Saturday, 28 June 2014

Dependable, reliable and affordable coal

Images: Daily Caller
US West Virginian Democratic Senator Joe Manchin slammed radical critics of coal during debate on the Senate floor over the role of coal in global warming.

Manchin said:

"Fossil fuels, more specifically coal, is a vital part of our energy mix. Eight billion tons of coal are consumed every year.”
China uses more than half that, Manchin said, while the U. S. and Europe each use a billion tons. With 1,200 new coal plants slated to be built in 53 countries, Manchin said the use of coal is projected to grow dramatically.

While climate change is blamed for more severe weather, Manchin said that without coal-produced energy, the northeastern United States would have “suffered severe power outages” during the polar vortex in January.

“No question,” Manchin said. “People would have died.” (Link)

Friday, 27 June 2014

The old data are getting hotter.

When an Australian company wants to raise funds by offering shares for sale, they must provide a disclosure document of some sort to potential investors.

A prospectus is the standard disclosure document and has the broadest information requirements.

A director appeared in the Perth Magistrates Court in May charged with three counts of providing false or misleading information to the Australian Securities Exchange (linkand was required by ASIC to make full refunds to all subscribers of the shares under its prospectus.

The case has yet to be heard, however, each charge carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

It is not too far a stretch to say that the information coming from the major "climate change" bodies are prospectuses for Governments to spend money on Global Warming abatement. These bodies include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); NOAA; NASA:GISS; Hadley CRU.

Suppose a company said, in their prospectus, we have "homogenised" past profits. We feel  that
  • if the current population were around in the twenties and the thirties, we would have had more sales; OR
  • if we homogenise past profits to current dollar values, they would have been greater;  OR
  • if we compare with the sales of other similar companies we could have had more sales....
then that company and the directors issuing the prospectus would be facing severe penalties.

So consider the major "climate change" bodies above rewriting history. Suppose one of them (NASA:GISS) said regarding altering/increasing past temperatures: 
"There is an inhomogenity detected (~1980) and based on continuity w/nearby stations it is corrected."
and then it was found that those "nearby" stations were within a radius of (not very nearby) 974 kilometres.

Is this really any different from comparing sales from other companies? Is it OK to homogenise data from Amberley Air Force base on the Australian mainland with data from a small cay on a remote reef located beyond the southern reaches of the Great Barrier Reef? Frederick Reefs' only permanent dry land is Observatory Cay.  If a company director suggested something like that, they would be slotted.

This week, Dr Jennifer Marohasy addressed the Sydney Institute at Sydney's Gallipoli Club on the "homogenisation" of Australia's data. Refer Jennifer's blog here and here

Paper by Jennifer Marohasy, John Abbot, Ken Stewart and Dennis Jensen,
with the talk delivered by Jennifer Marohasy.
Listen to podcast HERE
Previously Dr Marohasy had written to Greg Hunt, Minister for the Environment:
....the official temperature record has been truncated to begin in 1910 (thereby excluding the hot years of the Federation drought) and that the method used to calculate the annual average temperature for Australia is not transparent.
I’ve since come to understand that the annual average temperature for 2013, which the Bureau claimed was a record, is in fact a wholly contrived valued based on modeling of temperatures, rather than the averaging of actual recorded values. That is, careful scrutiny of the Bureau’s methodology shows that recorded temperatures at locations across Australia are submitted to a two-step homogenization process that can have the effect of changing the entire temperature trend at specific locations. A weighted mean of these ‘homogenized’ values is then used in the calculation of the Australian annual mean temperature. In turn, the ‘homogenized’ values are used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gives advice back to the Australian government on global and Australian temperature trends.
As an example, the graph below shows  Amberley Minimum temperature 1941 to 2013 before and after "homogenisation.

Around the world, in a similar way, the past is getting hotter in the records whilst the data show cooling. Steve Goddard, via his Real Science site, continually exposes the rejigging of old data.

As the Daily Mail reports:
The damning graphs published on the 'Real Science' blog by Steven Goddard, the nom de plume of a self-described 'lifelong environmentalist' with graduate-level scientific credentials.They show the impact of replacing the real measurements with computer-generated estimates, in an alleged scheme to de-emphasize temperature readings from earlier decades while giving added weight to more recent numbers.
See Some of Steve's work HERE, here and below

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000
Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The [2 graphs] below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend. See also here and here.

