WITH a stubborn atmosphere failing to warm as predicted, another climate threat was needed to sustain the Climate Crisis industry and keep lazy reporters supplied with junk science to feed their catastrophic climate narrative. Enter “ocean acidification”!
FROM the onset, the term “ocean acidification” was deceptive by design. Oceans are alkaline. The correct ‘scientific’ term for any pH change toward zero is “less alkaline”. Obviously not the scariest of descriptors to shock the public into belief.
“Ocean Acidification” was first referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, resulting in an explosion of journal articles, media reports and alarmist publications from environmental orgs. It has since gone viral, endorsed by scientists from numerous alarmist institutions including the Royal Society, the IPCC and NOAA who coined it “climate change’s evil twin” in a 2016 report.
A 2016 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science put the issue of “ocean acidification” under the microscope, and found Scientists exaggerating the carbon dioxide threat to marine life…
Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research
“Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO2 on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish.
Excerpts from the paper:
Scientific or academic scepticism calls for critical scrutiny of research outputs before they are accepted as new knowledge (Merton, 1973).Duarte et al. (2014) stated that “…there is a perception that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas…” of marine science. They argue that OA is one such area, and conclude that there is, at best, weak evidence to support an OA-driven decline of calcifiers. Below, I raise some of the aspects of OA research to which I contend an insufficient level of organized scepticism has been applied (in some cases, also to the articles in this theme issue). I arrived at that conclusion after reading hundreds of articles on OA (including, to be fair, some that also raise these issues) and overseeing the peer-review process for the very large number of submissions to this themed issue. Importantly, and as Duarte et al. (2014) make clear, a retrospective application of scientific scepticism such as the one that follows could—and should—be applied to any piece of/body of research.
From an article in The Times:
An “inherent bias” in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It has been dubbed the “evil twin of climate change” and hundreds of studies have claimed to show that it destroys coral reefs and other marine life by making it harder for them to develop shells or skeletons.
The review found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.
Dr Browman, who is also principal research scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, found there had been huge increase in articles on ocean acidification in recent years, rising from five in 2005 to 600 last year.
He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue.
“Such journals tend to publish doom and gloom stories . . . stated without equivocation,” he said. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added.
“You won’t get a job unless you publish an article that is viewed as of significant importance to society. People often forget that scientists are people and have the same pressures on them and the same kind of human foibles. Some are driven by different things. They want to be prominent.”
ENTER climate alarmist in chief – Peter Hannam – Environment Editor at The Sydney Morning Herald / The Age, with his latest doomsday report peppered with the same old regurgitated buzz lines designed to scare you into belief; “tipping points”, “pressure on governments globally to act”, “catastrophic destruction”, “mass bleaching”…
World’s coral reefs face new peril from beneath within decades
New research, published in the journal Science on Friday, has found the sediments on which many reefs are built are 10 times more sensitive to the acidifying oceans than the living corals themselves. Some reef bases are already dissolving.
“Coral reef sediments around the world will trend towards dissolving when seawater reaches a tipping point in acidity – which is likely to occur well before the end of the century,” he said.
At risk will be coral reef ecosystems that support tourism, fisheries and the many other human activities, he said.
The ocean’s acidity has increased about 30 per cent since the start of the industrial revolution, as seas absorb about one-third of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“It is vital that we put pressure on governments globally to act in concert to lower carbon dioxide emissions as this is the only way we can stop the oceans acidifying and dissolving our reefs,” Professor Eyre said.
