Dear Bronwyn and David,

I have become aware that I have consented to being a director with the 2 of you in the William Robert Lee Discretionary Trust. This was not my intention as I thought I was acting as an appointee only to help  facilitate payment of money owing to Georgie. I apologise for not having fully informed myself of the details but as you know I have been under stress with Mum dying and was put under more duress with the demand for early attention to Williams financial problems. My fault, I thought I was doing the right thing.

A motion was put to sell Nancy Lee’s shares to the 3 directors which I also inadvertently signed. I have become aware that this is not possible as the shares form part of Nancy Elizabeth’s Lee’s estate and as such are not capable of having trustees or appointers decide anything about them.

I will notify the Probate lawyers in the morning as to this concern and will also have to notify ASIC unless this decision is reversed as quickly as possible and probate distributed as it was meant to be to all 5 trusts.

I propose that all units be returned to the Nancy Lee estate, Thank you.

I propose that one of you or David resign as a director  and that we sharethe responsibilities on a one to one basis.







decide anything a

The Sole Director, Appointer, Guardian and Trustee, Nancy Elizabeth Lee, has died.
Her will leaves a 1 fifth share to each siblings trust or beneficiary Trust company so each unit becomes a director.

Her deed of appointment lists a joint appointee, Harold, Bronwyn and David [HBD] needing unanimous approval to get decisions passed, including the appointment of new trustees. The new trustees have a majority vote for all decisions [including new appointees??] or is this the directors.

The director status is fluid. It might be possible for any 3 siblings to become the new directors of the company, or 2 siblings and the WRLDT. In distributing the will 1/5th share in WRLDT. At Probate. If it is done in respect of the will’s instructions. Or even 2 1/2 siblings if the trust does not vote.

While such a directorship exists the trustees may be able to be renoved if the appointees give their power over to the directors?


The Petrie Dish SMB.

smallbluemike says:
“What exactly is our species’ end game or exit strategy if it is not to wildly rein in consumption just as fast as we can, if not faster?”
The Petrie Dish SMB.
One Agar plate, the planet.
one little group of bacteria [people] find a way to use the plate resources , sugar [oil] and start to grow. New colonies sprout up like mushroom bubbles around it or those bubbles colonists use on Mars. The central hub grows bigger, richer, more complex with the bacteria driving cars and dying their tendrils [hair] green. You can see them from the moon or at least on the petrie dish as a big white central spot.
Then, Climate change, the oil [sugar] runs out and the colony starts to decay and crumble. The lights go out.
But we [they had a good time.
The epitaph and the answer SMB. There was and never will be an end game exit strategy of consequence for the Petrie dish.
Please feel OK to use a variation of this theme [TM angech and a lot of biologists]


Just do it

To learn Italian you have to speak it, rapidly, and know what the words mean or you will be left behind for dust.

The verb Fare or facere is one of the most important verbs and one of the best to start with. To do to act to make are some of the things you can say with it.

An interesting aside is that our English word far [as in far away] possibly comes from it. As in lontano fa a long way away. But I digress.

So lets do it. Let us do  it.  Facciomo lo.

We will start in a room in a house.

Cominceremo in una stanza in una casa. Another verb of many for starting is Inizieremo.

It is not important at the start to be totally correct in Italian. Fluency and choice will develop as you speak with or listen to people speaking the language. Here most English speaking people will be more comfortable with the verb Cominciare as it sounds like the word commence which is used more frequently that the word initiate for start in English.

Her we are using the ending for we or us, iamo, added to the verb, Cominciamo, iniziamo, partiamo etc. meaning we start. When we use the future tense we will start we instead add eremo to the base word.

In  can sometimes be the same as the English in. Or it can be nella or nello and variations on this according to the subject. Occasionally one uses fra or tra instead which are interchangeable. Tra in English is an additive part to a word meaning between or across as in transit Fra is used to give a range as in infra red. Both are used to indicate an in between property usually of time or space.

A is a term indicating singularity. Un is the base for masculine words often ending in o.
Una for feminine words usually ending in a.
Uno is of course used for the number one in Italian.

Stanza is the dictionary and accepted word for a room but there are many others.
The most commonly used being camera.We could also use commonly use sala.

Finally a house is a casa. Though there are other names for use in different circumstances.

Now for a bit of fun or as the Italians say  un po ‘di divertimento. Notice the un with the masculine word ending in o. It means Diverting as in entertaining by the way. Not diverting [taking away] attention but purely entertaining as in that was a diverting show, it took my mind off other things. Po means a little and di is one of the versions of the word of.

Try white house. Yes the president lives in one but so do a lot of other people.
Casa bianca. Bianca besides being a colour and a girl’s name is a version of blank. Which is like white paper that no one has written on. In Spanish it is blanco or blanca.