IS the Globe getting hotter? Or is it just getting hotter for the Alarmists?

Thursday, 26 June 2014



by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

JUNE 26th 2014

We all know that the climate is always changing. We rely on the weather forecasters to give us a good idea of what is going to happen for the next week or so, but beyond that the seasons are the best guide.

Yet, suddenly, only a few years ago, Climate Change is something we are supposed to worry about. It is even considered to be a menace.

Take these examples
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”   Barack Obama 
Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to be a huge priority” Bill Gates
We have to face the reality of climate change. It is arguably the biggest threat we are facing today” William Hague
“Climate Change is the greatest moral economic and social challenge of our time” Kevin Rudd

“Climate change is the major challenge facing the world”: David Attenborough 
 “Ellis Island, Jamestown and other U.S. landmarks' long-term future are at risk because of the consequences of climate change, a new report says”Time   Magazine May 20 2014

How could this be?

The astonishing answer is that the environmentalist movement has succeeded in persuading many people, even political leaders and prominent scientists, that the scientific knowledge of the climate that has accumulated over hundreds of years should be replaced by an environmental religious slogan blaming human emissions of so-called greenhouse gases for everything that happens
This scam was launched at the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. By the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which has been signed by representatives of 43 countries including the European Union.

The FCCC defined Climate Change1 as
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” 
They had followed the advice of Humpty Dumpty in ”Alice Through the Looking Glass”
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Besides being a completely different definition for what was previously just an obvious fact this is a legally binding definition; an acceptance of the scam by the signatories. .

They immediately admit that human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere is only ONE possible change of climate. There is also natural climate variability which is ANOTHER possible change of climate.

But then, they play the trick of suggesting that natural changes in the climate are not changes at all, but merely variable. This falsehood permits them to assume that aby change which is unprecedented, because it cannot be shown to be variable, must be caused by their chosen religious dogma.

This CLIMATE CHANGE which is the alteration of the composition of the global activity by human activity is a religious slogan, and as such it is an article of faith. No evidence or proof is needed; indeed it is better absent as this is  a test of religious zeal.

Proof, is, anyway, unnecessary. All that is needed is for the proposition to  be attributed directly, or even indirectly. It is true even by an attribution by one single lunatic.

But to put a scam like this over on the public there must be attribution, not only by the devotees of the environmentalist faith, whose support is guaranteed, but also by a collection of pundits who could influence politicians. You must have celebrities, film stars sports heroes and scientists., Better still,.set up political parties devoted to the promotion of this scam.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to pay scientists to support the scam. Science jobs were scarce, money was no object. A profitable career was offered with foreign travel, guaranteed publications supported by reliable editors and peer reviewers and even a possible Nobel Prize.

The only condition was that they would all attribute almost everything about the climate to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere to a level satisfactory to the Government Representatives that controlled the IPCC; the signatories of the FCCC., on pain of dismissal and loss of career if they failed to do so. A suitable system of justification for this process was built up using the latest principles of public relations and political and verbal spin.

In order to confuse everybody the IPCC then proposed yet another definition of “Climate Change: for their use.

This reads as follows2

Climate change
Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to Human activity, that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.

They do not provide a definition of climate change at all, this time. All we get is something that refers to it.

They point out that the FCCC restricts the term Climate Change to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and regards climate variability as not part of it whereas the IPCC includes climate variability attributable to natural part of climate change. They also emphasize that the only persistent influence on the climate is their precious human activity. Natural effects are, apparently not persistent.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
This excuse for a definition seems to include all influences, almost a reversion to the obvious and previous meaning of climate change, which includes everything.. The only difference is here only the human effects are persistent, the others are ephemeral.

We thus now have three different definitions of the term climate change.

The first is the definition used by the meteorologists who include all influences on the climate, whether natural or not, whether persistent or not. They also regard many  of them as unpredictable. not just variable

The second is the FCCC where climate change is only that part attributable to humans.

The third is the definition referred to by the IPCC which seems to be similar to the first, including all influences on the climate, but only the human effects are persistent.

However the IPCC treats natural effects differently in order to suit the purposes of the scam. For the models the natural effects are considered constant except when they are needed to explain discrepancies from model results. They even try to argues that such natural effects are themselves caused by humans.

For the current temperature pause or hiatus they have tried to blame it on 37 different kinds of natural variability change.3

The three different definitions help to confuse the public who can be persuaded that all the definitions prove that humans are controlling the climate.