Notwithstanding the evidence owing to the inherent alarmism, exaggeration and journal bias of the OA scare, it might be useful for Hannam to consider this simple explanation of what goes on “beneath” the ocean surface…
Corals evolved during the Cambrian era with CO2 levels at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000% or 20 times higher than today’s “CO2-starved” environment of 400 ppm. Atmospheric and ocean temps were also far higher than today. Corals are made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) – and could not exist without substantial amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
A sound explanation of the fallacy of ‘Ocean Acidification’ …
The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline, and even the mad IPCC says the acid-base balance has been altered by only 0.1 acid/base units in the direction of slightly reduced alkalinity. However, that estimate, like much else in the IPCC’s mad gospels, is entirely guesswork, because there is no sufficiently well-resolved global measurement program for ocean pH. However, elementary theoretical considerations would lead us to expect homoeostasis in the acid/base balance of the oceans because the buffering influence of the rock basins in which they live and move and have their being is overwhelmingly powerful. Acid/base neutrality is at a pH of 7.0. The oceans are at about 7.8-8.2 (no one knows, so that the IPCC’s alleged dealkalinization of 0.1 acid/base units is well within the measurement error, so that we cannot actually be sure that it has occurred at all; and, on the elementary ground I have described, it is unlikely to have done so). Besides, there is about 50 times as much CO2 already dissolved in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere, so that even if all of the CO2 in the atmosphere were to make its way into the oceans the pH would scarcely change even in the absence of the overwhelming buffering effect of the rocks. As for calcifying organisms, they are thriving. The calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis and came into being 550 million years ago (you are too young to remember) during the Cambrian era, when atmospheric CO2 concentration was 25 times what it is today. The more delicate aragonite corals came into being 175 million years ago, during the Jurassic, when CO2 concentration was still 15 times today’s. “Ah,” you may say, “but it is the suddenness of the abrupt increase in CO2 concentration that the fragile corals will not be able to endure.” However, consider the great floods of the Brisbane River (eight of them from 1840-1900 and three of them since). The rainwater that pours into the ocean and meets the Great Barrier Reef is pronouncedly acid, at a pH of 5.4. Yet the corals do not curl up and die. “Ah,” you may say, “but what about the effect of sudden warming on the puir wee corals?” Well, the Great el Nino of 1997/8 gives us the answer to that one. Sudden increases in ocean temperature cause the corals to bleach. There have been two previous Great el Ninos in the past 300 years, and the corals bleached on both those occasions too. It is a natural defense mechanism against natural change. The corals continue to thrive. My brother and his three sport-mad boys dive on the reef every year and, like many others from whom I have heard, find the corals thriving except where the Crown of Thorns infestation has damaged small parts of the reef. Oh, and the Great Barrier Reef Authority, which has been moaning about the effects of rising sea temperatures on the corals, publish a dataset that shows zero increase in sea temperature in the region of the reef throughout the entire period of record. Don’t hold your breath worrying about ocean “acidification”: it can’t happen, even if all the CO2 in the air goes into the ocean.
Must See Also : Ocean Acidification is a Misnomer | Hawaii Reporter
The Multiple Impacts of “Ocean Acidification” on a Tropical Coral
Takahashi, A. and Kurihara, H. 2013. Ocean acidification does not affect the physiology of the tropical coralAcropora digitifera during a 5-week experiment. Coral Reefs 32: 305-314.
The authors write that “according to the IPCC (2007) models, atmospheric CO2 is predicted to rise to 540-970 ppm by the end of this century and reach a maximum of approximately 1,900 ppm when the world’s fossil fuel reserves are fully exploited,” while noting that “a substantial number of laboratory studies have suggested a decline in coral calcification with a rise in seawater pCO2.” However, they say that recentstudies “have postulated that the sensitivity of corals to elevated levels of CO2 is potentially more diverse than previously considered,” citing the works of Fabricius et al. (2011), Pandolfi et al. (2011) and Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. (2011).
What was done
Intrigued by these new and diverse findings, Takahashi and Kurihara measured the rates of calcification, respiration and photosynthesis of the tropical coral Acropora digitifera – along with the coral’s zooxanthellae density – under near-natural summertime temperature and sunlight conditions for a period of five weeks.
What was learned
The two Japanese researchers found that these “key physiological parameters” were not affected by either predicted mid-range CO2 concentrations (pCO2 = 744 ppm, pH = 7.97, Ωarag = 2.6) or by high CO2concentrations (pCO2 = 2,142 ppm, pH = 7.56, Ωarag = 1.1) over the 35-day period of their experiment. In addition, they state that there was “no significant correlation between calcification rate and seawater aragonite saturation (Ωarag)” and “no evidence of CO2 impact on bleaching.”