See rules in appendix



iniziare start, begin, initiate, introduce, institute
avviare start, initiate, begin, start up, set up, set
cominciare start, begin, commence, proceed, enter, open
partire start, leave, go, depart, set off, start off
avviarsi start, jog
lanciare launch, throw, cast, start, send, flip
incominciare begin, start
innescare trigger, start, prime
mettere in motostart
mettersi a get, start, begin, settle down
esordire begin, start, open
scattare take, click, snap, spring, start, sprint
sobbalzare start, jolt, jerk, boggle
sussultare wince, start
balzare jump, leap, spring, skip, dart, start


la camera room, chamber, house, apartment, lodging
la stanza room, stanza, living room, apartment
la sala room, hall, lounge, saloon
il ambiente environment, room, setting, surroundings, ambience, habitat
lo spazio space, room, blank, slot, interspace
il locale local, premises, room
il posto place, site, spot, post, seat, room
il vano room, doorway
la stanzetta room
le aula classroom, room, hall, courtroom, chamber, schoolroom
la possibilità possibility, chance, scope, way, means, room
la casa house, home, household, family, place, flat
le abitazione home, house, dwelling, housing, residence, habitation
lo edificio building, edifice, house, structure, construction, fabric
la dimora residence, home, dwelling, stay, house, abode
la camera room, chamber, house, apartment, lodging
lo albergo hotel, inn, house
la pensione board, pension, guest-house, boarding house, house, superannuation
il teatro theater, stage, playhouse, house, theatre
la casata house
il tetto roof, ceiling, top, limit, house, home
la ditta firm, business, house, concern
il pubblico public, audience, people, attendance, house

What I do not post

“A key point is that the system will always tend towards a state in which the amount of energy coming in, matches the amount going out into space, and that this state depends mostly on the boundary conditions.”
Would it be more appropriate to say this state determines the boundary conditions?
Energy in equals energy out is a scientific tautology.
The boundary conditions are implicit in the setup.
Time and size are important constraints given that humans live such very short lives compared to most of the time involved in climate change features. We live near a vanishingly thin water envelope on the earth [the oceans] where a vanishingly small alteration in sun energy output could spell curtains for us.
The hubris in expecting a perfect climate [defined I guess as what we had when [us old white men included] were born] is great. The fear of change is great and equates, I guess, with a fear of death.
Where I appreciate the discussion here is when people are more open to the challenges that present in using the data available openly and honestly even when it hurts.
[Garfield on the fence pose].
The fact that


Marco says: June 5, 2018 at 9:44 am
“Since when is motivational reasoning “a good thing”?
Take for example.
Going into something with the explicit starting point something is right means that you almost *have to* find something to be right.
It is called Confirmation bias for a reason, bias perhaps. Not always a skeptic problem.
Surely this is not a good thing?
On the other hand being scientific ie skeptical means having an open mind, not a bias to finding something negative. Could I adjust the sentence to start with an if to ease your concern and make the meaning clear, though “on the other hand” would seem to imply this anyway.
If ” On the other hand, if you find a mistake, or are able to question something they’ve done, then you potentially have ammunition if your goal is to undermine their results. This could be true, even if the consequences of this issue is negligible.”
Surely this is a good thing?

“In which case why mention the 97% unless it was just your usual trolling?”
So, in expert opinion there exists a 3% chance of being wrong.
No certainty then.
It is hard enough to put up arguments, sensibly, without anything that disagrees with your world view point being accused of being trolling. Why don’t you give me a break and try to work on convincing me with sensible arguments instead. I am trying to engage, admittedly it annoys you and I am sorry about that but discuss the arguments, not diss the person.
“angech wrote “I did not say it, JC, I found it. Argue your point with Best Schools, not me. And I acknowledged, did you miss it that JC was not a skeptic, yet.
How many times has she published articles on her blog questioning whether the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic? How many times has she commented to agree that we know it is predominantly anthropogenic in origin? How many times has she rejected the mass balance argument, which shows that the natural carbon cycle is a net carbon sink and hence is opposing the rise and not causing it.”
JCH said June 6, 2018 at 3:08 pm
“Two of them clearly are not skeptics: JC and LB. Even Lindzen, if you read the transcript of the physics society roundtable, is a complete dud as a skeptic.”
So your view on JC as a skeptic is not shared by JCH, JC herself, WUWT [she was listed as a lukewarmer on the old site] or the skeptic community as a whole.
Like me, she has acknowledged the warming effect of CO2. Did you miss that? The fact that she has raised and raises questions is Skepticism, not denial.
A perfectly legal, temperate approach to science which you should embrace and answer.

Rite of passage bullying. or right of passage.

I hate bullies. [right of pasage]

you hate bullies. we all hate bullies.

Nasty vile despicable bullies Giving us all trouble. Lousy smelly cvruel bullies.

Dontcha hate them loath  them despise them.?

Let’s sink the other boot in

What tight do they have to exist?

Let’s get rid of them forever. Gang up and crush them.

Is that a head? l

Lets kick it .

Stomp stomp stomp.

