Monday, 1 September 2008

Cold weather caused by climate change

If there's a group that suffers from greater cognitive dissonance than today's pants wetting hypocrites of Big Green then I'm yet to see it.

Australia has just suffered through an especially cold August with the coldest South Australia in 35 years, coldest Sydney in over 60 years and coldest Brisbane in 8 years.

In Europe autumn has arrived early and the ski season has started early.

To round up the non-warming that pesky lump of ice up in the Artic has failed to live up (or down?) to doomists predictions that it would melt completely this summer.

How do the Marxists of the environmental movement respond?

By claiming that it's all part of the effect of climate change (aka capitalism) and that it is consistent with climate models.

I kid you not.
Forget global warming - the latest problem is global cooling.

Conservation group WWF has blamed climate change for the coldest August in Sydney for more than 60 years.

The freezing temperatures are proof of the urgent need to cut carbon pollution, according to WWF development and sustainability program manager Paul Toni.

"We can expect more extremes in climate," Mr Toni said.

He said climate records had tumbled over the past year.

Australia had its driest May on record, Perth had its wettest April on record, and Tasmania recorded its hottest ever temperature, according to Mr Toni.

He said climate extremes were affecting southern Australia in particular.

"This is consistent with climate modelling showing the southern states will feel the effects of climate change most severely," he said.

Mr Toni said if action was not taken, more volatile weather would be on the radar.
What a piece of dishonest crap Paul Toni really is but I guess that there is a group of people who reflexively believes whatever climate agitprop that Big Green puts forward.

Computer models are programmed to show increased temperature for increased CO2.

With CO2 increasing by about 5% since 1998 and temperatures staying flat or falling the models have been shown to be about as accurate as anything that Nostradamus put forward.

For those who want to believe in what climate models predict they'll find ways of proving their 'truth'.

Sane people dismiss the Nostradamus predictions as the quackery they really are. Sane people should treat the predictions of climate models with the derision that their track record deserves.

(h/t Greenie Watch for the links)

(Nothing Follows)


Anonymous said...

Ah excellent, you've vomited up another load of idiocy for me to rip the piss out of.

Computer models are programmed to show increased temperature for increased CO2. - well, in that basic physics means that you physically can't add CO2 to a planetary atmosphere without it heating up, and climate models are programmed with basic physics, then yes, this is true. You seem to believe that CO2 can somehow not affect the radiative balance of the atmosphere. This means not believing in physics. But we know you're an antiscientific moron, so it all makes sense.

With CO2 increasing by about 5% since 1998 and temperatures staying flat or falling - you don't like maths, I know, but you can't really understand science without it, so how about you calculate the climate forcing due to a 5% increase in CO2. The formula is ΔF=5.35×ln(C2/C1). Then multiply that by the generally accepted climate sensitivity of 0.75K/W/m². What do you get? Now, calculate a trend from each of the four major global temperature measurements from 1998 to today. Where was the trend line in 1998? Where is it today? What are the errors on the trend coefficients?

Anonymous said...

I know, I know anonymous...we're all idiots except for you, but why is it getting colder when your models said it would get warmer?

By the way, your mouth is getting dirtier.

Anonymous said...

Did the models say that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would somehow stop the weather? That every month, year and season would be warmer than the previous one?

Anonymous said...

Hey, anonymous, it's been cooling this century... what's enough to disprove your models? A full century? A thousand centuries? Do we have to see icebergs in the tropics? Or is CAGW a non-falsifiable, pseudo-scientific religion as its so often accused of being?

Anonymous said...

The models said it would get warmer....and it isn't.

Explain please.

Jack Lacton said...

Hey Fudgie.

Adding anything to the atmosphere will create heating, as long as it doesn't displace what's already there. A simple partial pressure equation reveals that.

Why don't you calculate how much CO2 needs to be pumped into the atmosphere before a 1C temperature rise is achieved (without any feedback mechanism) and report back.

...this should be good...

Anonymous said...

d. corcoran - you seem to be confusing "this century" (the last 8.5 years) with "a century" (a hundred years). Sensible people know that you cannot measure climate change over 8.5 years. Did you know that?

hoppers - it is getting warmer.

fucky - just as soon as you've calculated the observed trends with their errors, and the predicted rise if CO2 was the only forcing, I'll explain why your latest bit of kiddie physics is woefully wrong.