What it means
Contrary to what many climate alarmists have long contended, there is mounting evidence that suggests that the negative consequences they predict for the world’s marine life in a future high-CO2 world are by no means assured, nor are they likely to be widespread. Keep Reading »
TOP footnote by Dellers
In the last decade or so, the climate change industry has become so vast and all encompassing, employing so many people, it simply cannot be allowed to fail.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, it’s now worth an astonishing $1.5 trillion — about the same as the online shopping industry. If the scare goes away, then all bets are off, because the entire global decarbonisation business relies on it. The wind parks, the carbon sequestration projects, the solar farms, the biomass plantations — none of these green schemes make any kind of commercial sense unless you buy into the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet and that radical green measures, enforced by governmental regulation, must be adopted to avert it.
It’s no coincidence that the ocean acidification narrative began in the early 2000s — just as it was beginning to dawn on the climate alarmists that global temperatures weren’t going to plan. While CO2 levels were continuing to rise, temperatures weren’t. Hence the need for a fallback position — an environmental theory which would justify the massively expensive and disruptive ongoing decarbonisation programme so assiduously championed by politicians, scientists, green campaigners and anyone making money out of the renewables business. Ocean acidification fitted the bill perfectly.
SEE also :
- Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism | The Spectator
- Forget the doom: coral reefs will bloom |The Australian
- Corals survived massive Caribbean climate change – likely to do so again | Climatism
- New publication demonstrates that scientists have routinely exaggerated the “evil twin of climate change” aka ocean acidification | Climatism
- The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?
- Patrick Moore: Ocean ‘Acidification’ Alarmsim in Perspective – JunkScience.com
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
HANNAM couldn’t even wait for Harvey and the flooding to subside, for residents to find dry land, before slapping them around as the “self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”” – brutishly and falsely linking the fossil fuel industry to extreme weather events.
MEMO to Peter : There is NO evidence that the use of fossil fuels has had any effect on “extreme weather”. In fact, even the alarmist UN IPCC begrudgingly admitted in their last climate report (AR5) a level of “low confidence” that human greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on extreme weather events.
IN the IPCC’s own words from their SREX report : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme”.
FURTHERMORE, Hurricane Harvey that made landfall in Texas as a category four, ended America’s record 4,324 day major hurricane drought.
BUT, climate facts like these don’t seem to sit well for the alarmist ‘journalists’ over at Fairfax…the one’s that still remain!
HOW developed were the Texan oil fields 117 years ago, Peter?
Sydney Morning Herald alarmist Peter Hannan stoops to a new low as floods hit Houston.
He treats weather as climate.
He ignores evidence that cyclones have actually got fewer over the past decades.
And he then blames the victims:
Yes, Houston, you do have a problem, and – as insensitive as it seems to bring it up just now – some of it is your own making…
Houston is facing worsening historic flooding in the coming days as Tropical Storm Harvey dumps rain on the city, swelling rivers to record levels.
But, as the self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”, there’s a connection between rising global greenhouse gas levels and the extreme weather now being inflicted that some of your residents have understood for decades and had a hand in.
To see how deceitful this is, note these conclusions from the latest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Note also that the IPCC is alarmist, prone to exaggeration, yet is forced to admit:
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, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust… In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low… Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered…
Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century…
Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature… Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases.
So there have actually been fewer cyclones or tropical storms like Harvey and little evidence of more floods. Yet Hannan seizes on one of the floods to regularly batter the US gulf coast and insists it’s caused by global warming.
What a snake oil salesman.
One of the world’s top climate scientists, Dr Roy Spencer, explains what Hannan won’t – that this cyclone was not the worst, the floods are not the highest, the deaths are not the greatest and the cause is not man-made:
The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur…
Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.
There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet… By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.
Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?
Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.
Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don’t want all of the rain to land on them.
There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.
Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 3 9 a.m. this Monday morning is just over 30 39.7 inches, with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston.
Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity?
In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.
Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.
And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.
So what makes this event unprecedented?