Nothing left except a bleeding mass of bully on the ground. Good . w

We have done it. Saved the village, saved the school Saved the world.


. Iam ew are and most important of all.

You are now a bully.

How does it feel? Or in the words of that song. How does it feel?

Great actually. We won.

The health bully.

the politically correct bully dress codes.

So yes bullying is an effective useful  way of addressing problems. of learning how to cope in the world . A way of getting through life sucessfully. of leaarning how to cope with adversity.

Let us ask our bully shall we.

Are you still alive?

How did you feel after that experience/

Was it up lifting for you?

No sound, no response. Well you did put the boot in as many times as was necessary .

Some poeple do not make it through.

Ask yourself this question though. was it needed Yes Was it good yes

Are you a bully? No

Where have all the bullies gone, long time passsing whre have all the bullies gone a long time ago.

No one is a bully. We are all victims of bullies. Remember.

That is why we did the stomping.

No bullies here.


ECS Pause

JCH says:

It just seems basic to me that if the warming hiatus that never happened was caused by a strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency during a period of time that coincided with Matt England’s anomalous intensified tradewinds, which both actually happened and then went away, that the observations are a bit F’d Up for primetime. So which longterm variation are they talking about? Because, as far as I can find, Matt England’s anomalous intensified tradewinds are a one-off phenomena. There is no variation to them: so far. The winds came; there was a warming hiatus in improvable datasets; the winds subsided; GMST has been shooting through the roof ever since. Anyway, I’m reading all the cloud stuff. Seems to be pointing mostly in the same direction: upward ECS.

zebra says: April 29, 2018 at 1:08 pm
” let’s assume that there was such a spike in GMST the past 3,000 years. So what? That was then, this is now. How does it affect the consensus about CO2 causing the current increase in system energy, which shows up as increasing GMST and the other well-known phenomena?”

CO2 should cause warming with an increase in concentration in the atmosphere.
A general, but not complete consensus.
However observations are falling badly behind computer model predictions of what the temperature rise should be.
The physics may not be totally right somewhere. Unlikely.
One or more of the many climate model assumptions appears wrong. Bing!
Or as AD in the next thread says, natural variability may be playing up with the temperature rise and could do so for the next 155 years or more.
Hence the problem with the consensus. If natural variability can effect ECS and hence temp for a long period then many of the skeptics [me included] can logically introduce an element of doubt into the consensus. Some of course say CO2 has no effect and that the warming spike to date could be explained purely from natural variability, not CO2.
Others that ECS may be lower than expected so that the warming will not be as severe as predicted.
Such points are valid while observations keep deviating from models.
If they persist they would demand an investigation into why.
If warming does return to the pattern expected of it then this all would be moot.
Your answer in brief is that a consensus tends to ignore and belittle data, people and ideas that do not conform with the consensus, even when they have elements of truth that should be welcomed into a fuller understanding.


John Hartz says: May 4, 2018 at 6:44 pm
“Back to basics: Climate Sensitvity (CS) is an index created to compare model runs. It is model output, not a model input.”
Dave_Geologist says: April 27, 2018 at 2:43 pm
” Dessler’s point AFAICS is that if you take a suite of physics-based models, where you know the ECS in advance, and try to calculate it the way LC13 and LC18 do, you get the wrong answer.”

The old chestnut, Lucia [whom I trust] used it as well, is that ECS is an emergent property of climate models. The truth is that the ECS is hardwired into all the GCM.
At around 3C.
Put 3C ECS in and 3C ECS comes out.
Compare it to the real world, the only one, where 3C rarely comes out unless you pick exact time frames of extra warming like a decade ending in a large El Nino.

Consequence is shadow boxing, dodging the real questions and answers.
Dessler is right but so is Lewis but on two different stages.
It is so easy to answer a question on the first stage show in the second show arena.dikranmarsupial says: April 24, 2018
Even angech’s own sources refute him. His original claim was:
These can give an indirect record of past temperatures, but only locally. Such records indicate that Temperature changes equivalent to the modern 150 year warming have happened a number of times in the past 3000 years. [emphasis mine]
and he supports that with:
“The NRC committee stated that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that
includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators”
and says: This basically agrees and supports what I have said. There are possible higher and lower spikes in the temperatures in the past that do not show because of “the wide error bars” as one goes backwards and the “uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods’.

DM “Err, no it doesn’t, it says that the recent warming is unprecedented.”

Having been called out in the past for not fully quoting comments I guess I can do a tu quoque?
The NRC did not say “the recent warming is unprecedented.” Mann et al said that.
The part that DM leaves out says clearly plausible only with substantial uncertainties before 1600.
I will append the bit he missed by accident.

“Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium”, though there were substantial uncertainties before about 1600?”.

“Note also the goal-post shift from “have happened” to such spikes being “possible”, without acknowledging the weakening of his position. Rather shabby.”

