The Sydney to the blue mountains roads cut by snow, --- In spring for gods sake.

Yes, Hasbeen....and fancy all those climate scientists feeding us a crock that global warming would lead an increase in climate disruption and the frequency of unusual and extreme weather events.

Lol! ...but you obviously have "the Maths" and a simplistic understanding that "snow" = "Global cooling".

Yes, and here we are in the west with the equally unseasonable 35 degrees in Perth yesterday.
I know where I would rather be :),

I am waiting for the first fool to attribute ebola to climate change. How are the dams in Sydney now? Are the true believers still funding Flannery and his mob or has the ever increasing amount of heretics putting strain on keeping this religion alive. Seems like the feminist/progressives still need this 'faith 'to be genuine. Give up guys I know it must be embarassing that you had swallowed yet another fraud.

Global cooling anybody!

First we had global warming, then that was changed to climate change. What's next, climate fluctuations perhaps!

What a scam! At least we now have a leader who can see right through it. Nothing more than a money making machine.

yep Susie must have been alot of emissions back in October 1967 in Perth 37.3 29/10/1967.
btw what is temperature today. Oh thats right the heat is now hidden (literally) in the sea. Time you ladies gave it away.

Rehctub, I doubt anyone does not believe our climate will and does change?
The real question is whether us humans have anything to do with causing the climate to change.

Runner, just wondering if you can ever actually write a post without using the words 'progressives", "feminists" or "dogma"? Lol!

Those damn godless, immodest, feminists are out there affecting the climate as we speak...
Bad, bad girls!

On the one hand ... highly changeable weather is typical of Spring. Living in Canberra eons ago, I remember how the first blossoms were quickly followed by hail.

On the other... highly variable weather is to be expected with global warming - more heat equals more energy in the system means more fluctuations in the atmosphere. So the spring changeability would be accentuated.

Maybe some of the 'missing' heat is going into kinetic energy.

Re unseasonable weather - on a day bushwalk, Kosciusko area in the 1970s, got caught by a serious snowstorm and had to take refuge in a hut for a couple of days. The date? 26 December.

Unseasonability, thy name is weather.

'
Runner, just wondering if you can ever actually write a post without using the words 'progressives", "feminists" or "dogma"? '

good of you to avoid the stupidity of your original post Susie. I will give away the words 'progressives", "feminists" or "dogma" when the abc and its luvvies stop promoting its hopelessy flawed logic.

Yep that's the latest one Poirot climate disruption, having failed with Global Warming, & climate change.

Some simple people or come men actually believe it too.

Funny that Runner, I never knew that climate change was actually a feminist ideal?
In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority of scientists around the world who have worked on the climate change issue are probably male.

Runner if you don't believe the climate is changing, then that is good enough for me to totally believe that it is man-made.
As I don't believe in invisible beings in the sky, then obviously no God is responsible....

By the way Runner, how do you know what the dreaded feminist-run ABC show on their programs if you don't watch it?

Do they all discuss climate change all the time?
I watch the ABC most nights and have never seen anything on climate change for ages.

There are surely too many feminists dressed immodestly on the ABC for you to watch it without getting very upset?

<<I will give away the words 'progressives", "feminists" or "dogma" when the abc and its luvvies stop promoting its hopelessy flawed logic.>>

and this is from one who believes in the "Sky God", some old fart in an ark, and the good folk who lived in a garden. Runner, still believes the Earth is flat, cause if you don't, you are a blasphemer and a heretic, and the Sky God will make you burn in hell. Science can't be right, cause it all contradicts the bible.

Paul1405

your ignorance knows no bounds

Oh dear. Someone has confused weather with climate again.

That's right Agronomist some want to cloud the issue by trying to confuse weather with climate. There are those like runner who when confronted by the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change retreat into a fantasy world of denial. Then trying to heap scorn on those who embrace the science, makes a ridiculous assertion that in someway such people might try and link the ebola outbreak to climate change. Runner in your case, ignorance is certainly bliss.
Susie posed the question; I doubt anyone does not believe our climate will and does change? The religious fundamentalists will tell you there has been no such thing as climate change since the Sky God created the earth 6742 years ago.

