The new normal: Fires come close to Melbourne, fire plume visable from city

Source: The Age

Source: The Age

This is extraordinary:

AT LEAST one home was destroyed and frightened residents and workers fled as a fast-moving fire came close to Melbourne’s outer northern suburbs. 

The grassfire became an out of control blaze, burning more than 2000 hectares as it headed south from Donnybrook towards urban Epping and Campbellfield. 

More than 600 firefighters in 120 trucks came from across Victoria to battle the flames on a hot and gusty day. They were supported by 11 waterbombing aircraft.

You can see the smoke from the city centre, this time-lapse video shows the fire plume:




Tagged , ,

245 thoughts on “The new normal: Fires come close to Melbourne, fire plume visable from city

  1. Eric Worrall says:

    Darn, if only I’d switched to low energy lightbulbs, none of this would have happened. There would have been no more bushfires.

    • john byatt says:

      There is nothing that we can now do to prevent dangerous climate change, we can however prevent a catastrophe.

      Your legacy will haunt you

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Only if I do nothing while anti science alarmists usher in a new dark age.

      • Moth says:

        Eric, I would suggest that your phobic nature to progress and efficiency is more akin to dark age mentality that any discussions of decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions….

        Of course, hold on to your ancient Edison light bulbs while the rest of us get excited over the Tesla Model S and amazing revolutions in design, technology and research…

    • Nick says:

      We are seeing the effects of the extra carbon drawn down into plant matter. Vegetation is responding to extra CO2 by bulking up in wet periods,then is burning in hot dry with more vigour because there is more plant matter per square metre.

      There may be more or fewer bushfires-that depends on ignitions- but many are potentially more vigorous in the new normal.

  2. john byatt says:

    A gift from Turnbull this morning, have been getting this out to all capital city newspapers, regionals, political parties etc

    On ABC radio this morning Malcolm Turnbull stated that to his knowledge there were only one or two “climate change Deniers” within the coalition.

    A full perusal of all statements from federal parliamentarians has been used to ascertain their stance

    Federal politicians position on climate change

    John Byatt
    etc etc

    hope eric is doing his bit

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Just how ridiculously autocratic do you guys want to be? When do you stop wanting to micromanage everything? FFS, put the ingredients list on the side of the bottle, in readable English, and let people make up their own minds.

      • john byatt says:

        They have been doing that and it has not worked, obesity costs big time.

        diabetes and heart disease are epidemics in this country and the US

        you are a fool

      • Eric Worrall says:

        How can someone elses obesity cost me? Oh thats right – socialised medicine. Because we all have to pay into a common pot, we also all have to care about the life choices of our fellows, and poke our nose into their business, to keep our own costs down. Socialism turns us into a bunch of nosy parkers, bullying and coercing our fellows.

      • john byatt says:

        are you as obese as your face suggests?

      • Skeptikal says:

        John, obesity is a result of lifestyle choice and can have health consequences… but be thankful that we live in a country where we are free to make our own choices. If you don’t cherish your freedoms, then it is you that is the fool.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        John doesn’t think ordinary people are qualified to make their own life choices, he thinks experts should make the decisions for them.

      • john byatt says:

        Yes people should be able to drive drunk, without a seatbelt, do any speed they wish, smoke in the car with their children, not send the kids to school, live in a humpy, ahh freedom to do what we want.

        If it does not hurt others? even the ones picking up the bills?

      • john byatt says:

        And of course the freedom for product manufacturers to put as much sugar and crap in their products as they wish and target their sales to children and their ignorant parents

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I don’t want you to foot my bills. But thanks to socialised medicine, neither of us have a choice – which is why you think you have a right to poke your nose into my business.

        Drink driving has obvious consequences for innocent bystanders, but obesity? Where do you draw the line? Just how much stifling micromanaged control of people’s lives to you want?

        And you wonder why we accuse alarmists like you of being totalitarian.

      • john byatt says:

        So you believe that companies should be allowed to fill product with sugar for profit, remove expensive stuff, top up with sugar, without having to foot the bills for the consequences , because to stop it would be micromanaging peoples lives?

        look at breakfast cereals , some nearly a third sugar, why, because it is cheaper

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I think anyone who feeds their kids a diet of sugary cr@p is an idiot. But I don’t really see it as my problem – they’re not my kids.

      • john byatt says:

        so answer the question then?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I think companies should be free to fill their products with sugar – but they should have to mark the packets with a list of ingredients.

        A parent who allows their kid to eat a diet mainly consisting of sugary rubbish is an idiot, but I respect their right to choose what their children eat – they’re not my kids.

        If the state assumes full responsibility for the wellbeing of children, where do you draw the line? Should kids be removed from parents if their school grades slump? Should parents have to pass an annual parent skills test, on pain of losing their kids?

        Good intentions can have awful consequences – you need to tread very carefully when considering whether to remove someone’s freedom to make their own choices, however good your motives.

      • john byatt says:

        disconnect, you are confusing the rights of parents with the rights of companies to sell high sugar content foods, you have already said that you uphold the rights of companies to put tons of sugar into their product without any limit,

        it is not anything to do with parents rights.

        Under your free to do what they like ideology the obese rate is going to climb higher and the medical bills for the country will follow, you accept that, I think that you are a dill

      • Eric Worrall says:

        And you would preserve a sham of freedom, by telling parents they have a choice, but removing the options you don’t like. IMO it would be more honest to simply dictate their choices – unacceptable, but honest.

      • Berbalang says:

        Define readable English, ingredient names get changed to hide what they really are or wording gets spun to imply something is true that isn’t. To cite a couple of examples: “100 percent juice” (tiny type below “with added ingredients”) and “Sugar Free” (first ingredient listed “crystallized sugar cane juice”).
        Also obesity can become a health threat to others if it is bad enough. When it gets to the point where the person can no longer cleanly use public restrooms and it winds up with feces smeared everywhere daily there is a problem.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You’re clutching at straws Berbalang – a lot of people make a mess in restrooms for reasons other than obesity.