Sorry DM I have not changed my position. No goal post shift. Read my comment again noting “have happened” refers to events ” past temperatures, but only locally” which are well known and real.
The ”spikes” being possible refers to the separate concept that such temperature spikes may have been general rather than local and would not be visible due to the large error range in time and temperature.
Good try.


  • BBD says:

    I would like your opinions on the statistical probability of such events existing [my statement] rather than sidetrack to the question of how as you have an excellent understanding of the statistics involved.

    If no plausible physical mechanism exists that could produce a global warming of ~1C and ~150y in duration, there is nothing further to discuss.

    Since you cannot (will not) answer this question, I’d say we are done here.

  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    izen says: @-metzomagic
    “What physical process could possibly produce a 1 deg C spike in temperatures that disappeared without a trace within a 200 year time span?”
    It is a good question.
    A short global warming of similar magnitude to the present would need a large-scale cause.
    Solar variation.
    A large methane ‘burp’
    Albedo changes from massive global ice cover loss.”
    I could add
    Albedo changes from vegetation color changes,
    Algal or jellyfish sea plumes,
    widespread black soot deposits from a massive volcanic explosion/s,
    Prolonged excessive cloud formation,
    Two very large volcanic explosions 200 years apart.
    Recurrent runs of large El Nino events.
    or a combination of these events on smaller scales.
    A combination of several events might nudge the plausibility barrier.
    Two very large volcanic explosions 200 years apart would certainly do it but is not fair.
    I doubt that warming are only possible from massive global ice cover loss. All the ice one needs for evidence has melted.
    You have shown that some of the first scenarios lack the proof that would be needed for attribution. Most of the others should also have left some traces.
    “a lack of inevitable effects.
    We know what effects the current rapid warming has had. It is inevitable that any similar energy gain in the past would have the same effect. AFAIK there is no evidence that there was a similar sea level rise in the Holocene since the end of the de-glaciation.”
    Good point.

    I suspect if there was it would show up in the timing and observable locations of solar and lunar eclipses.
    Too esoteric for me

    “Otzi the ice man would have defrosted in any previous rapid warming as glacier mass balance shrinks. ”
    Depending on whether he fell in a crevice at the start or the end of the glacier, surely? And how long and big it was.

    “While the proxies may theoretically be able to miss a short spike in the Holocene, there are other reasons to doubt it could happen and not be evident.”
    Perhaps this quote rebuffs your very good quote
    The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

     Look, I think the piling on is really healthy, happy to wear it and argue it to the hills, but only with the lighter weights.
    I want to avoid a Dikran vs angech comment thread, at all costs. I think Dikran’s point of view is explicit, and clear and totally different to mine.
    He is a lot more entitled to his views due to his senior status here and his scientific knowledge and expertise.
    That is not to say that I will not put up an alternative point of view and and discuss it with the rest of you if you address the same arguments.
    ATTP’s point
    “It’s almost 20 years since the publication of the first hockey stick paper (Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998). The hockey stick refers to millenial temperature reconstructions that look a bit like a hockey stick; a period of centuries during which temperatures appear reasonably flat, or cool slightly (the shaft), followed by a period of rapid warming starting in the mid-1800s (the blade)”
    is something I concur with.
    I point out, mathematically why this must happen with any older proxy record.
    I point out that the standard deviations grow as we go back in time and are large enough to easily encompass 1C ranges of temperature for 150 years without it having to trouble the records.
    It cannot trouble the records because the SD is much larger than 1C.
    So why the fuss?
    Why do we have to say the past 3000 years ran along with nary a squeak off the railroad straight hockey shaft?
    Internal variation too large lets denialists claim a slight risk to the scientific consensus?
    Even though when we admit it is large enough short term we can show observational ECS is too low?
    Not my problem, nor yours either if you man up to the scientific facts and work with them.
angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The atmosphere seems to have changed a little here since the publication in a journal of this reputable paper. Or was that the publication in a previously respectable journal of this paper?
Good to see nobody arguing that it need more peer review or the editor should be sacked for letting it through with pal review.
And even better that 1.6 C now seems to have become an acceptable lower limit [not an accepted true value] instead of the cries of it must be above 2.0C.

I missed this comment by DG though Mosher did pick it up.
Kudo’s Mosher.
Dave_Geologist says: April 27, 2018 at 2:43 pm
” Dessler’s point AFAICS is that if you take a suite of physics-based models, where you know the ECS in advance, and try to calculate it the way LC13 and LC18 do, you get the wrong answer.”

Did you really mean to say that Dave?

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

dikranmarsupial says: May 1, 2018 at 3:19 pm
angech, don’t change the subject, provide evidence to support your claim that “observations are falling badly behind computer model predictions of what the temperature rise should be.”

