Congratulations and thanks for gently correcting some matters of fact.

Too often, this discussion has degenerated into a slanging match where facts have been ignored.

There should be more of it - especially, public consideration not only of the 2 degree case, but also of the less probable yet still possible worse cases and for events further into the future than 2100AD. Exactly what should our preparations today be to meet the challenges of 10 metre sea level rise if/when ice caps melt at an increasing rate? At present, such a discussion is impossible, due to the loud cries of "It hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen ever", which is of course akin to the response from some quarters when the 1:0000 year flood or PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) is discussed.

I once heard a NSW SES regional controller from the Upper Hunter say that he only responds to the water which is in the river, which condemned the towns on that river to flooding before his Division would act. Flood first; response afterwards. Preparedness beyond training did not come into his personal commitment.

For the same reason that the SES needs to have resourced plans in place for a PMF, the world needs to plan for the more extreme and less probable climate events of all types, but especially relating to anthropogenic climate change.

To argue otherwise is pure folly.

I disagree with much in this article. Too much to address in one comment, or even in four. I’ll begin at the end.

The last sentence is a misrepresentation. It’s an often repeated lie, demonstrating this author makes errors of fact too and does not check his facts before making assertions.

>”I am also fearful about where conservatism is taking us, both in terms of the climate change debate and in what I see as our reluctance to take natural hazards as seriously as we should.”
I am concerned where the socialists/Left has been taking us and wants to continue to take us. The socialists support BANANA policies (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) – e.g. no major dam construction for 30 years. And they support irrational, irresponsible, economically damaging policies that almost certainly will not deliver the claimed benefits (of climate damages avoided).

>”Above all I worry that conservatives discourage action on both climate change and the mitigation of and adaptation to the problems brought by natural hazards. Here they make real problems more difficult for following generations to tackle. Scepticism, an important quality in science and public debate, can drift into something bothersome ─ a near-automatic denial of science and the application of it, and perhaps even of reality.”

The assertion is unsupported. Conservatives are pragmatic realistic and rational. They realise the $20 billion per year we are spending on GHG emissions abatement will make no difference to the climate, now or ever. The left/socialists deny that. They are the real deniers. They deny the relevant facts.

Policy relevant climate questions:

These are some of the questions we need answers to. Climate scientists and CAGW believers continually avoid tackling them.

1. What is the value of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR)?

2. Is ECS and TCR relevant given that climate changes suddenly [1], [2], [3], not as portrayed by IPCC’s smooth projections?

3. What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2-e concentration have on the climate - will it make the next sudden change happen sooner or later?
• Will it make the next sudden cooling happen sooner or later?
• Or will it cause a sudden warming event?
• What are the probability density functions for each?

4. Will it make the next sudden climate change less or more severe? (e.g. delay the onset of the next cooling and/or reduce its severity OR make the next sudden warming happen sooner and make it more severe)? What is the probability density function?

5. What would be the consequences of warming? What would be the consequences of cooling? What are the probability density functions?

6. What is the probability that the advocated mitigation policies would succeed in delivering the claimed benefits (climate damages avoided), given real world issues with implementing and maintaining such policies (e.g. carbon pricing)?
• To answer this question we need to understand the short- and medium-term economic impacts of the proposed policies for each nation state, and consider how each will respond so as to maximise its advantage (game theory) through the situations that could occur over the next century or so.

7. What is the probability that alternative polices are more likely to succeed (such as removing the political and regulatory impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear energ

maybe just some conservatives know that the moral outrage from the 'progressives' is hypocritical and fantasy. Usually when people deny their fallen nature they take up some other pseudo cause. gw is one of the finest examples. If you have not worked that out you understand very little about human nature.

We have had two decades of privilege for the folly of climate change. It is time for the People to rise, throw off their oppressors and end the monstrous subsidies that these decades of grant-snouting have created. Why should the poor and working classes continue to pay thousands per household to validate the moral sanctimony of the Green and the Chardonnay socialist?

Their models have failed. Their moralising propaganda has failed. We have 16 solid years of no climate change despite their predictions. They have faked and fudged their data long enough; the People employed the ballot box to remove the rent-seekers from Government. If Government is not up to the job, let the People act.

Fire fighters are very practical people, Australian Fire Fighters and their Californian counterparts have linked earlier onset of fires, and intensity of fires with anthropomorphic climate change. Deniers suggest they are only wanting to create more positions; but it is only in very recent times that they have been making these statements. Rainfall, temperature and drought all have an impact on creating the circumstances for bush fires. It translates to rapid growth, then drying off, creating the environment for big fires.

I have read Don Aitkin's political material in the past; also, but I'm disappointed in what he has been writing about climate change, it displays a lack of objectivity. I believe that some of what he writes is insulting to scientists; these being the climate specialists.

Regarding those who suggest that climate change scientists are feathering their own nests, I wonder whether there's the psychological process of projection happening. Those who deny what climate scientists are saying can only be said to have an opinion; they do not have all the evidence that scientists have to come with. John Hoard has stated that he doesn't believe in climate change due to faith. Having faith doesn't explain anything about permafrost melt and the results of that permafrost melt or any other matter that science brings up.

It is interesting that scientist in disciplines other than climate science are finding impacts in their areas of expertise of anthropogenic climate change.