On every Report I proposed that the title should be changed to Climate Science, but they are not interested in the climate itself, only in its changes, which must always be attributed to humans.

Their definition of Climate is as follows is as follows2

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.
The Classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization..The Relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, Precipitation and wind. 
Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description of the climate system.

Nowhere in any part of the IPCC Reports are there any actual figures for statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities for any locality, even for the recommended period of  30 years.

Since, every local climate is different, global climate consists of an amalgamation of every local climate. An attempt to provide means and variability globally is an almost impossible task, but the IPCC does not attempt it.

Their claim that they are able to provide a plausible statistical description of the climate system is simply false.

It is particularly impossible to obtain an overall statistical description of radiation to and from the earth, since this is different every instant in every place. Almost the same sun arrives instantaneously above each locality but everything else is constantly changing. The IPCC climate models fail miserably to imitate a real climate.

This strange static picture of a pseudoclimate with a flat earth, constant sunshine  no wind and vertical radiation is even shown in the IPCC diagrams such as the following4


1.    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

2.    IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.

4.    Solomon, S., D Qin, M. R. Manning,  M.  Marquis, K.  Averyt, M. H Tignor, H. L. Miller, and Z. Chin.  (Eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (IPCC), Cambridge University Press.

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035
New Zealand

The Phony Consensus

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes andThe Carbon Sense Coalition

27 June 2014

Evidence Trumps the Phony Consensus.

We are lectured monotonously about the “consensus” that carbon dioxide produced by human activities is “highly likely to cause dangerous global warming”. The alarmist computer models are all based on this assumption, with predicted warming multiplied by also assuming strong positive feedbacks.

A consensus of opinion never determines a scientific question – real proof depends on evidence and logic. Consensus is a tool of politics and a guidepost for lemmings.

If this image is missing, download it by clicking the following link:
We and the cartoon creator, Steve Hunter, have full rights to this cartoon,
and grant permission for anyone to reproduce it in any media
 as long as the Steve Hunter signature remains on it.
 For electronic media, the source link should also be displayed
The so-called “Greenhouse Effect” depends entirely on the known property of carbon dioxide gas to intercept radiant heat in certain wavelengths. This process starts operating as soon as the extra gas enters the atmosphere.

If this influence is strong enough to drive “dangerous global warming”, its effect should be noticeable even in the short term, with Earth’s surface temperature increasing in step with increasing carbon dioxide. 

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing for over a century, but global temperatures have fluctuated in broad cycles decades long, and the temperature trend has been flat for the last 17 years.

This evidence suggests that increasing carbon dioxide is not a major driver for dangerous global warming, no matter what the consensus says – even if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

We may still get natural global warming, as the vast restless oceans roll over or the solar cycles change, but man-made carbon dioxide is not driving these processes. Moreover, a bit of warming is not our greatest risk – history shows that ice ages extinguish more species and habitats than warm eras.

The consensus of alarmists is trying to lynch an innocent party.

If you would like to see what others have said about this article, or have a say yourself, see:

Viv Forbes, 11/6/14

For those who wish to read more:

No consensus on the Climate Consensus:

Has the Climate Crusade reached its Waterloo?

No Consensus in the Australian Geological Society:

Retrospective Global Warming hits Rosevale
We live at Rosevale, just over the hills from the Amberley air base. We have just been subjected to retrospective global warming by the keepers of the Amberley temperature record - Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology.

Until 2012, our official temperature records showed we had been in a cooling trend since records started in 1941. In 2012, BOM “adjusted” the original records and, lo, now we are suffering a global warming trend.

See the story on:

Ministry of Truth orders Crackdown on Climate Sceptics.

The BBC should give less airtime to climate sceptics
and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them.
Such interviews should be accompanied by health warnings.
Sea Levels are Never Still.

Sea levels have been rising and falling without any help from humans for as long as Earth’s oceans have existed.

The fastest and most alarming sea changes to affect mankind occurred at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age. Seas rose about 130m about 12,000 years ago, at times rising at five metres per century. Sea levels then fell as ice sheet and glaciers grew in the recent Little Ice Age – some Roman ports used during the Roman Warm Era are now far from the sea even though sea levels have recovered somewhat during the Modern Warm Era.

