Just read this in the Australian paper The Age.Nationwide, the
average temperature for summer was 28.6 degrees, 1.1 degrees above normal,
shading the previous summer record of 1997-98 by 0.1 degrees.The
September-February period, was also the hottest since records began in 1910.The records fell even though the dominant El Nino weather pattern over the
Pacific remained in a neutral phase. The three previous record hot summers were
El Nino years, as were six of the hottest nine.“On average
over Australia, El Nino years tend to come out with a warmer summer,”
Andrew Watkins, manager of climate prediction services at the bureau, said.
“The January heatwave was off the scale when you look at the successive
days of high temperatures.”Dr Trewin said taking into account
mid to high-emissions scenarios for greenhouse gas output, the past summer will
probably rank as an average one in 40 years' time. By the end of the
century, the 2012/13 summer will probably "sit at the very cooler end of
normal", he said.So I guess the warming trend never left!
No one has yet succeeded in correlating anything in the climate record to
atmospheric CO2. It's nothing but conjecture to claim that human CO2
emissions are having any significant impact on warming or cooling or anything
else. It doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis, since what is
asserted is not falsifiable. It's all about the politics, not the
science.Raising the cost of energy will reduce your standard of
living. Don't be surprised that the economy doesn't recover - it
can't. It simply isn't possible to sink billions of dollars into wind
and solar projects that have to be backed up with coal and gas facilities and
that have a net negative return on investment and have economic growth. That
would be the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
The wording of "climate change solution" is patently ludicrous. The
best scientific analysis demonstrates that even the most Draconian measures
would not significantly affect the (computer model-based) projected global
temperature increase.By the way, what climate change? Nothing
happening now is unprecedented or outside the range of "normal."
chilly: "1975.... the famous year that many scientists declared we were in
for a new ice age..."Not many, some. Even then greenhouse
warming was the dominant paradigm. Global cooling was a minority view in the
scientific community, just as climate change skepticism is today. It just
captured headlines in the popular press. As I recall, the cooling mechanism of
concern was increased albedo from combustion particulates and the proposed SST
fleet vapor trails. The SST fleet never materialized (except for the
Concorde's limited flights) and government regulation did much to reduce
particulate emissions.ThinkinMan: "The Leftists never cease to
amaze me with their irrational rationale."Free-market-based
policies are leftist? And socialized government run liquor retail is
conservative. Go figure.Here's a thought exercise for
skeptics: Pretend for a moment that the fantasy of CO2/CH4-mediated climate
change is real and you are an EPA bureaucrat tasked with developing a policy to
fight it. Propose a policy that:- maximizes producer flexibility-
maximizes consumer choice- is administratively simple- incentivizes
cleanup beyond minimum standards- incentivizes technological innovation- produces measurable results- maximizes individual libertyCan you
create something better than the market-based policy described in the column?
To "Allisdair" it isn't just the UK Met office. Even the lead
climate change alarmist scientists are saying that we haven't had any
statistically significant warming in a long time.In 2009 Kevin
Trenberth stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since
2005. See "Where did all the warming go?" in the Washington Times.Another thing to look at is some more recent releases from the UK Met
office. From their web site, their article "Decadal Forecasting - What is
it and what does it tell us?" states that there has been no warming since at
least 2002, and no warming is expected for the next 5 years.You
should read the more recent article "Global warming stopped 16 years ago,
Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the
'deniers' now?" in the Daily Mail.To put the puzzle
together, in 2009 Kevin Trenberth says no statistically significant warming
since 1995, and in 2012 UK Met office says no warming since at least 2002, and
no warming for at least 5 years more. That means we will have a 20 year span of
no warming.NOAA statement shows the models are wrong.