The trouble with Don Aitkin's articles on climate science is that Don does not understand enough of the basics and has tended to follow the Murdoch empire's lead that it is not happening or that humans are not contributing.

The fact that the Earth is currently warming and that humans are contributing to this is unequivocal. Despite the climate deniers cherry picking of the noise, the underlying signal is up.

What is unknown is how much the Earth will warm or whether we can stop it happening. These are dependent on so many factors that making predictions is difficult. Climate models give an idea of the potential range of scenarios that might come to be.

The real questions should not be "is the Earth warming?", but more "how much warming are we going to be comfortable with?" and "what action de we need to take to keep warming within the bounds we are comfortable with".

I admit to having too little expertise to answer either of these last questions accurately; however, I do know that taking no action will result in a world very different to the current world in 50 years time.

Obama has recently announced a plan for radical action on 'climate change' which -- assuming it is implemented by him and his successors -- is going to increase power costs substantially across the US and force many companies out of business, with the attendant unemployment and human misery that entails. According to the climate scientists themselves, the net outcome of this enormous, concerted attack on the US economy -- already staggering -- will be to reduce the projected temperature for Jan 1, 2100 by -- wait for it -- less than 0.02 degrees Centigrade.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/12/epa-leaves-out-the-most-vital-number-in-their-fact-sheet/

Is this not a ludicrous waste of resources for a minimal result? Is it not almost religious in its complete disregard for logic and reason in the pursuit of a meaningless goal?

Perhaps you should become a little more 'conservative' yourself, Chas. It might improve your reasoning powers.

@JonJ:

Surely you know that wattsupwiththat is a thoroughly discredited site which exists solely to publish stories and opinion contrary to the 97% or 98%.

If you want your point to be taken seriously, you will have to use statistics from reputable sources, preferably per reviewed ones.

Peter Lang, I understand you are a Geologist. You seem to equate climate science with a left wing point of view.
But, how would it be if people who do not have any experience in your specialist field saying that it is nothing but crap. I'm not saying that; but that is the process that is going on in relation to climate change.
You might bring up the matter of reverse continental drift and the view is seen to be just a mechanism to gain more funds. The spot where you are working may have been just lower than Iceland but moved to near the equator and when working there it is halfway between the equator and Iceland. The proof you have is coral fossils. It would be mighty disheartening to be screamed down by people without any experience if you were the first to make such a discovery. I understand that this reverse continental drift is a fairly new view of what has happened in the past.

Physicists tell us there is a reaction between CO2 and light.
Those people with a science background who are skeptics really need to be giving a view as to where climate science is going wrong.

Glaciologists working in the Arctic region get quite frustrated as the situation is moving quite quickly there in comparison to other areas. Temperatures are up form the long term average by 2C. Check out the paper by Lance Lesack. Natalia Shakhova has talked about the sea temperature of the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf as being 6-7 degrees higher than expected when working there Winter 2014.
Natalia Shakhova is wanting to investigate further methane leakage from the shallow waters of the ESAS. I gather that at present ice is being melted rapidly from this area. It is cold temperature that holds methane in place. Though already methane levels are being measured at 1950 ppb. Prior to the Industrial Revolution it had been something like 790 ppb.

Quote from: http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/remarks/2012/196004.htm

" ...A power company executive was quoted in the New York Times last week (July 26) saying “we’ve got the ‘storm of the century’ every year now,” and it’s starting to look that way. Consider:

A searing heat wave struck Moscow in late June 2010, spawning massive wildfires, killing tens of thousands, and cutting Russia's wheat crop by 40%, contributing to a sharp spike in world food prices.
The 2010 floods in Pakistan were the most expensive natural disaster in Pakistani history, killing nearly 2000 people, affecting 20 million, and causing $9.5 billion in damage.
Heavy rains triggered floods and landslides in Colombia in 2010 and 2011, killing over 600 people and causing nearly $7 billion in damage, the biggest natural disaster in the nation’s history.
The Queensland flood of 2010-2011 was Australia's most expensive natural disaster, with a price tag as high as $30 billion.
In 2010, the second “100-year drought” in five years in the Amazon led to net emissions of 5 billion tons of CO2 – a stunning amount roughly equivalent to a fifth of the global CO2 emissions produced that year from burning fossil fuels.
In Greenland, more ice melted in 2010 than any time since the start of accurate record-keeping in 1958.
This year, Colorado has been ravaged by wildfires that burned an area six times the size of Manhattan. In 2011, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, and Minnesota all had record-breaking wildfires, with Texas losing an area larger than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined.
Severe drought is currently scorching nearly 40% of the continental United States, the largest stretch of country this dry in nearly a half-century, affecting 88% of the nation’s corn crop...."

There were huge floods in 2013, and there have been major weather events around the globe in 2014.

The ice level in the Arctic region at present is identical to how it was in 2012, a record year. The Arctic area has it's ice minimum in September of every year. It is weather events from now on that will determine whether ice levels diminish or increase.

Chas, I can see nothing in your resume to indicate you would be any more likely to be correct in your assumptions than Don Aitkin. In fact it is my experience that the most usual failures in emergency management has been at head office, where failure to understand just what was happening actually reduced the effectiveness of the troops on the ground.

Queensland's recent flood, the Canberra & Victorian fires are recent glaring examples of incompetence at the top of these organisations.

