.

Carbon Dioxide has Zero Effect on Warming

Piers Corbyn
Ottawa has pulled out of the 1997 anti-global warming Kyoto Protocol, saying the treaty is “not working.” Piers Corbyn, the founder of the Weather Action Foundation, says Canada is doing the right thing.
­According to Corbyn, the solar activity – not carbon dioxide – is behind climate change.
“I don’t believe in man-made climate change because there is no evidence for it. In fact, carbon dioxide is controlled by world temperatures rather than the other way around,” he told RT. “Climate change is going on, and the key aspects of the big, very extreme events that happened in the last 18 months were predicted by us, the Weather Action, using solar activity.
“Carbon dioxide has zero effect, I repeat: zero effect, no effect whatsoever.”

Earth's current cool period: New Scientist

New Scientist Magazine reports that we are currently in a cool period (see graph above.) I wonder have they shared this knowledge with the Alarmists at the IPCC?

See more at New Scientist here

Hyperwarming climate could turn Earth's poles green

We may trigger hyperwarming that transforms the planet into a hothouse with tropical temperatures and lush forests close to the poles.

Stand by for hyperalarmism!

The Green Gillard Government's "Clean Energy" Future (2)

The German Solar Industry is collapsing - See German solar firms go from boom to bust
The Green Gillard Government, when bludgeoning through it's "Clean, Green Energy" Carbon dioxide tax promised jobs and more jobs. As has been pointed out before, the Spanish study showed that for every two "green" energy jobs created, five normal jobs were lost.

Now Terence Corcoran in the Financial Times writes 
The parallel-energy universe known as renewables, a place where dollars and economic theory know no bounds and make no sense, looks increasingly like a bubble set to collapse. Or, as I wrote here back in March of 2010: “That eerie hissing you hear may well be the air beginning to seep out of the green energy bubble. The sound is similar to the pfffffft and sshhhhsssssp noises we heard in the early days of the dot-com bubble collapse or the subprime mortgage meltdown.”
The loss of political backing, massive overexpansion under the subsidy push, plus the realization that renewable energy comes with bazillion-dollar costs to consumers and/or taxpayers, all spell trouble for solar, wind, biofuels and other green-energy sources.
Also at risk of taking a hit, internationally and in Canada, are some of the venture capitalists and financial heavyweights who have been riding the global climate-change scare for every dollar of subsidy they can get out of it. News reports note that Solon, which has been slashing costs and staff for months, faced a bank deadline and now needs creditor protection on a $375-million loan from Deutsche Bank AG, the global banking giant. Deutsche Bank in recent years promoted green energy as a hot product, launching an international campaign warning of pending climate catastrophe if governments didn’t provide feed-in tariffs and other subsidies and guarantees to renewable-energy firms, to which Deutsche Bank would lend money.

The German Green Energy meltdown follows the crash of Solyndra in the United States and the accompanying political scandal re the funding of that solar-energy company. Even so, as late as Wednesday the renewable-energy lobbyists were  pressing for extensions of subsidies.

The subsidized industries are making the usual arguments that their operations create jobs and provide clean energy. The slow wind-down of Kyoto and the long outlook for Durban climate policy adds to the sense that being green is no longer easy.
The economic case for these jobs is undermined by numerous reports and studies that show the cost of the tax breaks and subsidies destroys at least as many jobs as are gained.

Let's all pray that our Green Gillard Governemtn has a re-think before the introduction of the killer carbon tax next July.