@RedShirtI understand you have read the Daily Mail article by David
Rose on “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office”
but have you also looked into the Met offices response? I am certain if you
search “ Met Office in the Media 14 Oct 2012” on the official blog
of the Met Office you might be enlightened.So I expect that we will
stop hearing about this Daily Mail rubbish from you or do you think the Met are
part of the conspiracy? The same conspiracy group that are behind the Grassy
@Spaghedeity"Poe's Law: Poe's Law is an axiom
suggesting that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between
parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since
they both seem equally insane."Interesting: Because that is
exactly why I think politically correct fundamentalists and climate alarmist
fundamentalists are actually worse than the ones they claim to oppose. Speaking of which: From 1400 until 1850 temperatures dropped. From the lowest
temps of 1850 until now we have seen 0.6 degrees of rise. None of that increase
in the past several years. So the fact that temperatures have not risen in the
last 15 years is pretty consistent with the last 150+ years (depsite any
nino).Which is not to say we should not clean up the air or not
mess-our-nest; just that there is no need to be an insane fundamentalist about
To "atl134" actually it isn't cherry picking data. The NOAA said
that with a 95% certainty that there could not be periods of more than 10 years
without statistically significant warming. If the data was cherrypicked it
wouldn't be 10 consecutive years. We are now going on 17 years of no
statistically significant warming.Per the NOAA's standard that
they published in 2008, the models that are being used are wrong.FYI, the 95% certainty is better than anything published linking CO2 and
climate change.Sad, the government says that the models are wrong
and the liberals cling to the models in disbelief.
@Redshirt"In other words, we have the NOAA stating that it is
impossible to have no warming for more than 15 years, and we are now entering 17
years of no warming."95% certainty is not the same as stating
something is impossible.Those 17 years include the warmest decade in
the modern record (the 2000s). That's not evidence of a lack of warming.
That's evidence of cherrypicking a strong El Nino year to start your subset
and conveniently having 4 La Nina years in the past 5 years to end it
(incidentally 2012 was the warmest La Nina year on record).
Open minded Mormon: "How hot does it need to get...""Hot" enough to melt a bunch of the 2 1/2 feet of snow off of my roof
before the ice dams rip it apart would be nice.Global temperatures
have risen less than a degree Centigrade over the last 100 years. Temperature
has been flat for over a decade despite a 12% increase in CO2 emissions in that
time frame. At this rate I'll have to wait for the great global warming
known as Spring to get any relief.Lagomorph: "I recall a
glorious day in May, 1975..."Ah 1975.... the famous year that
many scientists declared we were in for a new ice age.Thanks so much
for not wishing the decade of the 1930s on us, when 23 U.S. State high
temperatures were set and still stand. During the decades of the 60s, 70s, 80s,
90s - 12 State high temps set - total. Since 2000, take a guess ....... 1 State
Oh, why bother? As long as half the population isn't able to read a
third-grade book with any degree of analytical expertise, they will continue to
believe what they hear on the radio.
The Leftists never cease to amaze me with their irrational rationale. Tax oil
and gas so that prices of Everything rise, then dribble a puny amount to
taxpayers to make them feel better about the higher prices.Huh?
chillySalt Lake City, UTWhen was the ideal state of climate to which
you climate change alarmists want the earth to return?11:11 a.m.
Feb. 27, 2013=============How hot does it need to get
before you global warming deniers finally decide to get on board and help us do
something about it?
Oh, I forgot to mention that the so-called researchers behind the climate change
hoax (i.e. junk scientists) are cherry-picking or falsifying their data so they
can continue to receive those lucrative federal grants and are using the power
of peer review to suppress any data not fitting their models. Meanwhile, the
noble and beleaguered purveyors of truth and Real Science slave away on the
meager offerings that their destitute patrons at Exxon-Mobil and Koch Industries
can occasionally spare.Tyler D: "...it takes place over
'geologic time'..."I think everyone should be required
to take a bit of calculus. It gets you thinking in terms of rates of change.
The rate of change is often vastly more significant than the magnitude of the
change (consider the deceleration in hitting a wall from 60 mph versus 2 mph).
A change of 5 degrees over millenia or eons is probably not a big deal. There
is time to adjust. Over decades or centuries, it is.chilly:
"When was the ideal state of climate ..."I recall a glorious
day in May, 1975, with blue skies, pleasant breezes, and puffy white clouds.
That would be nice.