Given this fact, I find it very unlikely that your ideas are any where near as well considered as Dons.

Ant firefighters no matter what nationality are not experts in climate science.

Dear Chas,

Some sanity may be on the horizon, at least in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html

imajulianutter, you say "Ant firefighters no matter what nationality are not experts in climate science" .
Climate change deniers obviously don't have any knowledge in climate change either. I happen to believe the specialists. Each denier has more combined knowledge than Marine Scientists, Physicists, Glaciologists, Biologists, Atmospheric Scientists, etc etc.

Firies do have views of the length of wildfire seasons, the intensity of fires and a whole lot more data in relation to fires which fits into what climate scientists are saying. At the Climate Change demonstrations earlier this year Firies gave the same address at each place that demonstrations took place. Deniers clearly have more knowledge than Professional Fire Fights also.

Well Jon I am a conservative. I believe it is well worth trying to maintain the natural world the way it is. This means not altering the composition of the atmosphere on a punt that it won’t have any effect. The fact is if we want to keep the planet the way it has been for 1000s of years, we had better stop pouring vast amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere.
The idea that just one nation can’t make a difference is wrong, someone has to lead the way, without leadership nothing gets done. Nor is the idea that moving to a low carbon economy going to send a nation into bankruptcy. On the other hand the economic consequences of doing nothing are dire.
See the Stern report:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
Quote
“The Stern Review's main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting.”

It is extremely foolish to ignore scientific advice just because it does not suit ones political views.

And even more good news;

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete?CMP=fb_gu

Yup, electricity prices in Queensland went into negative territory again but this time in the middle of a busy day.

Quote;

“Negative pricing” moves, as they are known, are not uncommon. But they are only supposed to happen at night, when most of the population is mostly asleep, demand is down, and operators of coal fired generators are reluctant to switch off. So they pay others to pick up their output.

That's not supposed to happen at lunchtime. Daytime prices are supposed to reflect higher demand, when people are awake, office building are in use, factories are in production. That's when fossil fuel generators would normally be making most of their money.
The influx of rooftop solar has turned this model on its head. There is 1,100MW of it on more than 350,000 buildings in Queensland alone (3,400MW on 1.2m buildings across the country). It is producing electricity just at the time that coal generators used to make hay (while the sun shines).

The impact has been so profound, and wholesale prices pushed down so low, that few coal generators in Australia made a profit last year. Hardly any are making a profit this year. State-owned generators like Stanwell are specifically blaming rooftop solar.

End quote.

@JohnBennetts: Have you ever read WattsUpWithThat? If you have you will know that it takes its stories from a variety of sources, both pro and anti the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. It's a convenient clearing-house for all kinds of data, not a 'source' in itself. If you want to trace the article I referenced back to its original source you can do so through the links provided in the article.

Whether you agree with AGW theory or not, I hope you can see it is absurd to close your mind to material relating to it, merely on the basis of where it happens to be published. That's the attitude of a religious believer, not a genuine seeker after truth.

I was travelling yesterday, and saw the piece first late last night.

First, let me thank the author for his courteous critique. Courtesy is so often absent from discussions about 'climate change'.

Second, he is perfectly right about my error in saying that Australia was free of tornadoes. It was an error of fact. I had in mind the vision of the American tornadoes, which I first saw in The Wizard of Oz. I was corrected at once in the comments when I published the piece on my website a couple of years ago.

Third, I was unaware that we in Australia virtually do what the New Zealanders do with respect to adaptation. Perhaps I was unaware because we don't hear about such a co-ordinated approach to all forms of weather crisis. I agree entirely that part of the problem is that we allow people to build on land that is plainly subject to flood or fire. I've written a few pieces on that subject, too.

Fourth, I agree that scientists should point out what science can show, and leave the policy decisions to those who have that responsibility. If only it were so neat! The author must be aware of the scores of scientists, like David Karoly, Roger Jones, Will Steffen and others in this country, and their counterparts overseas, who advocate fossil fuel reduction as though the full weight of science is behind them. But it's not. The IPCC's AR5 is full of how much uncertainty there is.

Fifth, The Australian has only recently given space to climate change sceptics, and it is a small paper in terms of circulation. The ABC and the Fairfax press simply support the orthodoxy, unquestioningly.

Finally, I think my position is much as it has been for half a century. I grew up in the country, first joined the Country Party, left it when I went overseas, and never re-joined or joined another party. I am sympathetic to the emotional core of both major parties, like so many other Australians, sceptical of most claims, and a meritocratic democrat, if that makes sense.

>”Only secondarily do [climate scientists] tend to involve themselves in prescriptions and then they do not necessarily canvas the whole range of possible actions.”
That statement is not correct. Do an objective, unbiased review of the mass of advocacy by the leading climate scientists and you will recognise how wrong that statement is. For example, begin with the ‘Father of AGW’, James Hansen. He is the great scaremonger, exaggerator and alarmist. He has been an activist and protester for 30 years. And his disciple, Al Gore, added and abetted by James Hansen at every stage, has done untold damage to climate science as a discipline, and the reputation of scientists by his advocacy and extremism. James Hansen, in his book “Storms of my Grandchildren” talks about the oceans evaporating like on planet Venus and calls coal trains “deaths trains”. Actually coal trains support: life, water supply, food supply, health, prosperity and improving standard of living. Hansen is one of many activists for a cause they believe in. There are many others. Look at the leading IPCC scientists involved in the “Hockey Stick” fiasco and the Climate-Gate emails window into what the climate scientist activists are doing. Look at this example of 13 articles written by Australia’s top and best known climate scientists published on the Conversation. Note the emotive, scaremongering nonsense put out by the top Australian climate scientists. https://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558 (scroll down to see the list of 13 articles and links to them).