At last I can be helpful. evidence from an expert.
”More about Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” earlier ATTP post
“Andrew Dessler @AndrewDessler 14 Dec 2017
Terrific session on climate sensitivity today at #AGU17. Lots of discussion about climate sensitivity (ECS) estimates from the 20th century. The problem is that estimates of ECS from the 20th century obs. record are lower (1.5-2°C) than models (3°C).”

and Andrew Dessler says: April 27, 2018 at 2:51 pm
“According to our model ensemble, 155 years is not enough to eliminate the impact of variability on the estimate of ECS. Also, you asked how internal variability could’ve turned out differently. Well, that’s exactly what our model ensemble tells us. And the answer is that it can turn out differently enough to confound our estimates of ECS.”

…and Then There’s Physics says: April 28, 2018 at 10:42 am
“”as Andrew Dessler indicates – if you do consider GCM results, they suggest that these observationally-based, energy-balance approaches tend to be biased low. “

“As far as the possibility that something may backfire”

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“As far as the possibility that something may backfire”
“I’m not actually a fan of the tone of Harvey et al. I think they could have presented it in a way that may have resulted in less backlash”
Dr Mitchell Taylor, booted off the board of the PBSG after 20 years of service, ” If you don’t believe that climate science is settled, you can’t be a member of the PBSG,”‘
has some interesting things to say.
I did write over at Bart’s that this article should backfire.
not least because of this pertinent comment by Taylor.
“I have been active in polar bears since 1978. I didn’t recognize 12 of the 14 names on the paper written criticizing Susan for publishing an article about polar bears because she does not have any direct experience in polar bear research or management.”
Thank you for raising the matter again.
I feel the paper goes strongly against a lot of the things that you stand for as a scientist and I am sorry you have to defend it,

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Put this up at Tallbloke’s.
Happy with my rationalization so thought I might share it here as well. Older blog post and out of the way. ATTP might appreciate it as some thoughts on Solar system evolution, or not.
“Planet surface temperature is dependent on pressure and solar distance.
The third component * is the actual physical makeup of the planet and its atmosphere in in question.
This seems to be partly ignored by N and Z which PM is quite right to question.
Both views are mostly right and actually support each other.
E.M.Smith rightly asks about using the earth as a laboratory. “We have a natural lab here, use it.”

We are stuck with a 14 billion year old universe in which a 4.2 billion year old solar system has recently evolved.
It is highly likely that solar system accretions throughout our known galaxies are of varying ages from just forming to perhaps 8 billion years old ending when the sun blows up.
Accretions have inbuilt heat without suns, they are not cold dead lumps of rock. Jupiter for instance would still have a reasonable temperature at the surface without the sun, as would the earth at depth.
As EM Smith implied we do have a laboratory. It is a gigantic centrifuge whose spun components have temperatures depending not only on solar, pressure and internal heating [*composition] but also on the other component of physical makeup, what materials are in the planet and it’s atmosphere*. This is determined by the age and origins of the solar system accretions.

So we have the old earth, pre stromatolites with? a CO2/N atmosphere changing to an O2/N atmosphere for instance. Did the old earth have the same temperatures as the new earth?
We have the molten earth cooling down theory. Was the earth surface 4.2 Billion years ago the same as it is now? This is the nub of the question for Tallbloke et al. Do they believe in one temp for one planet same gravity, same insolation for ever or do they agree that the evolution/age/composition of the planet can affect these figures?

Once, if we admit that composition plays a part we could go on to the admittedly small but relevant role of GHG, both water and CO2 and elsewhere others .Which exist in wildly varying amounts on different planets. I am quite happy with the concept of gravity, mass, friction and normally more temperature at depth. We have the confounding effects of Oceans being colder at depths, not hotter due to the difficult nature of defining a surface. Very easy for gas/solids only. This makes temperature determination on the earth even more difficult.
Due to the variability in the main GHG, water vapour and its role in albedo control* [a third component not considered there is room for temperature variation due to GHG including and amplified by CO2 which could theoretically move the expected temperature a few degrees away from N and Z reasonable average estimate.

The two theories complement each other. If you take the Solar, add in the Gravity and then look at the actual physical composition of the accretion [if it has a surface in the first place -definition please]. It’s own internal temperature [and how it gets out to the surface], the makeup of the planet surface [All white chalk for instance compared to black or red ferrous compounds], and the albedo and GHG effects of the gases in or not in the atmosphere [and no oceans of whatever substance please] will all modify the expected result.
PM right.
N and Z right.
In parts.”

angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 17, 2018 at 11:26 pm
“The topic of this thread is not H17. Nor is it SusanC. The topic of this thread is about why it matters to describe and to try to explain how contrarians megaphones operate.”
Some may have missed that.
The ends may justify the means but as ATTP says in discussing truth as your goal it does not help to move away from the the other values associated with truth to prove your point.
Twister is a good game played with people you like but it is a hard way of defending the undefendable.
Give Joshua some carte blanche.
Several comments in an oppositional vein.
Thanks for the graphs and explanations by the way. Your point is well made.

