Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Herald Shafts Warmists

Without realising it, today's Herald has cut the ground from the inevitable bullshit we'll hear about cyclone Yasi being caused by Global Warming or Sarah Palin or Dubbya.

Have a good look at the openers here:-

Cyclone Yasi is building as a storm of unprecedented ferocity - the likes of which hasn't been seen since 1918.


Update:

Well, that didn't take long. Right on cue, just for RobertGuyton:-

Scientists say there is a likely climate change link to the current La Nina through higher sea surface temperatures. The world's oceans and atmosphere have steadily warmed over recent decades and that warmth could be providing monsoons and storms with an extra kick.

A major global study in 2010, based on complex computer modeling, found that tropical cyclones will become stronger, with the intensity increasing between 2 and 11 percent by 2100.

'Steadily warmed,' eh? Just ignore the hard evidence of pronounced global COOLING since 1999.

Note the absence of serious evidence. Just unnamed 'scientists' with computer models.

Not again? Surely not?

20 comments:

robertguyton said...

Crikey!
There's been a huge cyclone before!
THAT PROVES THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING!!
You just can't argue with that!
Pure logic.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Don't worry Robert No doubt they/you'll try.

Anonymous said...

To refer to an event less than 100 years ago and use it in isolation as an indicator of global changes because of us would be pretty unscientific. Lets wait for the IPCC to do it then.

gravedodger said...

Of course before a written record was available the climate of North Queensland was a benign sub-tropical paradise with no TV or Radio so who knew and most of the original inhabitants would have gone walkabout long before the cyclone season.

Whaleoil said...

I like the Unprecedented" bit...then they go on to tell us that it is in fact precedented...in 1918.

Anonymous said...

"the inevitable bullshit we'll hear about cyclone Yasi being caused by Global Warming"

Except that the scientists, and those that get the science, will once again emphasize that no single weather event can be attributed to AGW. The "inevitable bullshit" is your own charge that they'll make the claim you attribute to them.

Andrew W

Gooner said...

Robert, no it proves what many millions of people have been saying for donkeys years. There is global warming. There always has been global warming. There was probably global warming in 1918. And there is global warming now. In 100 years time there will also be global warming. It's a natural phenomenon.

Psycho Milt said...

Except that the scientists, and those that get the science, will once again emphasize that no single weather event can be attributed to AGW.

Yeah, but if some journo or commentator/politician/blogger/asshole overheard down the pub were to attribute a single weather event to AGW, that would just go to show how venal, corrupt, ridiculous and just plain wrong those scientists are. It's only logical, after all.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Well spotted Whale.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

According to the Met Bureau, the system is expected to cross the coast close to Innisfail at about 0200 NZ time.

Gooner said...

Scientists say there is a likely climate change link to the current La Nina through higher sea surface temperatures.

How likely is this link?

The world's oceans and atmosphere have steadily warmed over recent decades and that warmth could be providing monsoons and storms with an extra kick.

Could be?

A major global study in 2010, based on complex computer modeling, found that tropical cyclones will become stronger, with the intensity increasing between 2 and 11 percent by 2100.

2100!

Flee, flee for your lives. In ninety years it is likely that there could be more intense cyclones.

Fuck it. Just tax everyone. That's always worked.

Anonymous said...

"those that get the science"
Well thats obviously not you Andrew.
Newsflash for you. The feedbacks ARENT positive.

Guyton, sure there is global warming. About .7 degrees per century. But radiative forcing is not occurring to cause the predicted extra 2-4 degrees of warming. You know, the extra warming which will melt the ice-supposedly.
Thats the part you miss saying, rather deceptively or you probably dont understand the science either.

Adolf is right, (UAH) Global temps have dropped and so has Sea temps (argos/Jason/Topex).
And dont quote me GISS or NOAA figures back either. That will just endorse my view you are both ignorant fools.

Speaking of fools, check out Joe Romm.What an idiot
http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/14/abc-news-australia-floods-extreme-weather-global-warming-climate-change/

Rich Prick said...

Can anyone explain how this could have happened? Afterall, we have an ETS which is supposed to stop this sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

"The feedbacks ARENT positive."

The biggest feedback, water vapour, is certainly positive.

"sure there is global warming. About .7 degrees per century."

Over the period 1906-2005 warming there was about 0.74C warming, over the last 50 years though the warming has been at a rate of 1.3C +-0.3C.

"Global temps have dropped"

Over short periods (of a decade) or so, idiots can argue warming has stopped about a dozen times in the last 50 years. All idiots need to do is pick periods with the right start and finish dates.

Andrew W

Anonymous said...

"over the last 50 years though the warming has been at a rate of 1.3C +-0.3C."

Should have been "at a rate of 1.3C +-0.3C. per century".

Andrew W

Anonymous said...

"at a rate of 1.3C +-0.3C. per century".

Bullshit.
The trend for the last 30 years is minimal.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/uah-update-for-january-2011-global-temperatures-in-freefall/

CO2 is a GHG and naturally interacts with water vapour to cause .6 C (according to James Hansen from GISS)of warming.
Forcing to create the EXTRA 2-4 degrees is not being observed.
And what a cooincidence that we have only warmed .7 C in the last 100 years.

"at a rate of 1.3C +-0.3C. per century".
Quote your source

Anonymous said...

Andrew and Robert- why dont you take the Roy Spencer Challenge
Go on.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/a-challenge-to-the-climate-research-community/

Anonymous said...

"Bullshit".

From wiki:

To compare to the trend from the surface temperature record (approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is most appropriate to derive trends for the part of the atmosphere nearest the surface, i.e., the lower troposphere. Doing this, through December 2010:

* RSS v3.2 finds a trend of +0.163 °C/decade.[19]
* UAH v5.4 finds a trend of +0.142°C/decade.[29]

UAH is Spencer's satellite data set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Anonymous will probably make stupid noises about it being Wiki, I'd be happy to link to Spencer's site but a simple lower tropospheric temperature trend for the entire UAH data set seems to be strangely absent there.

As you can see from this graph, UAH is pretty much in agreement with other data sets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

"why dont you take the Roy Spencer Challenge"

His challenge is answered by the first comment in that thread.

Andrew W

Anonymous said...

Andrew
The Satellite carrying RSS wasnt launched until Jan 1979...
To date that is only 32 years not 100
So, once again I ask for your source to prove:
"at a rate of 1.3C +-0.3C. per century".

graph please.

If you think this statement "A better challenge is to give just one weather/climate scenario that disproves global warming."
solves Spencers challenge then I really think you have a comprehension problem.

Even if we accept (and I dont) your 1.3C/century figure then observational evidence shows this is not major.
So Andrew, please share with us when the extra 2-4 C degrees rise predicted by IPCC "scenarios"is going to happen?
Because it is this part which is supposed to cause all the damage. Where is that missing heat? hmmm

Anonymous said...

Andrew
Latest RSS stats out here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/rss-global-temp-drops-version-change-adjusts-cooler-post-1998/#more-33209

Since Jan 1979 to Jan 2011 (starting with 01/79 as the base) the global temp has risen, wait for it....
.0083 degrees C

Now that is 32 years and this is from your own source so where is the evidence from you which proves a rise of "over the last 50 years though the warming has been at a rate of 1.3C +-0.3C." ?