The author talks about extreme weather events and he seems to believe that human’s GHG emissions are or will make them worse. But what evidence is there that man’s GHG emissions are effecting the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events? Even the IPCC AR5 has back pedalled on this claim. And there seems to be persuasive empirical evidence suggesting the climate is less volatile when warmer (see, for example, Figure 15:21 here: http://eprints.nuim.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf ). This shows rapid changes in temperatures that occurred in Ireland (and Greenland and Iceland) from 16,000 years ago to present (e.g. from ice age conditions to near current temperatures in 9 years and 7 years in two events, but many others too). It shows rapid, large magnitude changes occurred up to about 11,000 years ago but much more stable since (i.e. more stable in warmer times). The text and other figures show life thrives in warmer and warming times and struggles when colder and cooling (all shown in the paleo record in this chapter of the Geology of Ireland). This does not support the contention that extreme weather events are worse when the planet is warmer.

Making unsupported assertions about increasing extreme weather events and implying they are caused by human’s GHG emissions is unpersuasive without evidence attributing such events to increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere

[One of the links in my previous comment didn't show as hypertext, so I'll repost the relevant part of it and added to my explanation.]

>”Only secondarily do [climate scientists] tend to involve themselves in prescriptions and then they do not necessarily canvas the whole range of possible actions.”

This is assertion is not supported by the evidence (see more in previous comment). I suggest the author is seriously misunderstanding what is actually happening in the group-think and herd-mentality that is climate science and academia.

Note the activism and the use of emotive, scaremongering, exaggeration and alarmism by the leading Australian climate scientists: https://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558 (scroll down to see the list of 13 articles and links to them). Note also the 87 climate scientists, academics and other opinion leaders who endorsed this series of 13 articles: “Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community” https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808 .

When this series was posted on 'The Conversation' I was looking for credible, persuasive evidence and arguments about the impacts of AGW. They should have been contained in the article by Mike Sandiford: Part 4: “Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet”. But what I found was an emotional tirade that can be boiled down to damage by plastic bag litter and the author’s perceived evilness of humans.

>”Thus we do not increase our resilience. Opinion leaders need to ensure that they do not fall prey to carelessness in these matters.”
I agree with that statement. But that is not an arguments for mitigation of GHG emissions if the mitigation policies will damage the economy (of individual countries and of the world) for no measureable benefit, or low probability of achieving the claimed benefits (where benefits means climate damages avoided).

>”The conservative-leaning Murdoch empire, for example, has been persistent in its scepticism and in its negative appraisal of the world's attempts to rein in climate change via such mechanisms as 'cap and trade' systems.”
That demonstrates the author’s bias. The Murdoch Press is the only one of Australia’s main media outlets doing good investigative journalism and presenting all sides. The Left media outlets (e.g. ABC, Fairfax) are not. They are propaganda agents for the Leftist’s causes

>”And outlets like OLO, entirely legitimately in a free-speech environment, give much space to those who are not in sync or sympathy with the 97%.”
If the author has fallen for the “97%” nonsense, he is indeed gullible and clearly has not kept up with the critiques of that discredited ‘work’

Peter
To fix your links remove the s

https://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

Becomes
http://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

Personal I think the link is spot on. I have yet to see a credible scientific argument against AGW.

Jon J, contrary to your claims, Anthony Watts' blog is not a clearing house of all kinds of data. It is a clearing house of fake, manipulated, cherry picked and spurious data only.

As an example, I like this particular effort http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/noaa_upper_ocean_heat_content.png where Anthony Watts places a bent trend line in an effort to claim there had been no change in ocean heat. This is the sort of thing that Watts presents and it should be dismissed for the dross it is.

Ant
I am an ocean going sailor. My life depends on reading and predicting, often at long range, the weather. I studied not only meteorology but also the lives of the worlds greatert navigators and gained an understanding of the conditions they all faced.

Would you credit me with having an intimate understaning of weather and climate? If not why not?

Mostly my predictions of weather have been far more accurate and reliable than forecasts from the expert scientists at the bom. If I'd always relied on their science I would have often faced massive perils at sea. My reading, logic and experience tells me man made climate warming is a crock of s..t supported by experts who haven't one iota of the knowledge of the real and historic world conditions or limited to the experience of land locked firefighters.

I nearly chocked Peter, when you stated that the Australian presents objective investigative reporting. The Australian is nothing more than a public relations broadsheet for the LNP. There is a close relationship between Murdoch and IPA as well.
Many years ago it was probably a fair statement about the Australian proving investigative journalism. At present, enews papers are providing better informed articles, papers such as Crikey. Newspapers generally are being bypassed as better information can be found elsewhere.