      • Berbalang says:

        Eric Worrall, I don’t see how you can equate leaving a couple of paper towels on the floor with anally engulfing a toilet and covering it in feces. I really don’t want to go into graphic detail about that situation, but you seem to have a lot of trouble grasping what I said.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Fat people sometimes leave toilets a little messier, so your first option is to impose draconian measures to curtail their freedom.

        Did it occur to you to consider gentler options, such as charging fat people a little extra to use the toilet, to cover the higher cleaning costs?

        Public lavatories could build a few larger, more comfortable cubicles, which they could charge a little extra to use. As a fat person, I’d pay a little extra for more comfort without even thinking about it.

      • Berbalang says:

        Eric Worall, just so I know where you are coming from on this, just how much should someone pay for every day spraying every surface in the cubicle with feces? The fact you seem to see nothing wrong with this is disturbing.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Thin people make toilets dirty as well – at some point a toilet needs cleaning regardless of who uses it. I agree a fat person is likely to make a mess, which would suggest toilets used by fat people need to be cleaned more frequently.

        So my suggestion is, rather than draconian curbs on freedom, which seems to be your first response, fat people should pay a little more, to cover the extra costs they incur.

        Whats so difficult to understand about my point?

      • Berbalang says:

        So your solution is pay toilets that somehow sense a person’s weight and prices accordingly? Would you have them pay before or after using the cubicle?

      • Moth says:

        Common pot… Nosey parkers.. I wouldn’t be surprised if Eric would only be happy if he grew all his own food, made his own medicine, sowed his own clothes, birthed his own children, hand delivered his own mail….

        Society is evil. Pure evil. Collective ability can never rise over the individual. The individual is supreme and central to everything.

        Give me a break! The reason we are socially and technically as evolved as we are and living increasingly with less threat of violence and premature death is entirely because we obligate effort among our societies. We have developed credit as a convenient tool for future work and produce. That too is part of this dispersal of effort.

        Your individualism is completely contrary to this and completely irrational.

  3. Skeptikal says:

    More proof that the carbon tax isn’t working.

  4. Eric Worrall says:

    Latest info from NASA on the Russian meteor event a few days ago is that it released half a megaton of energy.

    So far, remarkably, no reports of fatalities. We might not be so lucky next time.

    The meteor was not spotted in advance – total budget spent on meteor early warning is around $6 million per year, just about enough to do the paperwork.

    Meanwhile, governments are spending 10s of billions every year combatting a problem we cannot even detect with certainty, damage from which so far only exists in dodgy computer models.

    What will it take to wake people up to real issues? An approaching dinosaur killer?

    • john byatt says:

      When we do have the means of getting thirty minutes notice

      face south
      put your head between your legs
      kiss your arse goodbye

    • Eric Worrall says:

      A better map of whats out there would be a good start. A day or two warning would give people a chance to get out of the way. It decent warning of something larger would give us a chance, however remote.

      • john byatt says:

        NASA would need a model with speed,’ trajectory/ coupled to earth;s rotation and much more with no margin of error,

        you would be running from a safe place to point of impact if model was even just a few metres per hour out.

        your new born again faith in models?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If climate models were anywhere near as accurate as celestial mechanics, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

      • Skeptikal says:

        John, they can model a trajectory very accurately. What they can’t seem to model very accurately yet is (the lack of) global warming.

        The main difference is that trajectory prediction is science, whereas global warming prediction is pseudo-science.

        If NASA told me that a meteor was going to land on my house, I’d believe them…but when some activist tells me that the world is going to melt down because another activist (with a science degree) modelled it on a bunch of assumptions… well, I find that a lot harder to believe!

      • zoot says:

        You do know that NASA is one of the bodies warning that the planet is warming don’t you? You do know that they do this because they have measured the changes as well as modelled them? You are trying to make the denialist argument look stupid, aren’t you?

      • Skeptikal says:

        NASA has real scientists doing real work, and then they have climate scientists doing activists work.

        The scientists who work on meteor trajectories don’t make assumptions, and if they said a meteor was going to hit us… nobody would be laughing at them.

        Climate scientists, on the other hand, are like circus clowns… they put on a show and people laugh… but we wouldn’t want them dictating government policy.

      • zoot says:

        Well that confirms it. You are trying to make the denialist argument look stupid.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Zoot, are you suggesting because NASA is good at flying spaceships, we should accept their expertise on climate change?

      • john byatt says:

        Read Apollo 13 and the 2 minutes of silence.

        trajectories, bah

      • Eric Worrall says:


        Read Apollo 13 and the 2 minutes of silence. trajectories, bah

        The trajectory of 2012 DA14, the larger rock which missed the Earth, was accurately calculated. What they didn’t spot was the smaller rock which crashed into Russia.

        A few more dollars spent on sky watching might have allowed the smaller rock to be detected in time to warn people in the affected area.

      • john byatt says:

        They knew that it would miss the earth and you see that as getting it exactly correct ?

        where it would have hit on an earth trajectory is a whole new ballgame.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You’re spouting complete BS. Its not necessary to know exactly where it would hit. A warning that it would hit, and when, would be enough to draw a probability map of the likely location. A few thousand miles radius on probable hit, and a time, would have helped.

      • john byatt says:

        that would be your thirty minute warning .
        telling people that it might hit somewhere within a thousand km’s in a days time would a total waste of time

      • john byatt says:

        NASA large meteor warning
        sometime tomorrow between midnight and 2am a large meteor will hit australia somewhere between melbourne adelaide and brisbane,

        will update 30 minutes before impact


      • Eric Worrall says:

        Air raid sirens were still useful during WW2, despite the fact they didn’t tell people exactly where the bombs would strike. If the Russians had 30 minutes warning there might have been fewer injuries from flying glass and people being thrown about by the shockwave.