Where is the proof that CO2 contributes to climate change. According to the
NOAA the models are all wrong that are currently being used.See
"STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2008" at the NOAA. It states "The
simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or
more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed
to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."Now, read "Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office
report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it" from the Daily
Mail.In other words, we have the NOAA stating that it is impossible
to have no warming for more than 15 years, and we are now entering 17 years of
no warming. The models are wrong, yet liberals are using bad data to justify
their globalist movement.Tell us why should we trust models that are
When was the ideal state of climate to which you climate change alarmists want
the earth to return?
How can the GOP be part of the solution to climate change when they adamantly
insist that climate change is a myth?
@Counter Intelligence – “indeed there has never been anything but
climate change for millions of years…”Yes, and it takes
place over “geologic time” (tens or hundreds of thousands of years).
On the occasions it is sudden it is due to one-time events like meteors or
volcanoes that affect the climate for short periods of time but then return to
relative equilibrium.Contrast the geologic time history of climate
change with what we’re doing today (altering the climate over a few short
decades) by burning fossil fuels at a continuous and ever increasing rate, and
there is simply no comparison – our actions are unprecedented in history.
It’s not hysteria - it is science, which is in direct
contrast to what the “denier” side is doing. For an
excellent review of the politics and special interests fueling this so-called
debate, refer to David Brin’s article “Climate Skeptic v. Climate
The GOP is has dissolved into the party of Anti-Science, who cares about
the enviroment, pro-anything for a buck business, let the poor and
the needy, sick and elderly fend for themselves, and let's go start
another war.They need to 1st stop denying there is a problem, before they can start addressing any real solutions to them.
Well spoken Lagomorph, I actually thought you were serious until your last line.
Beautiful illustration of Poe's Law.Poe's Law: Poe's
Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult, if not impossible, to
distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its
genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.
The author clearly has been duped by the "climate change" hoax
perpetrated by the Saul-Alinsky-reading, Cass-Sundstein-following members of the
homo-islamo-Obamo-fascist coalition whose overarching goal is to destroy freedom
and cripple the American economy so that the Boy Scouts will have to admit gays
and the federal government will confiscate our guns. Al Gore is doing his part
by jetsetting around spreading his anticapitalist gospel while spewing more CO2
into the air than all members of the American Petroleum Institute and NRA
combined (not to the mention the mind altering chemicals in his jet's
contrails). The DesNews, one of the liberal Hezbo-media elites, is helping by
disseminating more convenient lies for the lockstep brainwashed masses lined up
to receive their free Obamaphones. CO2 is fertilizer and there are more polar
bears now than ever before in history and falcons don't really go 200
mph.There. Did I hit all the talking points? Just trying to save
procurador, mW, RedShirt, AGF and others some keystrokes.
I beleive in climate change - indeed there has never been anything but climate
change for millions of years (indeed just 40 years ago we were in massive global
cooling - imagine that)I do not believe in climate hysteria as illustrated
by Tyler D
Back when the GOP was sane, they came up with market based ideas like
cap-and-trade which not only worked amazingly well for acid rain (all the
20-somethings are saying “acid what?”), but spurred innovation in
greener power plant technology. It was a total win-win. Had we known
back in the 90’s what we know today (that climate change is a fact), a
bill like Boxer-Sanders would have passed overwhelmingly. But again, that was
back before the world went topsy turvy and (most of) the GOP were rational. Prediction – our grandchildren will look back at today’s GOP
much the same way we look at the pre-civil war Wig party; which is to say the
few who know anything about the Wigs see a 19th century anachronism, while most
have no idea there ever was such a party.And for anyone who thinks
too much Co2 is just fine, I suggest you take a look at Venus.
Co2? Great plant food. I am more worried about cow belching and termites
producing methane.We need clean energy, clean air, clean water,
clean land and energy independence.We also need to encourage energy
efficiency and technologies such as ground source heat pumps. We may not agree
with each other re: CO2 cap/trade, taxes, or our effects on climate.We do need more renewable energy. Start there and forget the fight on Co2.