Tamino good argument on his part
The 1880 to 2018 graph NASA is a compilation of different and changing temperature measuring devices, many different and changing sites and one presumes multiple adjustments to the original raw data. Zeke has explained in the past that current NASA etc anomaly graphs have built in TOBS etc adjustments that cool the past.
Still, if that is what we have that is what we have.

Secondly the amount of variation given that a yearly annual change can be as large as 0.1C [Guess only] is actually not that impressive over 138 years, or is it not that significant?
The figures could really be absolute, not anomalies and in Kelvin to give an idea of the real overall change.

Thirdly they do suggest the presence of the little ice age and presumably there was a fall from previous moderate levels.

As with all these arguments you might at times have used similar presentations to argue for your points while knowing that a slightly different picture would be available on a bigger/smaller/different graphing scheme?
Again this is all part of the arguing but if the skeptics, or you, use facile reasoning at times how do we get to the actual truths, such as they are?

There is a WUWT post on Greenland temps as we speak. Is it possible for you to contrast it’s results with yours or take it down.
The reasons for a flat shaft,
“many proxy records spanning the last 2000 years are not annually resolved, and in some regions, most of the available records of any length lack annual resolution. The mean resolution of non-tree archives is 11 years, the median 1 year. For sedimentary archives the mean and median resolutions are 25 and 18 years, respectively.”
are easy to see.
Going back in time smooths and flattens the trend.
Observations ten million years ago [as an example of the overall not the immediate problem] May have a change in temperature resolution of a thousand years. Observations a thousand years ago can have a resolution of 11 years. Annual data such as tree rings in some long lived species struggles to reach 600 years but provides a crucial overlap between thermometers and more esoteric proxies. At a cost of smoothing out changes.
Hence the ability to see warming and cooling trends of up to 2 degrees over 100 years is lost as one goes back in time.
Here is the conundrum. One did not even need to use tree ring proxies to get a flat shaft. It is a natural occurrence of using dating temperature proxies.
But we have another proxy method of temperature reconstruction. History via written languages and history of agricultural practices and living styles by archeology. These can give an indirect record of past temperatures, but only locally. Such records indicate that Temperature changes equivalent to the modern 150 year warming have happened a number of times in the past 3000 years.
The two results can coexist happily along side each other.

Adaptive little corals


  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    ATTP, Michael TE et al
    “My understanding is that many people rely on meltwater from glaciers. Hence, if the glaciers disappear, there will be no more meltwater. I don’t think that one should assume that there will somehow be an equivalent amount of precipitation that can replace the meltwater.”

    No glaciers, warmer, more moisture in air, in mountains gives increased water reserves. Dams if not already in place could help conserve water for the hotter part at the end of the year. Though if this is the monsoons the water comes straight from the sky.
    Glaciers and temp as we know them. Melt a little every year stay the same as the same amount of snow and rain input as output.
    Glaciers do not produce water de novo!
    More glaciers colder temp, less water after all if the glaciers are increasing in size it is because less of the water is free each year to run to the coast.

    As an aside, Norway, Fiords, Glaciers melting. Spectacular waterfalls everywhere in May/June? as the water from the melting snow1 pours in countless cataracts over the cliffs. Massive flows are not from Glacier melt, They are from rain and snow in the mountains.
    Sorry to disillusion all.

  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Too funny
    “identify the damage and the adaptation you suggest.”
    Always only one side of the coin.
    Damage, Damage, Damage.
    Try the Mary Poppins side.
    In the weird illogical world we live on for such a short time, inhabited by logical human beings trying to cope.
    More crops, new crops, Apple,ice cream and strawberry tastes in a new peelable banana that stays outside the fridge for 3 months ready to eat. Multiply example 1000 fold. New ski fields accessible in Siberia for the wealthy. Underwater and on water floatable cities on the Japanese coast. Hydro power, wind and wave power plus no loss of life from earthquakes.More fish farms as coastal land goes under helping feed lobster, tuna and trout to the starving masses. More oxygen available at higher levels, look out Denver. Increased rainfall to the equatorial fringes of the Hadley celss as they move polewards bringing dusty deserts back to life.
    Less cold inhibiting life on earth.
    What’s not to like.
    Roll on some warming, please.

  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    BBD says:
    Thanks for putting up a researched argument.
    Veron et al. (2009) The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of <350 ppm CO2

    “Temperature-induced mass coral bleaching causing mortality on a wide geographic scale started when atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded ~320 ppm.”
    Stating it is not proving it. Bleaching events are caused by a combination of known factors and as such have been happening for millions of years. We have only just had the technology develop to show events in real time recently.

    “When CO2 levels reached ~340 ppm, sporadic but highly destructive mass bleaching occurred in most reefs world-wide, often associated with El Niño events”.
    Two misconstructs, not your fault , though I presume you agree with them.
    Firstly CO2 levels.
    I doubt that CO2 by itself at any level can possibly cause coral bleaching.
    What the authors should specify is Co2 giving global temperature rise giving sea temperature rise etc. Seeing they did not do so is a dead giveaway that they are unable to do so with validity.
    Claiming results based on CO2 level is false.
    “Sporadic but world wide”
    Not even a clue on how to interpret such nonsense. Since the level is now so much higher at 412 one presumes the events have become common and world wide and all the coral has died?