      • Nick says:

        Oh, a moronic attempted equivalence between modelling the trajectory of a fast moving small single detected celestial object,and the trajectory of a global climate system. Skeptical wants co-ordinates for both. How stupid are you,buddy?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Shame the world isn’t warming anymore, and hasn’t been warming for 16 years (soon to be 20 years, if the MET is right).

        It was such a beautiful theory.

      • john byatt says:

        serious disconnect unless you want every town on earth to install meteor warning sirens.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        There are already systems in place for issuing general alerts, which are used for large scale disasters such as bush fires – radio, TV, SMS, etc.

        The problem seems to be detection of smaller objects which still have the potential to cause a lot of damage, not availability of means to issue an alert.

      • john byatt says:

        You into eugenics?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Are you into Eugenics

        Fairly meaningless question John – perhaps you could elaborate?

      • Michael says:

        An asteroid strike might be beneficial.

        Don’t listen to alarmists like Eric.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Depends where it hits ;-). Oooh, couldn’t help that!

      • Muller? Muller was 20 years late recognising the root of the problem. He’ll be 20 years later recognising the extent of the problem. The only reason to cite a discredited clown is to be one yourself.

    • Nick says:

      We have detected the “problem” with 95% certainty Eric. When you understand what that actually means,get back to us.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Only in the imaginations of alarmists Nick.

      • Nick says:

        Flippant and incorrect.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Extreme weather is not on the rise. SLR has not accelerated. Tuvalu is still inhabited. Global temperature has not risen for 16 years (soon to be 20 years, if the MET is correct).

        So far none of the problems alarmists predict have occurred, despite unscientific efforts to tie every weather event to your narrative.

        Like I said, the problem is imaginary – it only exists in the imaginations and dodgy computer models of alarmists.

      • Nick says:

        Stupid,stupid,stupid,Eric. You see yourself as holding some kind of line,but it involves using simple untruths,strawmen and avoidance of the full picture. SLR has in fact accelerated,so your claim there is a lie. Extreme weather is a very general descriptor…we do know that high intensity rain events have increased in number. We know that cyclones are spinning up more rapidly than previously observed in many cases. We do know that SLR has potentiated storm damage,vis Sandy. We have just had an extraordinary event [ex TC Oswald] with all-time observational record flooding in two large river basins,and the longest period of sustained winds of a certain intensity at several stations. We have had the greatest extent under heatwave in the history of European occupation of Australia. Over twenty countries set all time extreme heat records in 2011 and 2011. We have worsening wildfires in the US because of ACO2 bulking up vegetation and extreme heat and dryness providing the rest. This was projected and is being observed. Arctic sea ice volume has collapsed as predicted,and as predicted it is changing weather in the high er latitudes of the NH.

        These sort of extremes were predicted to be part of the extreme suite that comes with an increase in global temperature. So ‘none of the problems that alarmists [-actually cautious scientists] predict’ ARE OCCURRING…I don’t know why you bother with your claims.

        “Unscientific attempts to tie every weather event to your narrative” is a laughable projection on your behalf. Firstly,you do not know ‘my narrative’,judging by the way you misrepresent it. Secondly I have seen no one ‘attempt to tie every weather event’,so that is hyperbole from you,and can be dismissed. Attempts to explain why changes to average climate states can contribute to weather features and possible extremes in some events IS scientific,and that is the limit of the weather/AGW coupling narrative you so blithely misrepresent.

        You’re an idiot. No one needs your transparently incompetent fibbing.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        According to Richard Muller, lead author of the BEST study, extreme events are not increasing:-

        … And I thought he meant it in the sense that storms like Katrina are the inevitable consequence of what happens when we constantly pump – without any sort of limitations – CO2 – you know, greenhouse gases and CO2 – into the atmosphere. So, even if your interpretation is correct, that Katrina had nothing to do with global warming, is it fair to say that if we don’t take any steps to reduce emissions, we are going to have more superstorms like Katrina?

        Richard Muller: Oh, no. No, no. First, you have to recognise that according to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, the number of hurricanes has been going down. The next thing you need to know is that Katrina was not a superstorm, it was only a Category 3 when it hit New Orleans. Just happened to be the first Category 3 that hit New Orleans in decades.

        And they were unprepared for it – it was Category 5 when it was out to sea, and now we call it Category 5 because we have satellites and we can detect things out at sea.

        But the number of hurricanes has been constant – in fact, it has been going down slightly. The theory doesn’t predict more intense storms. The theory says that’s a possibility, but intense storms come about when there are big temperature differences between the Equator and the Poles – that’s what drives the energy up and makes the hurricanes.

        And in global warming theory, you expect the temperature difference to decrease, because the Poles warm more than the Equator. So it’s plausible that storms will go up, plausible that they will go down, but Hurricane Katrina was just – a place – a hurricane that hit a city that was unprepared. It was not an extremely intense storm.

        You guys are like a bunch of fanatic Christians, searching for the hand of Satan in worldly affairs. The science does not support your assertions.

      • Nick says:

        Time waster Eric. Your argument methods are crap,substandard. You’ve made a sweeping claim [none have been realised] about predictions by scientists which covers a whole raft of weather and climate phenomena.

        When challenged you trot out your “you guys are fanatics” rubbish and cite one ill-informed person [Muller] talking superficially about one phenomenon. Muller does not support your generalisation. Muller cites hurricanes in general as not increasing. No one disputes the global hurricane record shows a lot of variation from year to year. What hurricane researchers have noted is that the proportion of severe hurricanes to the total number of all categories has increased. And that temperature gradients between equator and poles have changed,bringing extra-tropical storms to higher latitudes.