The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.
If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual…
Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.
But Peter Hannan, paid alarmist, says yes, yes, yes.
Harvey Related :
- Hurricane Harvey: Devastating – Not Unprecedented | Climatism
- It’s over – 4324 day major hurricane drought ends as Harvey makes landfall at Cat 4 | Watts Up With That?
- JUDITH CURRY – “Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.” |Climate Etc.
- 15 Feet Of Sea Level Rise In Ten Minutes | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
Extreme Weather Related :
- EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
- OPEN Letter To The Bureau Of Meteorology – Tropical Cyclone Trends | Climatism
Failing Fairfax Media Related :
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
In the lead up to the latest gathering of the UN’s climate and political elites in Paris this year, preachers of the global warming religion are upping the ante, big time. This time scaring you about the size of your loaf of bread if catastrophic global warming takes hold.
Surely even true believers of the great faith, would be double-taking at this latest science-free rant out of their Sydney Morning Herald ?!
How desperate are the warmist scaremongers of the Fairfax media when they now push this kind of stuff?:
Surely if the Sydney Morning Herald wants to link global warming to wheat it should at the very least admit that the most obvious connection – that we have been getting record crops, which is brilliant news for the poor and hungry:
Somehow I think the pampered Herald readers won’t miss out on the perfect loaf. More important, surely, is that the world’s poor don’t miss out on a meal.
Reader Mad Mick:
They even glazed the top of the loaf on the right to make it look more appealing.
An utterly bizarre chain of causality is offered on the ABC’s Radio National Breakfast to blame global warming for the Islamic State.
Host James Carleton is interviewing Neil Morisetti, retired admiral and former Climate and Security Envoy for the UK Government:
Carleton: You give a real example in your report. There is a once in a century drought in China, that led to a collapse in wheat production, that led to bread shortages and price hikes in Egypt, that led to the mass uprising against Mubarak, that stimulated the Arab Spring to move into Syria, that led to the creation of Islamic State…
Morisetti: We now need to make those sorts of links.
Pity that the facts completely destroy the theory, showing, for a start, that if global warming affects crops, it’s been all good for Egypt’s:
In China, too, crops have been increasing, not decreasing, in this age of global warming:
The food riots in Egypt in 2013 were not caused by global warming or crop failure, but overpopulation, a failing economy, political mismanagement and rising food prices as the country ran out of money for imports:
In 2011, the World Food Program (WFP) estimated that 17 per cent of the population were food insecure….
There are three fundamental drivers behind the rise in Egypt’s food insecurity: increasing resource scarcity, the corrupt and unsustainable food subsidy system, and the rapidly deteriorating economic environment…
So far in 2013, Egypt has faced plummeting foreign reserves, an economy in meltdown, intermittent fuel crises and ongoing difficulties in maintaining grain stocks. These occurrences mean that it is likely that well over the estimated 17 per cent of the population are currently experiencing, or are vulnerable to, food insecurity…. Population growth is accelerating in Egypt, with the population expected to exceed 100 million by 2030. Ninety-seven per cent of Egypt’s landmass is desert and there is simply not enough arable land to feed the current, let alone the projected, population…
Egypt imports close to 70 per cent of its food needs and requires significant foreign reserves to finance those purchases. Underlying the persistent issues in the Egyptian political sphere, is the fundamental fact that Egypt is running out of money to pay for its food imports….
Since the revolution in 2011, fears about political instability have cut foreign investment inflows and obliterated the tourism industry, Egypt’s major cash-source…
Hastening this decline is the continuation of the government’s fuel and food subsidies, which place an enormous burden on state finances. Egypt’s subsidy system costs roughly US$20 billion each year, close to a third of this for subsidised baladi bread.
That – not global warming in China – helped to end the Morsi Government in 2013. And that in turn has little to do with the rise of the Islamic State in Syria.
Reader Bob the Baker casts an expert eye:
The one on the left probably did not have enough moisture in the mix, was over kneaded, and was left in the oven too long to dry out. It also looks like it is two days old. The one on the right looks like it was given an extra dollop of yeast to plump it up.