The Conversation provides some excellent articles as well.
It was an important comment about how scientists will not say for 100% that something is happening, using gravity as an example. But climate scientists say that the evidence is as strong as the theory of gravity. New views come up in Geology as well with reverse continental drift which does not take away from the original theory.

Climate scientists are saying that anthropogenic climate change is causing huge aberrations in weather; they say that individual weather patterns cannot be seen to be evidence of climate change. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas; scientists tell us that the warm atmosphere picks up more moisture; under certain circumstances a deluge occurs.

Glaciologists are informing us about how permafrost is melting. Its a trend begun over a number of years. The proof is shallow lakes forming in permafrost areas, and shrubbery beginning to grow where it had been impeded by permafrost in the past.

The argument keeps cropping up about climate scientists committing fraud; can you name one who has committed fraud, Peter? Climategate and Mann are often mentioned, no charges have stuck yet.

Jon J, I’m afraid that Watt’s has no professional science qualifications.
Watts made an allegation that temperature measurement was poorly managed in the US. The sites Watts complained about were assessed and found to be giving reliable information. It’s been written about in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

In June this year Watts had communication in relation to the extent of sea ice in the Arctic area. Watts was pushing the view that extent is important, would not consider volume. A very clear indication of not allowing for information that goes against what he says, lack of objectivity. It so happens that sea ice is quite thin; ice thinning has been a process going on for some time. There is some variability in thickness and melt rate on a seasonal basis.

http://greatwhitecon.info/blog/

The author of the site belongs to another site where on a daily basis, weather is discussed showing weather maps, the state of ice is discussed, temperature is discussed, data from many buoys dispersed around the Arctic is discussed and data from satellites is published on a daily basis during the melt season

Imajulianutter
I have been a glider pilot for some 45 years. I rely heavily on the Bom to predict:-

Possible dangerous conditions
The wind speed and direction at various heights
The height of the thermals
The strength of the thermals
The start and finish time of thermals
The best locations
The cloud base (usually very accurate)
The temperature at various heights
The best days for record breaking flights

I am amazed by how far climate science has come in the last 50 years.

In my early days I used to take people out fishing on lakes in the west of Ireland. I can tell you relying on folklore for weather forecasts lead me to experiencing some very hairy conditions. 40 knot winds in a 17ft open wooden boat with 3 people on board and 102cc outboard motor is not a lot of fun.

imajulianutter, I have been involved in outdoor activities all my life. I rely on a barometre and forecasts from a number of sources. I haven't been caught out yet.

Climate change is about reviewing what has actually happened over a long time frame using measured data over decades. Trend lines are created which then give an indication of whether current data is still showing climate change. Data from many sources is used. We only get acquainted with a small amount of data available to climate scientists.
You say you know better than climate scientists; imajulianutter, you must have a bucket full of PhDs. As stated earlier scientists from different disciplines find data that compliments what climate scientists are coming up with.

Warmair,

<<I have been a glider pilot for some 45 years>>

Now that would make a really interesting thread!

As usual you both missed the point.

Why didn't you answer my question ant? Answering it would show your lack of consistency. As usual.

Warmair tell me were the climatic conditions for todays glider pilots the same as the climactic conditions for glider pilots in the times of James Cook in 1750, Drake in 1580 or the Portuguese of earlier times?

My knowledge of meteorology, weather and climate comes from books written by officers of the Royal Navy. A body of knowledge which stretches back over 600 years of experience.

Very few of the contributors to that body of knowledge, like me, had matriculated. I understand those with degrees are limited to and by the body of knowledge they are taught. I'm not at all limited. I can combine the experience and knowledge of anyone whether university educated or not. Unlike you I know university educated are not the repositories of all knowledge and I find most extremely narrowly focused and unable to think outside current orthodoxies.

I would expect our (Cooks et el and mine) experiences with weather and ocean conditions would be dramatically different, if climate change was underway, as you claim. You of course are completely ignorant of the conditions of the sea and the weather over this period of 600+ years.

The experiences of Cook et el are remarkable similar to the conditions I've encountered.

:)

imajulianutter, I can understand how you have acquired a good knowledge of weather patterns. But, climate is a different matter, I defy any older person to reconstruct what the weather was like 50+ years ago and then be able to reconstruct the seasonal changes and temperatures from then till now. Climate scientists use longer time frames.
All you can ever do is have a belief that anthropogenic climate change is not true. Scientists have truck loads of data which is not reflected in the papers they have written. If you have ever had to write reports, imajulianutter, you would realize that is the case in any field.

Like I have stated before the NCA paper released earlier this year was referenced by over 3,000 papers, it took many scientists to put it together; yet, its focus was only on the US.

Quote
A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
Unquote

Skeptical scientists, there are not that many of them have not written anything approximating the depth of the NCA document.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report#section-1947

Ant says, Skeptical scientists, there are not that many of them, but he forgets that 31,487 American scientists have signed the OISM petition, including 9,029 with PhDs, saying they don't accept the IPCC global warming garbage.

I guess that is not many in their strange world.

Answer my question ant.

Are the Oregon Petition. Signed by large numbers of vets, medical doctors, engineers and zombies. Charles A. Papacostas, PhD signed it after he had died.

What a complete joke.

You cannot because you will be revealed as inconsistent and flailing about looking for anyone to support your unsupported assertions about AGW.