    “At today’s level of ~387 ppm, allowing a lag-time of 10 years for sea temperatures to respond, most reefs world-wide are committed to an irreversible decline”.
    Always tomorrow not today. Allowing a lag time of 10 years the level of reaching 380 10 years previously should be kicking in now [2009] or did I miss that?
    Silly me, when it went up to 380 it kicked in and killed coral immediately, no waiting 10 years, but the new level has to take 10 years to do it?

    “Mass bleaching will in future become annual, El Niño events,degraded water-quality and increased severe weather events, the progressive onset of ocean acidification, etc, etc..
    Earth’s sixth mass extinction.”

    Coral bleaches when the sea level is too low, not high, when the water is too hot, when there are not enough clouds around during the day.
    El Nino certainly helps by putting up global temp when it occurs.
    There is an east to west pile up of waters for GBR in particular, at times this goes the other way and sea levels can fall dramatically for months around any coastline.
    Anyone really, really want to claim that bleaching is only approx 1990’s on phenomenon and has never happened in the past on low water level days with no cloud cover, sporadically around the world forever?
    Go for it.

    29/3/2018  “What are the consequences of this anthropogenically-driven warming?
    We obviously expect an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme heatwaves.”
    Not sure why the frequency should go up, the heatwave is an increase on the background heat which will be higher but this does not presage frequency, merely intensity.
    A heatwave in cold environments would not be unwelcome to people.

    ” We also expect the hydrological cycle to intensify, which essentially means more evaporation and, consequently, more precipitation.”
    Yes. More water could be good in some places. Obviously dry areas move polewards with the Hadley cells.

    “In particular, we expect an increase in the frequency and intensity of the most extreme precipitation events.”
    If there is more water in the air logically there should be more rain. Intensity against the old baseline? The more extreme an event is classed as the less often it can occur. Frequency by definition would have to stay the same.

    ” We also expect an increase in the frequency and intensity of some of the more extreme weather events, such as tropical cyclones”.
    Treading on questionable grounds there. I thought that an increase in temperature is expected to reduce the frequency tropical cyclones but make them more likely, when they occur, to be more intense? Sure some of the weather guys here can correct me if wrong.
angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

verytallguy says: March 27, 2018 at 3:48 pm Angech,
“the logarithmic relationship is purely a convenient fit of data to a curve. It is only relevant to the range of data fitted. In other words, It’s empirical, not based on any underlying truth.
I can’t find any obvious reference, so Angech will have to trust me. (!)”‘

Data fitting to a curve? We do see a lot of it. Nothing wrong on it’s own.
The concept of doubling taken to extremes proves the point that the concept of the doubling is purely curve fitting and not based on the actual underlying physics. It becomes physically implausible at the lower levels, hence it can only be an observationally based observation.
Which is all I was saying.
The concept that there is a physical basis purely on the concentration is wrong at other parts of the curve.
I did put a quote up from Arrhenius on doubling, quadrupling, halving and quartering. I hope that bit can be repeated and seen since there were two replies to it.
Basically he said that a halving would drop it by 4C and a quartering by 8C, so it seems logical that he implied this was an ongoing feature of his claim.
Interesting aside was the fact that the CO2 effect is primarily at higher levels where the H20 does not reach, basically a blanket outside the blanket H2O doing all the heavy lifting.
Everyone happy with that concept?

Joshua says:
“angech –A heatwave in cold environments would not be unwelcome to people”
“What do you gain from such comments that so lack specificity that they are completely worthless (with respect to a reasoned discussion – they may have value in winding people up, I suppose)?”

Rewind please.
Joshua, general comments are not always worthless.
A reasoned discussion must allow both sides of an argument, or is there only one side allowed to yours?
If that is the way, then there is no discussion and any mention of points to the contrary will be deemed as vexatious and winding up people.

I find, and again correct me if I am wrong, that this view of discussions often applies to both sides of the argument at different sites. Again, personally, I appreciate your views but find an amaurosis in your comments addressed mainly to one side. This is despite the fact that you have shown at times a genuine balance on the arguments.
I could sit down, take the views of people here, put a skeptic name to the argument and find it would be shouted down. I could take a skeptic argument, put a name from here down and it would not raise a murmur.
I do not have to do anything to wind people up, they are, like me, already wound up and just need a trigger like a hint of an opposing view.
In real life I am sometimes socially awkward and this winds some people up unintentionally. I like making jokes but do take offence too easily when the joke is at my expense. My problem, I live with it.