Climatism Hot Links :
- Bigger, smaller, whatever. It’s global warming | Climatism
- 22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths On Global Warming | Climatism
- The Science is Settled : “Children Just Aren’t Going To Know What Snow Is” | Climatism
- Warmists Who Denied The Pause Now Claim To Explain It | Climatism
- Climate Change : A Religion Of Lies, Propaganda, Fear and Alarmism | Climatism
- Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action | Climatism
- Settled Science Update : New Paper Finds 18 Year Warming ‘Pause’ Not Due To Missing Heat Hiding In The Deep Ocean | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism
- Shock news : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | Climatism
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
via Andrew Bolt Blog | Herald Sun
The Sydney Morning Herald had its “carbon editor” hype up Sydney’s “record” heat today to insinuate man is heating the world to “catastrophic” heights:
Oh, dear. What a shame:
The temperature in Sydney reached 37.3C just after 3pm (AEDT) on Thursday for the city’s third hottest October day since records began 154 years ago.
Many of you slept through it but earlier this morning the temperature bottomed out at 44 degrees in Boston establishing a new record low…the old one was 45 degrees set back in 1986.
Five stations of the National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology with the Bulgarian Academy of Science reported record-breaking negative temperatures in Bulgaria overnight…
In the town of Vidin temperatures dropped to -0.6°C, breaking the previous record of -0.5°C on this day of the year. The capital city Sofia reported 0.9°C, against 1°C registered as lowest temperature on this date in the past.
Memo to the Sydney Morning Herald. It’s called global warming:
The average global temperature hasn’t risen in 15 years, a deviation from climatologists’ computer-simulated predictions.
Which makes this scaremongering – again in today’s Sydney Morning Herald – irresponsible:
But when do we stop talking about breaking records and admit we’ve got a radically different climate? In Melbourne, a new study suggests, it will be 2045. In Sydney that time will come in 2038.
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
It’s official, the past 12 months have been the hottest in Australia for more than a hundred years.
Temperatures averaged across Australia between September 2012 and August 2013 were hotter than any year since good records began in 1910. The previous record was held by the 12-month period from February 2005 to January 2006.
The new record follows a suite of broken records following last year’s “angry summer”, including the hottest summer since records began.
Dr Sophie Lewis is from the University of Melbourne and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science. David Karoly is a Professor of Atmospheric Science in the School of Earth Sciences and the ARC at the University of Melbourne and is a member of the Science Advisory Panel to the Australian Government’s Climate Commission.
The Climate Commission was setup by the Australian Labor Government in 2011 as an ‘independent’ body communicating on climate change. Rather than behaving independently, it has acted as a literal climate propaganda unit to promote the Governments sweeping climate reform agenda, with the controversial carbon (dioxide) tax as it’s centrepiece.
In the Sydney Morning Herald article, Karoly and Lewis claim “It’s official, the past 12 months have been the hottest in Australia for more than a hundred years.” and “The link between global warming and human causes has been firmly established over the last two decades.”
To push the man-made global warming narrative, Karoly and Lewis consistently cherry-pick ‘heat records’ from Australia’s 21st century climate. The Climate Commission’s alarmist report, “The Angry Summer” was another case in point.
What’s immediately telling in Karoly, Lewis and the Climate Commission’s work is the lack of any reference to satellite temperature data, which would be pertinent to assessing Australia’s short and long-term climatic trends.
See for yourself
Use the ‘find’ function in your browser (ctrl F) and see if you can find a reference to “satellite” or “UAH” temperature in Karoly and Lewis’ pal-reviewed study or the Climate Commission’s report:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 3705 – 3709, doi:10.1002/grl.50673, 2013
Anthropogenic contributions to Australia’s record summer temperatures of 2013Sophie C. Lewis and David J. KarolyReceived 15 May 2013; revised 13 June 2013; accepted 16 June 2013; published 23 July 2013
If the satellites showed that the last Australian summer was hot, would Lewis and Karoly have left them off the paper?