That report you cite has no concrete data nor links to any concrete data to support its motherhood assertions.

Really you'd be great as a spruiker of the benefits of snake oil but little else

And ant define climate.

lolololol

when the warmist apologise for the failed predictions they have made over the last 40 years we will know that they have learn't something.

I'm glad that Naval personnel could measure the consistency of the atmosphere; imajulianutter, 600 years ago. Temperature was not measured until about 1880 in the US. I think you confuse weather with climate. Climate is the aggregate of weather that has been measured over many years. AS suggested before subjective attitudes to what is experienced weatherwise won't provide an analysis of what is happening climate wise.
About a week ago a Republican was suggesting that a school child with a thermometer could prove climate change wrong. Something that just defies logic.

imajulianutter, your sea captains of days of yore would not have been able to measure sea ice in the Arctic which has been thinning over a number of years. Also, they would not have been able to assess the continuing loss of multi year ice in the Arctic.

imajulianutter, if the same principle is used against your sailing abilities and allied knowledge as you use against climate scientists; then, we can conclude you know nothing. That is the principle that deniers are constantly stating.

It has been stated that the comments made by the NCA provides nothing but motherhood statements; if you notice the statements made are referenced. Meaning that what is written is somewhat like an iceberg, with statements at the top with the references providing the bulk of the evidence below.
Please provide a document provided by skeptical scientists that has over 3,000 references.

imajulianutter
“Warmair tell me were the climatic conditions for today’s glider pilots the same as the climactic conditions for glider pilots in the times of James Cook in 1750, Drake in 1580 or the Portuguese of earlier times?”

The simple answer is thermals were probably on average not as high by about 200 ft which is not the sort change that you would notice without extensive detailed data.

Clouds are caused by rising air which is what we glider pilots need to climb, and thus fly cross country. Knowledge of clouds types is very useful to both glider pilots and the sea going kind. The wind is crucial to all aspects of gliding particularly in relation to landing and takeoffs. It also provides lift when it is deflected upwards by obstacles such as cliffs, mountains and even different air masses. Gliding is only sailing but in 3 dimensions.

“My knowledge of meteorology, weather and climate comes from books written by officers of the Royal Navy. A body of knowledge which stretches back over 600 years of experience.”

My first introduction to meteorology came from the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship; I also did some sailing off the west coast of Ireland in open boats.
See Clew Bay
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o5lMCltAmxs/TkAKCl7IQpI/AAAAAAAAGoo/kiIJrViqM08/s1600/clewbay.jpg

I am a big fan of observation and this is just what the great sea captains of old did, the ships log of the old sea captains were precisely that. Observations on their own are very useful, but when combined with theory become infinitely more useful. In the days of sail the sea captains usually started as midshipmen and were generally given a pretty good education for the times. Captain Cook was very well educated despite his humble beginnings.

Conditions at sea have changed in recent times, this is not the sort of change you would pick up on with out studying the data from many sources.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/wilder-winds-less-rain-as-roaring-forties-become-furious-fifties-20140511-zr9b1.htm

imajulianutter, you may be interested in this film clip which provides some fairly new ideas about weather patterns and the influence of the Arctic on those weather patterns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RtRvcXUIyZg

Thank you both ant and warmair for providing the evidence to back my case, that observations of climate conditions today are remarkable similar to those of upto 600 years ago.

Thanks for you belief. You should both sit down and reflect on how this conversation has arrived at this juncture.

Lolo you two are remarkably simple.

You have a sense of humour; imajulianutter, I guess the knowledge of Captains of yore would have had astronomical knowledge of jet streams.

Brisbane records coldest morning in 103 years.

Brisbane has recorded its coldest morning in 103 years, with low temperatures also being felt across the rest of Queensland.
The weather bureau says the state's capital dropped to 2.6 degrees Celsius just before 7:00am (AEST) on Saturday.
Bureau spokeswoman Michelle Berry said it has been exceptionally cold and temperatures are still dropping.
"[It's been] the coldest morning since 1911, so it's quite a record there," she said.
Clermont in central Queensland had record-low temperatures on Friday, but broke records again on Saturday morning with the temperature dropping down to -4.5C.
Five coldest cities in Queensland
1. Oakey: -6.1
2. Warwick: -5.9
3. Kingaroy: -5.7
4. Applethorpe: -5.4
5. Dalby: -5.0
Blackall recorded lows of -2.0C, Roma saw temperatures of -6.6C, and Oakey was down to -6.1C.
Further south in the state, Kingaroy reached -5.7C, Dalby dropped to -5.0C, Applethorpe was -5.4C, and Warwick recorded -5.9C.
Ms Berry said dry and clear conditions, as well as light winds, have caused temperatures to plummet but said mornings should start to warm up next week.
"I would keep the doonas at the ready in the morning," she said.
"I don't think we'll see temperatures drop as much as we saw [on Saturday] morning but we will see temperatures well and truly below their July averages.
"But then we'll actually see a change in air mass and with that increasing cloud we'll see those minimum temperatures on the rise."
In New South Wales, Glen Innes has recorded temperatures of -11.3C, while Thredbo recorded a low of -4.1C.
Victoria's Mount Baw Baw saw temperatures drop to -3.6C.

A spokesman from Greenpeace, Lotti Moanmore, announced, that "this is yet another indisputable example of the existence of Global Warming."