I don't claim to be a scientist that has worked on finding the evidence that seems to show that mankind's activity's are causing changes in out climate. However I do have the common sense to note that when scientists point out their concerns they explain why they are concerned while their detractors only seem to come out with one liners that while they surely must seem witty t them realty adds nothing to the argument.The biggest one being that all of these scientists have gotten together in some overarching organization that makes fortunes from coming up with cures to global warming. The real money however is controlled by the very company's that produce pollution which i turns detracts from the quality of everyone's lives global warming or not.

'The religious fundamentalists will tell you there has been no such thing as climate change since the Sky God created the earth 6742 years ago.'

actually Paul what anyone who can think will tell youis that people with puny brains like your own are incapable of logic let alone have the power to change the climate.

Actually, runner, it's not the size of the brains that causes the problem, but the sheer numbers of people on earth, and the compounding effect of their activities. Even when there were a lot less humans, they changed the environment: felling forests, replacing complex ecosystems with monocultures, and in the process wiping out species.

All those vast deposits of coal and oil built up over tens of millions of years of forests growing, trees falling into swamps and fossilising, more forests, more trees, more trees, more forests etc. Time and pressure led to all that organic matter turning in to oil and coal.

Imagine there were no people on earth. Then imagine some natural process (an unusually fast shift in continents etc.) exposed all the coal and oil so that it burnt in a geological instance (which is what 100 odd years is). 20 million or so years deposits - burns in 100 or so years. How would that not impact on the world's atmosphere, and so on the climate?

Humans are in effect that natural process - by burning all that coal and oil in a mere 100 odd so years we've done what no geological process had managed in the past 50 million or so.

Humans with puny brains didn't set out to change the climate. It was the end result of wanting to keep warm, eat pizzas and make a few useful tools (cars, planes, trains etc.). Just like one puny brained termite doesn't set out to destroy your house - but six billion termites - and six billion humans - can do a lot of damage.

'Humans are in effect that natural process - by burning all that coal and oil in a mere 100 odd so years we've done what no geological process had managed in the past 50 million or so. '

certainly fits your world view Cossomby. Just don't insult anyone's intelligence by calling it scientific.

Runner, so I take it you are not in agreement with some of the religious ratbags who believe in "creationism" which through literal interpretation of the bible puts the age of the Earth at 6742 years. Now those good folk defiantly do not have putty brains, they have no brains what so ever. If you are at odds with the creationists and do not believe in the magic number 6742, then how old is the Earth. I believe it is about 4.5 billion years, what's your number? Why I ask is if science is correct on such a basic thing as the age of the planet, why not accept they are also correct on climate change. I'll take science over nonsense any day.

"certainly fits your world view Cossomby. Just don't insult anyone's intelligence by calling it scientific."

runner, you insult our intelligence every day you post on this forum.

If you're not insulting the person you're addressing, then you're dismissing or mangling any scientific consensus that don't match your religious-political stance.

You don't speak from "knowledge" (or even the desire to seek out information on that which you know nothing about, but on which you pontificate)..you speak from "belief" - and an ability to shut your mind and not even contemplate anything which does not match your particular version of faith.

If I was you, I wouldn't lecture other people about what's scientific and what's not.....your mind appears to be akin to a canary in a cage, who upon noting that someone has left the cage door open, prefers to cringe inside and not to take flight to the real world.