Jack Lacton said...


Your statement 'it is getting warmer' is only true if you pick a low starting point. Choosing the MWP or RWP gives a negative trend, as you well know. Why Climate Marxists like yourself deny the obvious current 10 year data is beyond me.

Why don't you email Heinz Thieme, as I have been doing, and get a proper understanding of the atmospheric effect of CO2?

All of that is avoiding the huge elephants in the room that models have a 0% prediction rate and the surface temperature record has been heavily contaminated due to UHI.

Anonymous said...


1. which dataset would you be using, that compares the mediaeval warm period with today's temperatures?

2. Why are you not able to understand that you can't measure climate change over a period of ten years?

3. Why don't you read a physics text book, instead of e-mailing random quacks?

4. Do you not realise that '0% prediction rate' is a completely meaningless thing to say? What actually are you trying to say here?

5. How do urban heat islands affect satellite measurements?

Jack Lacton said...


I've answered 4 of those questions before. Thieme's work is peer reviewed by real scientists. I presume that's a disqualification for you?

Anonymous said...

I don't think you have answered them before, fucky. I think you've done your usual thing of realising you look like an idiot and not answering the question. I notice that you couldn't even work out the decadal forcing from CO2, even when I gave you the equation.

So, Heinz Thieme is a working scientist in a climate-related field, is he? What's his academic affiliation? What's his most recent peer-reviewed publication?

Jack Lacton said...


There is no such discipline as climate science in the empirical sense. The discipline brings together scientists from diverse backgrounds in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and biology etc most of whom have their snouts fully in the public trough.

Anonymous said...

Hi anonymous,

That's a very nice formula you've copied and pasted which I won't pretend I understand, and I accept that when you apply the right forcings etc which I don't understand either, it probably tells you it's getting warmer, but out here in the real world, the one I live in, there's a lot of unusually cold weather about, so much in fact that the news is full of it, and your models said it would be warmer. - spiralling out of control in fact.

Explain please.

Anonymous said...

Fucky - as usual, when faced with a question that exposes just how stupid you are, you ignore it. I'll ask again about Heinz Thieme: what's his academic affiliation? What's his most recent peer-reviewed publication?

hoppers - If you don't even understand the formula for CO2 forcing, it is going to be difficult to explain very much to you. Why do you feel you are able to have an opinion on climate science if you can't even understand this basic equation?

there's a lot of unusually cold weather about, you complain. As I said earlier, Did the models say that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would somehow stop the weather? That every month, year and season would be warmer than the previous one?

your models said it would be warmer. - my models? I have no models. But it is warmer. The most recent decade has been warmer than the one before it, which was warmer than the one before that.

spiralling out of control in fact. - please point out which model, using what assumptions, said the warming would currently be 'spiralling out of control'.

Jack Lacton said...


Get off the front foot!

You have no right to demand anything of anyone given your track record.

You have been a deceptive, dishonest interlocutor who simply pushes whatever scientific fabrication that you think will give you the upper hand in a particular thread in order to continue the myth that there's two sides to the debate that rely on observations and the scientific method.

I hope you get well paid for trolling around the pro-real science blogs.

Anonymous said...

There is only one side to the debate, and you're not on it. I only post here because it's entertaining to see how you'll argue yourself into a corner every single time, and never have the faintest idea of how ridiculous you look. You can't even tell me what Thieme's academic affiliation is, or what his most recent peer-reviewed paper was? That's because you have absolutely no idea at all what science is! You demonstrate your utter ignorance time and time againn

Anonymous said...

You don't need to defend me Jack, but thanks anyway.

It's interesting that though anonymous clearly knows more of the science than me, he has become obsessed with formulae and other theory rather than real world observation.

He is like a pilot guiding his aircraft into a mountain side using faulty instruments on a clear day, when all he need do is look out of the window.

This is a known phenomenon.

It is getting colder - the approaching mountain is visible for all to see, but his instruments tell him it isn't there.

Anonymous said...

The big one the alarmists avoid is:

Provide a single piece of evidence that man's CO2 is causing warming ... or the current cooling.

Even the IPCC 2007 does not give a single piece of actual evidence ... only models.