        If you are going to make a sweeping claim tell me whether you are seriously going to back it, or are just interested in dumb rhetoric in future. I wouldn’t be discussing cyclogenisis with Muller,it’s not his field,as you can see by his superficiality. Real experts like Kerry Emanuel and Kevin Trenberth have put 70 years between them into meteorology and climate mechanics. To ignore them is to show your own breathtaking ignorance and arrogance.

  5. seawork says:

    I think that this site would improve if Eric Worrall stopped trolling

    • Skeptikal says:

      Eric is bringing a different perspective to topics discussed on this site. You need to have differing views to make a discussion interesting. Mike doesn’t seem to mind him commenting here, so why should you?

      If you want a climate zombie site where you’ll feel more comfortable, then I highly recommend…

      I was recently “warned” over there for making an apparently off-topic comment…

      So, what was my heinous crime? I dared to mention the words “carbon tax”. Since the topic included a reference to the pending suffering that farmers will face, I didn’t think it unreasonable to make a comment comparing the suffering farmers will face under a labor policy versus the suffering they’ll face under a national/liberal policy.

      I don’t visit there very often, and will probably visit even less often from now on… but it might be the perfect place for you.

      • Nick says:

        Crocodile tears over farmers now? Spreading yourself even thinner?

      • zoot says:

        I hope the next govt has money set aside to rebuild Whyalla after it disappeared because of the carbon price. It’s sad to see the empty paddock where once stood a proud and productive town.

      • john byatt says:

        National Party Greenwashes election policy platform to attract the Farmer’s vote

        Greenwashing is a form of spin, in which green public marketing is deceptively used to promote the perception that an organization’s aims and policies are environmentally friendly, when in fact it’s just a ploy to win political support, while masking the organization’s true agenda of growth-at-all-costs.

        The National party’s 2013 election Policy Platform states “Our Plan, The Nationals recognise that climate change is an urgent environmental priority and that a robust and realistic response is essential.” Farmers, already suffering from the early consequences of climate change and looking for some leadership and a change of direction, could be forgiven for actually believing that statement.

        A perusal of Hansard and other public statements on climate change from the ten Lower House members of the National party contesting the September election reveals that only Tony Crook and Luke Hartsucker accept the scientific consensus. The other eight, including the leader Warren Truss, all deny the science and all have statements on record to that effect. The National’s Upper House representation is even worse, with all six of the senators indicating either a rejection of the science or at best a couldn’t-care-less attitude towards it.

        Farmers will gain no assurance that the party’s policy statements are genuine from its leader Warren Truss’s inane throw away lines:
        “It’s too simplistic to link a finite spell to climate change.”
        “These comments tend to be made on hot days rather than cold days.”
        “I’m told it’s minus one in Mt Wellington at the present time in Tasmania.”
        “Australia’s climate, it’s changing, it’s changeable. We have hot times, we have cold times.”
        “The reality is that it’s utterly simplistic to suggest that we have these fires because of climate change.”

        In response to a question on the number of climate deniers within the Coalition ranks (ABC radio, 20 February), Malcolm Turnbull answered that he did not like the term, but to his knowledge there were only one or two ‘climate deniers’ within the Coalition. Malcolm, the actual number is thirty-six.

        The farmers of Australia need to start asking serious questions of their Coalition representatives and its contenders for the 2013 election.


      • john byatt says:

        Maybe Skeptic did not bother to read mike’s full reply

        Feel free to discuss what could be done to educate farmers about what’s really happening so they can vote for people who will look out for their best interests or feel free to discuss if their actually is or isn’t a disconnect although I’m pretty sure I’ve welland truly demonstrated that there is. If you want to raise those other things I have an open thread here.

  6. john byatt says:

    must agree with this comment at ABC re sugar in foods

    20 Feb 2013 8:49:58am
    Sorry don’t agree –

    SUGAR is the enemy and those that push it.

    They couldn’t give tea or coffee away until sugar was added now they cant keep up with the demand so they put it in everything else didn’t they.

    There was no obesity not at long ago before sugar was introduced, now look at us.

    The biggest consumers of sugar in the world are Cadbury Schweppes and Coke.

    The rule is if it tastes sweet don’t eat it.

    If you eliminate sugar from your diet you’ll lose weight without doing anything else.

    It should be treated like tobacco, it has probably killed as many people and made 10 times as many miserable by being obese.

    Reply Alert moderator

    when i went the school there was only one person called tubby in the whole school

  7. Eric Worrall says:

    Hilarious – new peer reviewed paper indicates the Antarctic icepack shows no overall trend, though an increase in accumulation in coastal regions (similar to increases which occurred during previous solar maxima) has been observed. It also repeats my assertion that satellite telemetry is not yet accurate enough to add value to surface measurements.

    It also predicts that global warming will increase Antarctic ice accumulation, so the net contribution of Antarctica on SLR will be negative.

    Click to access tc-7-303-2013.pdf

    High-accumulation periods have occurred in the past, specifically during the 1370s and 1610s. However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10 % has occurred in high SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.

    Moreover, although modern altimetry and gravi- metric technologies are strongly improving the possibilities for mass balance detection, the SMB uncertainty is estimated to be more than 10 % (equivalent to nearly 0.6 mm yr−1 of sea level rise), which is at least equal to the ice discharge uncertainty (Frezzotti et al., 2007; Magand et al., 2007).