The former Environment Secretary attacked a so-called ‘green blob’ at the heart of Government yesterday – accusing Whitehall officials and ministers of raising energy prices for the poor. Owen Paterson said their support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive. He said the ‘green blob’ included civil servants and quangos in thrall to the climate change and environmental lobby. Speaking to the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank, Mr Paterson claimed the effects of climate change had been ‘consistently and widely exaggerated’, and policies to encourage onshore wind farms will cost £1.3trillion by 2050. --Daniel Martin, Daily Mail, 16 October 2014

spindoc,

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/18/owen-paterson-lecture-nigel-lawsons-climate-sceptic-thinktank

"Former environment secretary Owen Paterson is to give the annual lecture for the UK’s most prominent climate sceptic group, the Global Policy Warming Foundation.

Paterson, who slashed funding for adapting to climate change impacts in the UK, agreed to give the lecture just days after leaving office.

The GWPF is led by Lord Nigel Lawson and the annual lecture has been given by high-profile climate sceptics, including in 2013 former Australian prime minister John Howard, who described those urging action on climate change as “alarmists” and “zealots” for whom “the cause has become a substitute religion”."

So another denier is dragged out to address the GWPF - Wow!...Earth-shattering!

You really want the truth about gas pricing - in Australia?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/the-gas-clubs-deals-like-their-product-are-not-to-be-seen-20141016-11726r.html

"Australia will soon be the largest exporter of gas in the world. We are bathing in the stuff. Still, beleaguered consumers are forking out wholesale gas prices of about $7-$8 a gigajoule. The second largest exporter is Qatar where the locals pay $1-$2 a gigajoule."

"The situation seems to enjoy all the requisite qualities of a cartel: a small number of companies controlling production and marketing and which appear to avoid competing with each other."

"In Australia, we are not paying world 'prices' for gas, we are paying a substantial premium," says energy analyst Bruce Robertson."

Care to tell us how much in subsidies is paid to fossil fuel companies?

Runner: Re your comment: "certainly fits your world view Cossomby. Just don't insult anyone's intelligence by calling it scientific."

The key characteristics of science are use of factual evidence and testability.

Your previous comment seemed to be based on the argument that humans do not have the 'power to change the climate'.

So, I reword my comment as a testable hypothesis: would the amount of fossil fuels extracted and burnt over the last 150 years have an effect on the world's climate regardless of the agency of the extraction and burning?

1. How much fossil fuels have been extracted and burnt over the last 150 years?
This is quantifiable through the historic records of the oil and coal industries.
2. Are there known scientific mechanisms by which the burning of fossil fuels can affect the climate?
Yes, much research done on this.
3. Given (2), is the amount of fossil fuel burnt over the last 150 years enough to register an effect on world climate?
This is quantifiable.
4. If the amount of fossil fuels extracted by humans had been extracted and burnt by non-human agency over the same very short time span (150yrs), would the same mechanism apply and would there be an effect on climate?
Yes, because the actual agency of the burning is not the issue, it's the amount of burning, the time frame, and the mechanism.

Climate deniers seem to get hung-up on the issues 'puny humans don't have the power to change the climate'. My hypothesis above is testable: if you had a non-human agency extract and burn the same amount of fossil fuel in the same time period would this have an impact on the world climate?

Seems a scientific approach to me

Of course, the agency of burning fossil fuels is important because that agency is us, the effect of our burning fossil fuels affects us, and puny though our brains may be, we can think of actions that would minimise the negative effects (it's probably too late to stop them).

British householders are facing soaring energy bills and winter power cuts thanks to the “folly” of relying on wind power, experts said last night. The green crusade of successive governments is set to double electricity bills for households and cost homes £26billion a year by 2030, it was claimed yesterday. The cost of renewable energy and carbon taxes will put an extra £983 a year on household bills by then, compared to relying on a mix of nuclear and new gas-fired power stations, three experts told a Lords committee. Last night Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Forum said: “The irony is that energy prices around the world are falling, particularly for oil and gas. But households are not profiting because Government policies are making energy more expensive.” --John Ingham, Daily Express, 15 October 2014

Agronomist, "Oh dear. Someone has confused weather with climate again."