Climate Commission Report – “The Angry Summer“
There is a perfectly good reason why Karoly, Lewis and the Climate Commission do not include satellite data in any of their reporting ~ because the data does not fit their alarmist ‘extreme’ heat narrative. In fact the satellite data shows a trend in the opposite direction.
The latest UAH satellite temperature dataset shows Australia’s near surface temperature (0-5km) has been cooling at -0.927°C per decade over the last 5 years and cooling at -0.291°C per decade over the last 10 years.
UAH satellite data below from John Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville shows no rise in land or ocean temperature for the Southern Hemisphere region and no rise in Australia’s mean temperature since the beginning of the century:
The Climate Commissions reported “Angry Summer” was in fact not-so-angry or unusual at all. UAH satellite data shows in fact the 2012/13 mean summer temperature was in fact cooler than when satellite measurements began in 1979:
This is what the RSS and the MSU satellite records for the lower troposphere have to say about Australia:
Both satellite datasets agree that there was nothing at all unusual about the 2012 summer. Did Karoly and the Climate Commission researches notice this fact? Or perhaps they just thought it wasn’t important for their report?
Jo Nova makes a sound assessment of the state of climate science over at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science :
The peer reviewed, comprehensive, Lewis and Karoly paper does not contain the words “satellite”, or “UAH”. Lewis and Karoly apparently do not know about the UAH satellite program yet, otherwise they surely would have emailed John Christy or Roy Spencer (as we did) to ask for the data. We can only hope that they get enough government support, more funding, and better education in future so that they may discover what unpaid volunteers figured out on the Internet for free 3 months ago. Frankly it is shameful that the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is not connected to the world wide web and has not trained staff to use “google”.
Real Scientific Questions For David Karoly, Sophie Lewis & The Climate Commission:
- If humans are making a substantial addition to a ‘warming’ climate, then why has the temperature of the globe not changed in 15-17 years despite a massive increase in human CO² emissions over the same period?
- Why has Australia’s mean summer surface temperature not changed since 1979?
- Why has Australia’s mean surface temperature been falling since 2007 and globally since 1998, despite record human greenhouse gas emissions output? Nature Study Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago
- How do the researchers reconcile human induced climate change (warming) based on Australian ‘weather’ over a few months of a year? Isn’t global warming a global ‘climate’ (30-year-cycle) issue?
These are mere basic scientific questions the Climate Commission should be using taxpayer funds to answer, not cherry-picking often UHI (Urban Heat Island) affected temp station data and suspect Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) temperature calculations to promote a Government climate agenda and massage an ideological climate bent.
Mammalogist Tim Flannery is the head of Australia’s Climate Commission. For his $180,000, three day, part-time working week, he gets to make decisions that affect billions of dollars of Australian taxpayer’s hard-earned money:
- Tim Flannery sacked, Climate Commission dismantled by Coalition | Herald Sun
- A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission. « JoNova
- Flannery sacked | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- Australia’s Angry Hot Summer was hot angry hype – satellites show it was average
- Australia’s record hottest 12 month period? Junk science say the Satellites | CACA
- Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records
- Our ‘Angry Summer’ was no worse than miffed
- Climate queries? Ask a paleontologist
- The very model of a modern climate scientist
- Climate Commission’s latest report slammed as ‘environmental activism’
- Australia’s Angry Summer Of 1924
- Extreme heat in 1896: Panic stricken people fled the outback on special trains as hundreds die.
- Be angry instead at the angry summer scaremongers
- Tony Jones lets Bill McKibben get away with barking nonsense “Really one degree is utter catastrophe”
H/t to Sunshine Hours
The Petermann Glacier at the north end of Greenland is constantly pushing out towards the Nares Strait. Chunks of ice calve off as icebergs and float away. In 2010, a large chunk broke off and floated away.
Alarmists got hysterical about this at the time, and are recycling the nonsense today at SMH.
One thing these scumbags aren’t telling you is that two years later the entire region in that picture is now covered with ice. The current image below shows the boundary between glacial ice and sea ice as the red dashed line. The sea ice extends tens of miles past where it was in 2011.
h/t to climatism