In regard to the issues ATTP raises I was pointing out, as usual, that there are benefits to global warming as well as detriments. I do not think the earth is one uniform set in concrete perfect place that cannot or should not be changed so that every little shy coral can live its undisturbed paradise. The world is also wrongly painted as only savage tooth and claw survival. Somewhere between there is a large balance range. We can move ourselves in and out of it and have nature do it to us whether we want it to or not.
Nothing to date shows that a warmer world will be that that much badder for us. Extreme events will always occur at rare intervals for each type of rare event but extremely frequently if one multiplies the number of different rare events by the number of different localities and times they can occur in.
Hence the relative unimportance of the big events and the recourse to a multitude of stories about the hottest/coldest/driest/wettest peatbog/methane/vortex/elNino/tree loss/deforestation flood/x1,000,000 events of climate change that might, or might not be influenced by human activity.
Do you really want to face this can of worms honestly?
And yes, AGW or even CAGW are some of the real possibilities that may exist, or not.
Even in the face of my comment.

At last a real discussion

warmist position “ YES ”
Thanks Willard.
Also a skeptic position is it not, so not much help there.

I am appreciative of your pointing out some of the difficulties in giving cogent arguments to every problem when some appear to have been rushed or not explained as well as they could be. Along with Izen we seem to be a tag team I was not expecting. Try some honey and lemon juice and lots of rest to get better quickly. oseltamivir Tamiflu®), zanamivir Relenza®) anti flu virus drugs might help if very crook??

Came across an Aussie? Steve Sherwood Director, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW with a piece showing the problems with using the hot spot argument.
“” Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found ” ** 2015
1. If you cannot find it, debunk its importance by saying it is a general sign of temperature increase, not a fingerprint of climate change.
2. If you can find it, insist on its importance as proof.
This article happily does both.

Quoting Skeptical science [abridged by me]
“Why should there be a ‘hotspot’ in the atmosphere above the tropics?
Most of Earth’s incoming energy from the sun is received in the tropics, strong evaporation there removes a lot of heat from the ocean surface. This heat is hidden (latent)
Strong evaporative uplift occurs near the equator due to the intense solar heating of the ocean there, forcing s the evaporated water (water vapour) to ascend up through the atmosphere. Because the temperature in the atmosphere decreases with increasing height (known as the lapse rate), this has the effect of cooling water vapor until it reaches a point where it condenses back into a liquid form (forming clouds and rainfall) – liberating the hidden (latent) heat into the upper atmosphere. With the great bulk of atmospheric moisture being concentrated in the tropics, this ongoing process should lead to greater warming in the tropical troposphere than at the surface.”

The problem
“Despite obvious warming of the atmosphere, it had been difficult to confirm the existence of this hotspot *” Skeptical science
The talking point?
The answer is not that any cause of temperature rise should give a hot spot.
But that a temperature rise seems to have occurred but the warming spot has not.
This then allows for doubt to be cast unfortunately on the measurements of temperature.
Which opens the whole can of worms, Joshua.
[” Show one “skeptic” point to be correct, and then show how that point being correct “adjudges” all “skeptic” arguments (or even a lot of them, or even one of them). “]

*primarily due to analytical deficiencies in accounting for temperature data quality and sampling, i.e. it’s suspected to have been a ‘measurement problem’. Skeptical science
**”The problem is that temperatures vary during the day, and when a new satellite is launched (which happens every few years), it observes the Earth at an earlier time of day than the old one (since after launch, each satellite orbit begins to decay toward later times of day).” Sherwood


Your comment is awaiting moderation.

But I do think that other authors haven’t considered the possibility that the “warmhole” is a consequence, not of a trend change, but of a sudden shift.

Thank you for pointing out this rather large shift or natural variation which goes to show that we do not fully understand the full range of natural variation available on this planet.
Was 2.1 C a 3 sigma shift?
Then we had a 5 sigma shift in the global sea ice last year with nary a viable reason put forward for a regime change.
Either we have much larger error bars than we realise or someone has mucked up the measurements.
CO2 certainly did not do a regime shift at these spots.

Take cars.
Subset electric cars.
I ride a pushbike in a flat, low density small city in a group of mainly over 60’s doing 3 -5 rides a week of 50 K and a coffee afterwards.
Tried to ride the 3 K to work at one stage but just too inconvenient.
We have accidents, fractured clavicles, head injuries hips etc And this is a group that knows how to ride.
Two cars, amazing how 2 people can never quite arrange not to be needed in 2 spots at the same time.
Nonetheless cars are an indictment on CO2 use, not a luxury if you believe in lowering it.
Yet everyone here is probably at least as complacent as I am.
Electric cars have to be manufactured, Tires engines seats glass. They have to be scrapped when they are old. They need fuel input from batteries which cost to make and dispose and if using solar power thay have to be manufactured as well and those things they use to transform the energy often breakdown and need replacing.
I do feel if you are going to talk the talk, you really must walk the walk.
If you read this on a computer, or reply to it you are not really doing your bit.