    Climate model projections based on increasing green- house gas concentrations predict a warmer atmosphere con- taining higher levels of water vapour, suggesting that the Antarctic snowfall is expected to increase. Thus, the SMB of the AIS will negatively contribute to sea level rise

    Several authors have noted the impor- tance of conducting ancillary spatial SMB measurements as part of ice-coring programs to allow topographic effects to be deconvolved from potential climate signals (e.g., Hamil- ton, 2004; Frezzotti et al., 2005, 2007; Anschu ̈tz et al., 2008; Spike et al., 2004; Kaspari et al., 2004). To avoid such mis- leading results it is important that SMB records of insuffi- cient or unassessed reliability (high variability or unknown SMB upstream of the core site) be discarded, even at the cost of a strong reduction in spatial and temporal coverage (Ma- gand et al., 2007).

    Eric – Yet more evidence the LIA was global:-

    A comparison of the TSI and the continental stacked SMB records (Fig. 5a) reveals low accumulations during low solar activity, particu- larly during the Wolf minimum (1280–1359) and the Spo ̈rer minimum (1420–1540).

    A total of 67 SMB records from the AIS over the last 800 yr were analysed to assess the temporal variability of accu- mulation rates. The temporal and spatial variability of the SMB over the previous 800 yr indicates that SMB changes over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible and do not exhibit an overall clear trend. This result is in accordance with the results presented by Monaghan et al. (2006), which demonstrate statistically insignificant changes in the SMB over the past 50 yr. However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10 % (> 300 kg m−2 yr−1) has occurred in high- SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s. The decadal records of previous centuries show that the observed increase in accu- mulation is not anomalous at the continental scale, that high- accumulation periods also occurred during the 1370s and 1610s, and that the current SMB is not significantly differ- ent from that over the last 800 yr.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I’m just waiting for you guys to take on the flower show toffs, with demands they stop using CO2 enhancers in their greenhouses. The dustup would be spectacular to say the least.

      Devices like this beauty must surely set your blood boiling – it burns natural gas to generate CO2, and discards the heat.

      • Berbalang says:

        The reason CO2 generators are used in Greenhouses is that there is not enough air circulation to keep the CO2 replenished in the Greenhouse air.
        Also, plant growth is limited by whatever is in shortest supply. Usually this is not CO2.

      • Nick says:

        You know CO2 use in GHs is trivial in terms of global FF burning. Trivial arguements are Eric’s speciality. Trivially dismissed.

  8. john byatt says:

    Batten down northern and central NSW.

    take care out there,

  9. john byatt says:

    This why we have seen an all out media attack on the greens, they are the only political party that get it.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      In a democracy you get the government you deserve.

      When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
      P. J. O’Rourke

      • zoot says:

        In a democracy you get the government you deserve.

        We must have been very naughty to get the abysmal choices now on offer.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        For once I agree with you 🙂

      • Nick says:

        That is so much useless ‘wisdom’. Politicians are bought and sold by powerful interests whether or not buying and selling are regulated. The very presence of partial or universal enfranchisement,and representative decision making, gets the money boys reaching for their wallets. They are,at heart,bandits.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Longer far northern growing seasons then? Soaring Siberian and Canadian wheat production?

      Love the way you guys predict so many disasters, they start cancelling each other out.

  10. john byatt says:

    Jinlun Zhang, Ron Lindsay, Axel Schweiger and Michael Steele. The impact of an intense summer cyclone on 2012 Arctic sea ice retreat. Geophysical Research Letters., 25 JAN 2013 DOI: 10.1002/grl.50190


    The Range News

    Dear Editor,

    Richard Giles (Range news Feb 22) While the multi award winning Al Gore movie “An Inconvenient truth” was fully in agreement with the science of that time (2006), six years on it is found to have grossly underestimated the predicted decline of the Arctic sea ice. In 1979 the Arctic sea ice April maximum volume was over 33,000 cubic kms, It melted to a September minimum of 22,000 cubic kms that year.

    Last year, 2012 that April maximum had shrunk to just 17,000 cubic kms, while the stunning melt season reduced the September minimum volume to just 4,000 cubic kms.

    Rather than face the reality of the Arctic death spiral due to human fossil fuel use, the skeptics instead claim that its demise has been due to ongoing freak events such as the intense summer Arctic cyclone last year.

    Zhang et al (2013) Geophysical Research Letters found that the 2012 cyclone had little impact on the final outcome. We now have enough fossil fuel to take us beyond the limit of human survival: Sherwood & Huber (2010). It is probably too late for the polar bears…… For humans there is still a little time left for us to prevent a future global scale catastrophe.

    John Byatt

  11. Skeptikal says:

    THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises

    BUT… he wants the lack of warming to last 30-40 years before he considers it significant. What a laugh.

    It looks like those of you who deny the “pause” in temperature rise might need to reconsider your position… you’re starting to look like fanatics with absolutely no grip on reality.

    • john byatt says:

      Was that true or did you read it in the Aust,, oh yer you did,

      why it is crap

      “THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”

      well we know that the met office did not confirm it at all

      and look at how you go from claiming that nothing that pachauri says is worth anything because he is a railway engineer to now quoting him.


  12. john byatt says:

    A laugh a minute from the australian

    cop this ” record Arctic ice growth”

  13. john byatt says:

    I was reading that sheri blog watching the watchers, It was so creationist mindset that i just had to ask the question
    john byatt says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:36 pm
    How long have humans been on the earth Sheri?

    Reality check says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:08 pm
    Reply to John: As long as they have.

    well that confirms my suspicion

    you cannot reason with creationists nor conspiracy theorists

  14. Debunker says:

    Skeptical said:

    “THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises

    BUT… he wants the lack of warming to last 30-40 years before he considers it significant. What a laugh.”

    What really happened (as John Byatt correctly noted), is that the British Met office have gone on record to say that they never confirmed any pause,and:

    Parchauri said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”

    Skeptical, what do you not understand about this? Did you fail comprehension at school as well?

    So the facts are, that we are in a long term warming trend which would take another 30 to 40 years to break, and that is a far different statement than Skeptical’s pathetic misunderstanding of it.