Many natural factors cause sea levels to rise - melting of land-based glaciers and ice sheets; warming and expansion in volume of the oceans; extraction of groundwater which ends up in the oceans; and sediments, sewerage, plant debris and volcanic ash washed into the oceans by rivers, storms and glaciers. In addition, tectonic forces cause some blocks of land to rise while others fall, hence the paradox of sea levels appearing to rise on one coastline while falling on another.

Currently the world’s oceans are rising at somewhere between zero and 3 mm per year, which has not changed much with the great industrialisation since 1945. Amongst all the factors moving the restless sea, man’s production of carbon dioxide is obviously an insignificant player.

Sea levels are always changing, at times very destructively. Waves move sea levels by a few metres and at places like Derby, WA, king tides can move sea levels by eleven metres. Then there are rogue waves up to 30 metres high which have sunk oil tankers, and tsunamis which can smash coastlines with a ten metre wall of water moving at over 800 km per hour.

Despite coping with all of the above, climate alarmists say we should be scared to death by the threat of seas rising gently at maybe a couple of mm PER YEAR. Even a slow-moving sloth could escape water rising at that rate.

King Canute showed his nobles that no man can hold back the rising sea. It’s time the climate alarmists learned Canute’s lesson and focussed on real world problems.

Even if we ceased using all carbon fuels for electricity and transport, no one could measure the effect of that huge sacrifice on global sea levels.

To see comments on this article (or make a comment yourself) see:

For those who wish to read more:

Sea Levels are not Rising:

Rising Seas are Nothing New:

History falsifies climate alarmist sea level claims:

The Ocean Thermometer:

Global Mean Sea Levels:

Tide Gauges show that Average Sea level rise is 0.9m per year:

Rogue Waves – the real sea monsters:

High Tides at Derby, Western Australia:

Viv Forbes,18/6/14

Hollywood seeks Arab Oil Money to Attack US Shale Oil

Whenever climatists cannot answer a logical argument or a scientific fact they attack the messenger as being “in the pay of Big Coal or Big Oil”.

But Hollywood greens have been caught red handed preparing to accept millions of Arab Oil money to attack the big competitor of Arab oil – shale oil (and gas). Listen to them here:

Farewell and a Tribute to Ray Evans.

Ray Evans has been my good friend, ally and adviser in many matters of public concern for about forty years. Ray was always generous with his time and sound in his advice and philosophies. We never had a disagreement in all of those years. Thank you Ray.

Ray was a founder and chief mover of the Lavoisier Society, and one of the first Australians to oppose Al Gore’s Global warming alarmism. His booklet “Nine Facts about Climate Change” is as true now as when he wrote it eight years ago.

Read it here:

The Last Word – Take a Trip to Las Vegas

If you are not already registered to attend the ninth International Climate Change Conference (ICCC-9) starting two weeks from tomorrow in Las Vegas, I suggest you check it out at:

At the conference you will have an opportunity to hear from, and meet, many of the world’s leading climate realists, scientists from around the world who question, not just the causes of climate change, but whether ‘man-made global warming’, if it occurs, will be harmful to plants, animals, or human welfare. You can also learn from top economists and policy experts about the real costs and futility of trying to stop climate change.

Prepared by Viv Forbes and Helpers from:
The Carbon Sense Coalition
Rosewood    Qld   Australia

“Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational use of all energy resources including carbon energy.

Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.
We get no government grants and unlike many of our opponents, we do not pose as a charity and in fact pay GST and income tax on our operations. We live on subscriptions alone.

For more information visit our web site at
If you would like to keep Carbon Sense operating, send subscriptions to
Carbon Sense Pty Ltd, by post to the address below, or direct deposit to:
Acct No: 553 077 331
BSB: 334-040
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
Authorised by: Viv Forbes, Chairman, MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   A

Sunday, 22 June 2014

Ocean Heat Content - Part 2

by Anthony Cox

In a previous post I looked at the shenanigans of the alarmists in claiming the oceans were storing the missing heat and getting hotter and the technique of using Joules instead of temperature because graphs in Joules or energy content were more dramatic and alarming then graphs showing the almost non-existent equivalent in temperature. Some of the graphs shown were drawn by a commentator based on the ARGO flotation devices which have been employed since 2004 and give by far the most accurate measurements of ocean heat content [OHC] or temperature. Even so the ARGO measurements are not without their accuracy problems as both Jo Nova and Willis Eschenbach show.