It is almost unbelievable that someone like you, a rabid warmist, who with your mates is given to claiming that things like bushfires, Hurricanes Katrina & Sandy are examples of global warming at work, can make such a post.

Have you no shame?

Absolutely, Hasbeen!

Considering snow in Spring "proves" global warming is a scam....or something to that effect, eh?

From the IPCC AR5, WG1 report;

“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”

“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

Hasbeen, you are such a predictably pathetic chump.

I haven't ever claimed bushfires or hurricanes are caused by global warming. That is a just a pathetic straw man argument on your part.

My argument has always been of the following form:

1. Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

2. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

3. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has an isotope signal that indicates it is the result of burning fossil fuels by humans http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD089iD07p11731/abstract

4. The Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 C in the last century http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Therefore, there is a high probability that the burning of fossil fuels by humans has resulted in a warmer Earth and continued burning of fossil fuels will warm the Earth even more.

Agro,

1. Agreed
2. Well, has increased in the last 18 years but no warming has been produced for 18 years so no link with human emitted CO2 which in any event is only a tiny fraction of natural CO2.
3. How can you suggest that a CO2 isotope as a signal represents only human emissions?
4. With the exception of the last 18 years!

Therefore there cannot be a high probability of anything. Unless you wish to be considered a pathetic chump.

Agro,

At what rate did the earths temperature increase in the previous century old mate. Just a little more than that I think you'll find, but that must have all those SUVs & coal fired power houses mustn't it? It surely couldn't have been the response to the end of the little ice age.

You know that strange time, when they has fairs on the iced over Thames. Some silly people said that was due to a lack of sunspots, just like is developing now, but we know it was lack of CO2 don't we? Just as well we humans are here to free a bit of the stuff, from where the planet has been locking it away for eons, or all the flora would die off. I expected an agronomist to know about these things.

So sorry mate, there is just too much evidence for any thinking person to still believe in the fraud, unless they have a strong reason to avert their eyes & attention from that evidence.

“Agro,

At what rate did the earths temperature increase in the previous century old mate. Just a little more than that I think you'll find, but that must have all those SUVs & coal fired power houses mustn't it? It surely couldn't have been the response to the end of the little ice age.”

Well Hasbeen, Roy Spencer’s reconstruction has a difference between 1800 and 1900 of about 0.0 C +/- 0.1 C. http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2009/12/the_case_for_global_warming_is_in_serious_doubt_6102000384.gif

I guess in the Hasbeen universe, 0 is more than 1. Who would have guessed?

In contrast, I see spindoc goes for the argument from ignorance.

Surface temperatures have increased over the last 18 years, just not by as much as the previous 18 years. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996.5/trend

It is quite simple to determine the source of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. The isotopic make up of carbon in coal is different to carbon in the biosphere, atmosphere or oceans. This is the result of one isotope of carbon being radioactive (amongst other differences).

Agro,

It's great to see you argue with a railway engineer at the IPCC! Next you will be telling us that the pause in global warming is somehow equivalent to the increase in CO2 emissions increase? So temperatures have increased? But by less than CO2 emissions, go figure.

If your science had any merit the IPCC would agree with you, unfortunately they do not, so where does that leave you?

If the isotope that identifies human emissions was relevant it would reflect the proportional increase in warming but, oops, it doesn't. So no link between CO2 increases and warming. I'm sure you will have lots of exotic links to explain this?

Deep oceanic storeage of the missing heat perhaps? Penguins extra body heat, dead polar bear rotting carcasses, rising sea levels inundating warm sandy beaches, 84,000 sq kms of extra arctic ice eating your missing heat?

Hey ho, your explanation much anticipated.

Yet another collection of uniformed rants by idiots who can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

Global warming doesn't mean that everything stays the same but just a little bit warmer - it means more extreme weather variations.

Like snow in Spring for example.