Lego, don't confuse weather with climate. For June record temperatures were recorded for Australia but unless they are weighed up against long term trend lines, no conclusions can be drawn. There will always be natural variations.
Climate is measured over decades of data providing trend lines.
In the Arctic where change is happening more rapidly than anywhere else the loss of multi year ice is noted and the thickness of ice is thinning. That statement is derived from satellite data and buoys in situ. Its impossible to argue to the contrary in relation to that. Sea ice is measured on a daily basis.
Just hope that the imminently likely el nino pattern that will have an impact on climate is a low scale one. Should the el nino be a major event it will cause drought in Australia and have a major impact on sea ice in the Arctic causing further negative events.

Please ant

'Captains of yore would have had astronomical knowledge of jet streams.'

They did not need to ant. Nor do climate scientists of today. If you understood weather you would know jets streams, an imprecise and scientific term used in study of the atmosphere, and I presume you meant stratosphere and where the jets mostly fly, are outside of the troposphere where all weather occurs.

Now Ant as you said here earlier, that climate was the aggregate of weather... well I guess you now see how you have again demonstrated how very silly and shallow is your knowledge of both weather and climate. You really should leave discussion of weather and climate to those who, like those sea captains of yore, really do understand how and where weather and climate occur.

Ahhh ant yesterday was the coldest day in Queensland for over 100 years ... and today is colder.

And ant June was the coldest June on record.

Dear nutter,

You back spouting rubbish yet again?

What on earth is this?

“And ant June was the coldest June on record.”

No it wasn't, not even close, stop pulling figures out of your nether regions.

Here is the graphic for temperature anomalies for Queensland for June 2014;

http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/maxanom/month/colour/history/qd/2014060120140630.gif

And here is the BOM report on Brisbane for the same period;

“All Brisbane metropolitan sites had above average mean maximum and minimum temperature for June, with most metropolitan sites around 1 °C above the long term  average. Brisbane city recorded its equal warmest mean maximum temperature on record. The first half of the month saw warmer-than-average days and nights, followed by a cold spell during the last week of the month, with the coldest overnight temperatures occurring between the 27th and 30th. The lowest overnight temperature in the metropolitan area was recorded at Amberley on the 27th with -2.1 °C. Brisbane recorded its lowest overnight temperature for 2014 so far on the 30th, with 5.2  °C.”

This bears repeating;

“Brisbane city recorded its equal warmest mean maximum temperature on record.”

But to give you credit I did get a chuckle out of “A spokesman from Greenpeace, Lotti Moanmore, announced, that "this is yet another indisputable example of the existence of Global Warming."

Consider yourself good for a laugh.

imajulianutter stated "... Nor do climate scientists of today. If you understood weather you would know jets streams, an imprecise and scientific term used in study of the atmosphere ...."
In other words atmospheric scientists should not study what's going on in the atmosphere.
Jet streams appear to have a high impact on the weather in the Northern Hemisphere; the Polar Vortex bears much further study.

Ant reread my posts, or do a few exercises in comprehension. I said nothing of the sort.

Sigh you are becoming tiresome with your ineptitude.

Steelee I'm coming to you.

ahhhh steelee sucked in again.

Where did I state any geographic region?

http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/

Read this link. It is only short and in simple language so you will understand what it says but I doubt you can possibly understand the significance of the temp trends in the region that exerts the most influence on global climate.

Now that and this steelee really is abuse and much more complex and intellectual than crudely saying, in a simpleton manner, someone is spouting rubbish.

lol

https://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meteofrance.fr%2Fweb%2Fcomprendre-la-meteo%2Factualites%3FarticleId%3D8990197

That steelee is a translation of the French site. and 9n he unlikely event you have foreign language skills, like me, here is the original site in French

http://www.meteofrance.fr/web/comprendre-la-meteo/actualites?articleId=8990197

I'm also seeking the official source from the French Antarctic station. It is only time but I will find it not just for you but for all the stupid cooling denialists.

You really have to wonder why such a report isn't headlined around the world as it is of momentous significance. But then again our media all seem to be cooling denialists anyway.

Dear nutter,

Lol.

Okay mate, let me ask you directly - to what were you referrring when you said “And ant June was the coldest June on record.”?

Dear steelee
thank you for bringing some more mirth into my life.

In your latest post are you showing your usual inability to comprehend or is this just another example of the state of your denial?

I'll repeat for you, since you need repetition to gain even a modicum of understanding.

'Where did I state any geographic region?'

Here

'http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/
Read this link. It is only short and in simple language so you will understand what it says but I doubt you can possibly understand the significance of the temp trends in the region that exerts the most influence on global climate.'

Now steelee I know you find difficulties with historical accuracy but these stats are historically accurate and steelee, unlike you, I do use a realistic methodology when researching and supplying information.

In case you doubt my statement wasn't deliberately vague well mate, as always, you are lurking about and hoping to trip me up so naturally I played my little trick on you and it worked.

You, ant and warmair always pop up together. That has been occurring for months. Jeez steelee you are so bloody predictable.

And you think you can laugh

http://www.meteofrance.fr/web/comprendre-la-meteo/actualites?articleId=8990197

My first thought on seeing this link was it was a joke why because of this statement

Enfin on a enregistré un excédent d'insolation de 60% (11,8 heures contre 7,4 en moyenne**).