    And, by the way. We are only talking atmospheric heat accumulation here, which is about 10% of the total heat. The other 90% is going into the oceans, and that has gone ahead unabated. See graph below.

    And besides, the “no warming for 16 years” meme only works if you start at 1998, which was of course, the hottest year by far in the entire last century. Choose any other year last century and the warming continues unabated. So the Oztraylian, is guilty of cherry picking both comments and data (no surprises there), and Skeptical has uncritically swallowed it

    • john byatt says:

      And Met office predicts likely new world met record 2013

    • Skeptikal says:

      Debunker, if the IPCC has acknowledged that there’s been no warming for the last 17 years… then why can’t you? Stop living in denial and you won’t look like such a fool.

      • Nick says:

        Pachauri is not the IPCC. The IPCC gives its opinion in its reports. Next one is out 2014.

        As others have pointed out,average air temperature is but one measure of the effect of an enhanced GHE. Stop your simpleton rhetoric and you won’t look like such a fool

      • john byatt says:

        As the Arctic melts the surface air temperature remains near zero as all the energy is going into melting the Arctic ice, If we calculated what the actual temperature would be to effect that summer melt, we would find that the ongoing warming equivalent to the energy of two hiroshima bombs every two seconds, warming the planet would be horrendous. we are buying time at the expense of the Arctic

      • john byatt says:

        Sorry double that

      • Debunker says:

        Skeptikal, it is you who are fooling yourself. Did you not look at the total Global heat content graph I pointed you to? Total heat content is atmospheric plus ocean, with ocean containing over 90% of the heat. To ignore the largest reservoir of heat on the planet is truly idiotic!

        And by the way, there are also various natural forcings that have acted together to slow the increase of Global Atmospheric temperatures, such as a combination of strong La Ninas and volcanic eruptions. Watch the video below and see if you can’t learn something:

        Take those factors out and that reveals the underlying trend, which is still up. That is just planetary physics mate. Keep adding vast quantities of CO2 (you’re not denying it’s a greenhouse gas are you?) to the atmosphere and the temperature has to go up. The only real question is how much? That is the only real area of legitimate speculation, and that is what scientists are trying to nail down at the moment.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Debunker, the global average temperature anomaly cited is the anomaly in the atmospheric temperature. It’s been used to monitor the state of the climate since global warming was first invented and only fell out of favour since it stopped playing the global warming game. You can point to la ninas and volcanos and the bottom of the ocean and whatever else you feel like pointing to… but that’s not going to change the fact that the atmospheric temperature ain’t going up… it hasn’t been for the last 17years.

        The planet’s surface exchanges heat with the atmosphere and the rate of exchange is determined by the thermal gradient, so if the atmosphere isn’t getting any warmer then there isn’t any extra surface heat to give to the atmosphere. There is no hidden or invisible heat. Even the head of the IPCC has acknowledged this lack of warming.

        The only place still pushing this hidden warming is the activist pseudo-science site where you get your guidance. The site is run by a cartoonist for goodness sake… and you push his garbage like he was a scientist. Try to understand this… Activist site = Activist propaganda.

        The only place that global warming is still happening is inside computer models.

      • Flat earthers and climate so-called skeptiks only reckon on surface temperatures.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Don’t be such a sore loser John – you guys will be doing surface temperatures again next time there’s an uptick. You’re only doing signs and portents because the surface temperature graphs are such a disappointment to you.

  15. john byatt says:

    Take care Bundy, surely not again?


  16. john byatt says:

    Are the Journalists at The Australian brain dead or is their strategy just to continue the confusion on climate change? Now using the visit from Dr.Pachauri, head of the IPCC to spread a rather idiotic meme.
    “In a wide-ranging interview with Dr. Pachauri on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth”…. Each year the Arctic goes from its minimum summer area to its maximum winter area.
    A small area melt must then be followed by a small growth of ice to again reach the maximum area. This is basic logic. So the massive record area melt of 2012, which astounded the scientific community, must then be followed during the winter by a record winter ice growth as the winter ice again spreads to cover the Arctic Ocean. This year’s re-growth is dominated by first year, very thin ice. The Arctic is in a death spiral. Climate change needs to be accepted as fact and addressed. The Australian needs to stop the confusion

    • Nick says:

      The Australian is staffed by brain-dead provocative dickheads. It’s part of their branding,it’s where they see themselves as a paper: snot-nosed, always ‘challenging’. Actually they are in a collective delusion born of defensiveness and arrogance.

      I can’t believe one of their journalists does not have the time to familiarise themselves with the last decades events and the concepts of area, extent and volume…and what happens when the Arctic enters winter.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Hilarious that Pachauri is gently redefining the trend period upwards.

      First we had Ben Santer’s 17 year minimum period of significance for a climate trend.

      Then NOAA said the models rule out at 95% confidence flat periods of 15 years or longer.

      Now both periods have been or shortly will be broken, the CRU are now talking about models allowing flat periods of 20 years+

      But farsighted Pachauri, realising even 20 or 30 years might not be long enough, is starting to ease in the concept of 40 – 50 years. 40 – 50 years puts you safely past the predicted length of the approaching solar grand minimum, and is comparable to the flat period during the mid 20th century.

      But let me make it easy for you – if you start any trend back in the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, we can’t beat you – any contemporary change in temperature will still yield an upward trend line.

      • Nick says:

        …except that global temperature had been in a gentle decline,along with average sea level, since the Holocene Optimum over 5000 years ago…as countless studies have pointed out over the last thirty years. Now,about that uptick since 1850….

        The WMO have always argued for thirty years as the beginnings of climate significance versus weather.

        What you want to see is a DECLINE, Eric. Why has there been no decline in GT of any significant length in the last 150 years? Ya know, like you see in constructions of the last 800,1400 or 2000 years or more.