The SBS program the other night on the recent extremely cold winters in the UK gave an example of the way in which warming can result in colder weather. The colder winters were due to movement of cold arctic air masses south over Europe and the UK. This was due to a slowing down of the northern jet stream, which caused big meanders in its route (rather than a fast straight path). A meander south over the UK dragged colder air further south.

So why did the jet stream slow? Two possible reasons(probably inter-related):
1) The warming of the arctic (clearly evidenced by recent extreme melting of arctic ice) means that the temperature gradient from the North Pole to Equator is less and since the temperature gradient is what gives energy to the jet stream, a decreased gradient means a slower jet stream means more meanders in the jet stream means colder air pulled further south within meanders.

2) Excessive rain in Indonesia (ie the equatorial island complex) which affects the circum-Pacific air flow which affects the northern jet stream etc.

This is an example of how 'climate' (long-term pattern) and 'weather' (short-term events) can be related. The slowing down of the jet stream is a result of increased arctic warming, but the resulting meanders will be randomly placed year to year - one might form over the UK bringing an exceptional cold winter this year, but affect somewhere else (or nowhere else) next year.

Re the statement ' no warming since 1998'..

I've always been dubious of a single figure for temperature for the whole world. Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time to make a hugely complex situation easy for people and politicians to understand.

But it is based on averaging records from extremely different local situations and is dependent on adequate coverage of weather stations, and consistency of recording between stations both now and in the past. The recent furore about the ABM rejigging past records demonstrates the difficulties.

But consider the example of the extreme cold winters in the UK and Europe. I bet there are a lot more weather stations there than say, central Africa. We didn't hear much about what was happening in Central Africa when it was snowing in Britain. Was it a bit warmer there than previously (and how long are the weather records there)? Did those records cancel out the colder records from Europe for that period so the average world temperature was stable? Even though the colder weather in Europe can be attributed to warming in the arctic?

I conclude that debates back and forth about warming/no warming at a global level since 1998 are a waste of time. The atmospheric system is so complex that the effects of added CO2 are unlikely to be characterised by a single figure. In any case the world doesn't work on nice neat trend lines. What's more likely is stepped change - where one steady state jumps suddenly to another. So a run of (apparent) little warming may be followed by a jump to a new plateau.

'morning wobbles and Cossomby,

Since you have not read or understood the five extracts I posted from the IPCC AR5 WG 1 report, I again refer you to this report above.

You will note that the IPCC in each and every statement, disagrees with you on severe weather issues.

That leaves you in the unenviable position of being at odds with the IPCC. You could write to them to complain or seek a position on the WG 1. Alternatively you could accept that the story they once gave you has now been acknowledged as wrong and that you have been ditched by the IPCC.

If you want to be the ones telling the IPCC that they are bastards for giving you the bum steer in the first place, be my guest.

Please share any responses you get with OLO?

Spindoc: your quotes from the IPCC were about cyclones and droughts.

The SBS program I quoted dealt with neither of those but with observed changes in the route of the jet stream, from a straight trajectory to a meandering one, which brought polar air further south in the large meanders. There is a direct and observable physical cause of the meanders, a decrease in the temperature gradient from the pole to the equator.

The IPCC may be correct in the lack of a correlation between more intense cyclones and global warming - so far.

My comments on the issue of a single figure for world temperature are all my own work (based on a background in stats.)

I have endeavoured to avoid the emotion involved in both pro- and anti- global warming camps (which you demonstrate) and just consider some aspects that I can analyse myself.

Even with a couple of degrees in science, it's impossible to take on board all the evidence and arguments without doing a huge amount of reading, and indeed research, but I do recognise just how immensely complicated the research is.

I guess it would be easier to be a layperson and just cherry-pick items to support pre-conceived views, either pro- or ante-.

I'm currently open-minded but there do seem to be a couple of evidence based events that are occurring - the warming of the arctic polar region, and the general decline of glaciers. (and yes, it is quite possible to have a warmer Arctic and increased Antarctic sea ice - but I don't need to explain that, there's plenty of info on line).