Which translates to :-
Finally, a 60% excess of insolation was recorded (11.8 hours versus the average of 7.4).

On further investigation it appears the link is valid and the data is consistent with that from BOM.

http://134.178.63.141/products/IDT60803/IDT60803.89642.shtml

Now the location is on the edge of the Antarctic Circle which means that the average daylight hours for the location in June are around 2 ½ hours per day. So it is obvious that there was not an extra 4hr 24 mins hours of sunshine per day in June. So we they must be referring to the whole month. Based on that conclusion we can be confident that the sky was clear some 3% more than usual which translates to 170 hrs of night time clear skys for the month. I don’t have to explain that clear skys produce much lower temperature do I?

One location which has anomalous temperatures for a month proves nothing so what did happen globally for June 2014.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/nasa-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-062c.html

So I think we can safely say your post as quoted below is wrong

And ant June was the coldest June on record.
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 13 July 2014 2:23:08 PM

warmair, no matter what is stated that is factually correct; imajulianutter, is going to take the complete opposite tack.

Miami is being hit by sea level rise displayed by a king tide and wind pushing the fetch landward. Something that hadn't been a problem in the past. Its matters like those that deniers find difficult; and then, they become abusive.

Dear nutter,

It isn't a trick question mate so why are you so reluctant to answer it yourself? Posting links that you can worm out of will not cut it so how about a straight answer directly from you to my query;

To what were you referring when you said “And ant June was the coldest June on record.”?

Out with it son, you can do it!

steelee can't you read?

Ant
I am beginning to feel sorry for Imajulianutter people keep on picking on him by bombarding him with the real facts.

While I am well aware that I am unlikely to change the minds of those people who dispute climate change, my motives for discussing the subject are driven mostly by an effort to counter the misinformation that is pumped out by dubious sources. I also find it interesting to follow the claims made by those sources; I nearly always learn something during the process of searching out the real facts. It is very rare that I find a claim made by these people is actually correct.

Anyway all the best to you in your efforts to support science over spin.

yeah yeah whatever warmie. Mate I've come up with a moniker for you.

It is earned akin to how Witless earned Witless.

Your BOM site reference shows temps from 13 - 15 July so how does that confirm the French data from June?

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/nasa-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-062c.html

You see this article, your referenced article, carries the following confirmation of cooling.

'However, latest data suggests that the El Nino has been delayed, may not be as strong as first expected and that sub-sea temperatures in the Pacific may be cooling.'

What despite all that stored heat generating co2?
Well I never!

“June 2014 might have been the fourth warmest June in the 36-year satellite record, but recent changes in the tropical Pacific might indicate the globe isn’t going to set any temperature records in upcoming months,”'

Which is exactly what you would expect if the Antarctic cooled dramatically. Study the ocean currents supplying the tropical Pacific. They carry the cool Antarctic water into the tropical pacific.

And the BOM is actually forecasting a wet Winter in Aus due to a weak El Nino, instead of the continuing drought they expected. How did they get that so wrong? Unrealistic expectations of warming I reckon what do you think. And all expert scientists with loads of degrees, Phds and all the expertise in the world.

To supply me with such a confirmation of global coolingreally is proof of absolute witlessness. This is how Witless gained his moniker and from the same playbook ant used. Didn't you even read your referenced site?

ant you're better off away studying further 'polar vortex bears' riding on 'jet streams'. Aptly that sounds like you are away trying seriously to play with the Queen of Hearts.

cheers chappies. Thanks for the mirth.

Lol.

Dear nutter,

Come on mate grow a spine. Please tell us in your own words what you were referring to when you said “June was the coldest June on record.”.

Again, this isn't a difficult ask but your reluctance to give a direct answer this innocuous question is fascinating. Do you need a whiskey first?

You seem to be taking the view that to do so would be a concession. Nothing could be further from reality. You made the call, I interpreted it as meaning something, you chastised me for that interpretation then offered up an Alex Jones link in response. All I'm after is for you to set the record straight in your own words. How about it?

What ever Witless.

Your usual simple strategies of digression into irrelevance won't wash with me. You shadow box on heroically confronting your own silliness and you haven't realised my wit yet witless?

Read my last post again, I'm tiring of your needy repetitions, and read also the referenced links of Absolute Witless to see just how your global warming is proceeding.

yawn this is now boring.

Alex Jones, imajulianutter? You will be turning into Arjay next.

Yet again mistaking weather for climate.

Dear Nutter,

Awww come on mate don't go all sulky on us. Okay I will make this easy for you, are you claiming that Antarctica experienced the coldest June on record or was it just that particular French station? If it is the latter then the use of the term “Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded” from Jones is obviously a crock especially considering some areas of the continent experienced above average temperatures.

Argo
Any worse than Chris Tunney and the other warming nutjobs?

Really if anyone here understands weather and climate and the effects of Antarctic and cold currents on both weather, surface temps and climate ... well that would be me.

Ahh run away from your silliness about geography
Now you are onto another irrelevance about extent and credibility of official stats.

Really witless this is stupid in the extreme.
I see I need to repeat myself for you. Your strategy of diversion does not wash with me. It makes me smile as it indicates you are clutching at straws while you are drowning in colder waters.