Argo buoys float and record the entire ocean as you can see from the black dots below.    The areas seen below in yellow were plotted to determine if temperatures were rising.  The North Atlantic and Pacific and Antarctic were of special interest since there are claims that these are warming more than the rest of the ocean.

The locations of the buoys looks impressive as the following location graphs show but most of the oceans are unmeasured.

The graphs following show ARGO OHC measurements in temperature from the locations shown in yellow.

Again, we ask, where is the missing heat?

Big Environment Groups given a bloody nose.

Ron Boswell will leave the Australian Senate at the end of June and this week gave his valedictory speech.

Colin Bettles (the national political writer for Fairfax Agricultural Media) reported on the speech:
RETIRING veteran Queensland Nationals Senator Ron Boswell says he’s proud to have given big environmental groups a “bloody nose” more than once during his lengthy political career. 
Senator Boswell steps down from the federal Senate on June 30, having served exactly 31 years and 118 days.
Senators were joined by House of Representative members for the speech:
Prime Minister Tony Abbott joined Nationals leader Warren Truss and other senior Coalition figures in the Senate chamber to witness Senator Boswell’s farewell address.
There was also strong representation from all political parties, especially the Nationals. 
Boswell detailed some of his political career and then turned to the recent campaign against fast food giant McDonald’s sourcing “sustainable beef.”
Senator Boswell said he was proud to have helped keep the beef industry “out of the clutches of the WWF and other environmental activists”. 
“Don’t have any doubt: WWF wants to ultimately control how seafood, timber, beef and every other primary product is marketed in Australia and round the world,” he said.
“I have always opposed the destructive behaviour of powerful, well-funded local and international environmental activists. 
“They make their living by frightening people into believing the environment is being threatened one way or another by the activities of our farmers, fishermen, miners or even Aboriginal communities. 
“I am proud to say I have given the ‘Big Environment’ groups a bloody nose on more than one occasion.” 
For the Hansard transcript of Boswell speech, see Australian Politics.

Saturday, 21 June 2014

Ocean Heat Content -Another simple evidence based rebuttal of AGW

By Anthony Cox

See also Part 2 - HERE

The latest funny bit of science from the AGW world has been the assertion that the missing heat is being carried down to the bottom of the ocean. Leading lights of AGW science like England and Trenberth have both suggested the mechanism for this heat transfer to the bottom is wind. The absurdity of those positions are dealt with here and here.

But such obvious rebuttals of the science of AGW does not stop the alarmists from peddling their beliefs and mischief. In a recent online debate this graph was posted:

The source of course is Cook’s (UN)Skeptical Science site and is highly misleading. How misleading it is revealed by a commenter on the same thread who has made some excellent points and posted some cogent graphs of Ocean Heat Content [OHC]. The commenter noted this well-known NOAA graph was in Joules and not temperature:

The vertical axis is clearly marked in Joules. His comment was: 
For the sake of discussion let's accept the graph and all data as accurate. The lowest end of the graph is -10 Joules, the highest is +15 Joules. That gives us a 25 Joule delta. I see that they have scaled it at a factor of 10. 25 Joules converts to 0.01316412691165. We have to factor in the scale so we multiply by 10 and we come up with 0.1316412691165 - one tenth of a degree C between 1955 and 2014. Fabulous 1/10 of a degree over 50 years. Stunning amount of warming there.

This is an excellent point and was noted by other astute commentators including Lucia at The Blackboard. Lucia also converted the Joule graph into temperature:

That is astounding. Temperature at 2000 meters where England’s and Trenberth’s missing heat is supposed to be has gone up 0.09C since before 1960. Some missing heat. This is why the alarmists always post OHC graphs in Joules which have such bigger and scarier numbers. And that’s assuming the measurements are correct. The Commenter’s other valid point was that accurate measurements of OHC have really only been around since the ARGO measurements began in 2004.

Using 2004 as a base Commenter has been busy producing graphs of the OHC in different areas of the world at different levels based on the official ARGO data. The graphs of the ARGO data are simply another complete rebuttal of AGW science. They speak for themselves.

And this one showing so much heat [sic] at the Arctic; note the seasonal variation in temperature near the surface in the top graph:

And the Southern ocean shows a slight surface warming but no warming at depth:


 Another simple evidence based rebuttal of AGW.

H/t David Friedman