        Let me make it easy for you,it’s CO2 and its varying battle with other forcings and natural noise…what we are learning and have learned about weather,climate and various forcings makes the current near flatline unsurprising.

      • john byatt says:


      • Eric Worrall says:

        I actually agree with you, to an extent – CO2 is in a battle with other forcings.

        Previously CO2 was aligned with other forcings – the PDO index, and the end of the solar grand maximum (highest level of activity for 8000 years). Alarmism was based on the concept that these forcings didn’t matter – that CO2 utterly dominated the climate, by at least an order of magnitude, and was therefore responsible for all the warming since 1980 or so.

        Since 2002, despite just under a third of all anthorpogenic CO2 ever produced entering the atmosphere during the period since then, temperatures have been declining mildly:-

        If CO2 in conflict with other forcings produces a standstill, then CO2 forcing must be equal in strength to natural forcings. This implies that half the previous 1980 – late 1990 warming was due to natural forcings, which further implies that climate sensitivity estimates based on this period are twice as large as they should be – the real climate sensitivity is at most around 1.5c / doubling (IPCC 3c / doubling / 2)

        Of course, we haven’t really seen the full extent of what a reversal of natural forcings can achieve. The PDO index is only starting to swing into its negative phase, and solar activity has still not plummeted to its expected depths, so its probable that a sensitivity estimate of 1.5c / doubling is too high.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hey, its Nick who suggested the concept that the standstill was caused by CO2 in conflict with natural forcings. I simply developed his theme a little, demonstrated what his idea would imply.

        As for Tamino’s funny graph, that is based on the same flawed models which gave us the theory that CO2 utterly dominates natural forcings – models which are facing increasing embarrassment from the growing divergence between atmospheric CO2 levels, predicted temperature, and flatlining observed global temperature.

      • john byatt says:

        you are an idiot eric the PDO is a long lived el nino pattern, el nino equals warmer air temps
        we have just been through back to back La ninas

      • Skeptikal says:

        Eric, it’s worse than we thought. It’s all invisible heat… impossible to detect with conventional thermometers. This new mutant heat is quietly accumulating in the atmosphere and when CO2 doubles all this invisible heat will spontaneously convert itself to conventional heat causing the world to explode.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        As long as its still our wicked fault 🙂

      • john byatt says:

        You idiots did not want to mitigate so we are stuck with adaptation, which in effect means massive amounts of money to rebuild after floods and move entire towns.

        stop whining you are getting your wish

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I know – your proof is large scale flooding didn’t happen before 1980.

        If only we’d all switched to low energy lightbulbs, we could have avoided all this misery!

      • Skeptikal says:

        Eric, you’re making me feel bad now for stocking up on incandescent bulbs before the phase-out.

      • Skeptikal says:

        John, China is commissioning a new coal fired power plant every week and you want to punish Australians with a carbon tax… where’s the sense in that? Global CO2 emissions are going to rise regardless of what we do… can’t you accept that? If you seriously think that reducing our CO2 emissions while the rest of the world is increasing theirs is going to make any difference, then you’re a complete moron.

        Adaptation is the only sensible strategy and will be far less painful if we have a strong economy. The best part is that it will only cost us for the actual work needed. Forget the prophecies and look at reality… how much adaptation has been required so far?…. none. Don’t point to places like Gympie, which have always flooded, as some kind of proof of the cost of adaptation… Gympie was flooding in the 1860’s, well before global warming could be blamed. Given the effects of the recent warming have beeen minimal, adaptation might not cost us all that much at all.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Skeptical, I’m still waiting for Mike to publish a post focusing on the need to switch to nuclear power, as an emergency measure to prevent further rises in carbon emissions.

        These days alarmists pay occasional lip service to the nuclear option, but with a few honourable exceptions , they haven’t really embraced it.

        You really have to ask why alarmists don’t throw their collective weight behind the one option which they have a hope of selling to the broader public. Instead they waste (to them) precious time trying to convince people they should live simpler, more humble lives, and scream that our reluctance to accept their well meaning reforms is endangering the planet.

      • john byatt says:

        For Qld to date just in insurance claims 6 billion plus and counting, this is not even the full amount which has been paid by the state and the federal government for repair work which will then be compounded by adaptation,.
        which will run into the tens of billions.

        you are right Qld has so far spent nothing on adaptation, all the money will go on just trying to mop up after each disaster


      • Skeptikal says:

        Eric, you’re going to be waiting a while. The greenies don’t like nuclear power. They don’t like any form of cheap reliable power. Exorbitantly priced intermittent power is their idea of progress.

      • Skeptikal says:

        John, you can’t count the cost of weather events. Weather has always happened and will always happen.

        Maybe if brisbane had spent the money adapting to climate change back in 1893, then we’d all be better off now.

      • john byatt says:

        If you cannot count the cost of weather events then the cost of climate change will be zilch,

        are you a genius ?

      • Skeptikal says:

        Global warming/climate change leads to rapidly rising oceans causing inundation of coastal towns. You can’t really call that zilch. But then again, there hasn’t been a lot of that happening so it tends to be a forgotten prophecy.

        Stop confusing weather with climate.

      • Nick says:

        You want to know why Australia has no nuclear,Skeptical? Because it is expensive,and the fossil fuel lobby has no interest/actively oppose it, leaving the idiot Greens as convenient scapegoats. As a nation we are neurotically attached to being a quarry and neither party wants to inhibit coal use in any real way. The neurosis is partly understandable as we have legislated away many of our industries at the urging of borderless sociopathic capital.

        As for Eric,he continues to wander in confusion. Consensus science has always explored the forcings and their varying influence. CO2 is the one forcing that is not varying in its impetus to raise temperature. In the long run–the next two centuries –the other forcings ‘do not matter’ while ever we continue to burn FFs beyond the sequestering ability of the biosphere. As Tamino’s analysis demonstrates,simple natural noise {ENSO] is sufficient to explain variation in the rate of rise…and rise it does. Cherry-picking one graph again? Tiresome boy.

        Your ‘expected’ solar weakening is fanciful twaddle from speculators like David Archibald–oil industry man and producer of junk ‘science’. You have no idea what the PDO will do,so that’s more guessing/wishful thinking. Talk of recent solar forcing being the greatest in 8000 years is rubbish,given that orbital factors are much more significant in enhancing insolation’s value [think Holocene Optimum]

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Nick :-

        You want to know why Australia has no nuclear,Skeptical? Because it is expensive,and the fossil fuel lobby has no interest/actively oppose it, leaving the idiot Greens as convenient scapegoats. As a nation we are neurotically attached to being a quarry and neither party wants to inhibit coal use in any real way.

        So your solution is to demand a carbon tax, to make it more expensive to perform energy intensive processes such as refining metal ore in Australia – granting a substantial advantage to companies which treat Australia as a quarry.

        Meanwhile, rather than oppose the imaginary fossil fuel conspiracy, by demanding a nuclear power solution which would allow decarbonisation of the Australian economy without sacrificing our consumerist luxuries, you fritter away your political capital on nonsense solutions such as wind turbines.

        Yeah, I can see how that makes sense.

      • Nick says:

        Gee, Eric, you are a fantasist. The ‘imaginary fossil fuel conspiracy’ is business-as-usual, common or garden industry lobbying. Nothing imaginary about that. But maybe you can’t conceive of individual and in-group actions and outcomes that are not always beneficial or at least of neutral consequence to the greater good or to the environment that groaningly supports us? Or you think that the pursuit of limited short-term goals can never perturb an idealised Earth’s forgiving and bounteous systems? Or that no matter what,human needs to pursue their wants must be paramount,no matter the cost ,deferred or irrationally discounted? Or your faith in a technological work-around for any problem is unbreakable?

        Because you are an individualist of the usual oblivious kind,limited by ignorance. Ditto skeptikal and his/her determination to dumbly act out the Tragedy of the Commons at any and every opportunity, and to push the false dichotomy that adaption and mitigation are mutually exclusive: because we are failing to mitigate sufficiently we will be adapting more desperately.

        Times have changed, can you understand? The pool is filling and we cannot all piss in it like we used to when you were a lad. Your rejectionism is quaint.

      • Eric Worrall says:


        Or you think that the pursuit of limited short-term goals can never perturb an idealised Earth’s forgiving and bounteous systems? Or that no matter what,human needs to pursue their wants must be paramount,no matter the cost ,deferred or irrationally discounted? Or your faith in a technological work-around for any problem is unbreakable?

        Of course our actions can perturb the environment, at least in a local sense. Cash strapped Germans are right now steeling wood, chopping down their own forests, because green energy initiatives have made it too expensive to heat their homes using conventional fuel.

        Before we learned to harness coal, people chopped down most of the forests of Europe, to supply energy and raw materials for a growing population and economy. Thanks to green initiatives, it looks likely we’ll revisit that condition.

        As for technology always being able to fix our problems, sure, I can imagine problems current technology couldn’t solve. For example, if an Asteroid the size of Ceres were on a collision course with Earth, we’d have buckleys. Or if a mutant version of HIV acquired the ability to be transmitted as easily as the flu, there’s a real chance the human race would be stuffed.

        But none of the real problems we face today are beyond modern technology. Even if you guys are right about CO2, there’s enough nuclear energy to power civilisation for thousands of years, without the need to continue emitting greenhouse gasses.

      • Nick says:

        So, you have accepted that we can perturb the environment “at least in a local sense” Clearly you are reluctant to accept regional and global scale environmental realities.

      • john byatt says:

        Ah yes it is people trying to keep warm and the environmentalist who are to blame,
        The blinkers of ideology

  17. Eric Worrall says:

    Jo Nova on IPCC chairman Pachauri’s desperate attempts to cuddle up to skeptics, pretend their views were a welcome contribution all along.

    • john byatt says:

      It is more about your complete acceptance of the Australians known penchant for distortion of comments as they have done even to Church from the CSIRO

      Is that true or did you read it the australian ?

      no need to get grumpy just because you have no idea, Your comments must be a great source of amusement to the lurkers

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Pachauri suggesting

      “People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,” Dr Pachauri said. He said there was “no doubt about it” that it was good for controversial issues to be “thrashed out in the public arena

      Is quite a change from his 2010 comment:-

      They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – and I hope they put it on their faces every day.

      I mean, do you not see a slight difference between Pachauri wishing a horrible death on people who disagree with him, and Pachauri suggesting that it is good for controversial issues to be thrashed out in the public arena?

      • Nick says:

        Pachauri was responding with understandable irritation to idiot opinionista Christopher Booker’s hyperbole and misdirection. Booker,in an endless and unfactual campaign against climate science, publicly accused Pachauri of conflicts of interest and fiddling his books,neither of which was true. The idiot Booker had claimed that white asbestos was harmless,hence Pachauri’s contemptuous reference. Booker has played no part in thrashing out issues; instead he issues breathy polemics full of fanciful opinion.He is not actually engaged with the subject.

        Booker is incompetent [he had to withdraw claims in some columns] and Nova is a misdirecter, You keep great company…and once gain are more interested in froth than substance.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I see – Pachauri wishing a horrible death on people he disagreed with was OK, because he was provoked.

        Yeah I can see how that makes a difference.

      • Nick says:

        Oh spare me the fake outrage,Eric. Obviously,Pachauri tailored his comment to mimic the bilious style of Booker.,who has carried out a vicious personal vendetta. You ought to know it,it’s your kind of rag

      • Eric Worrall says:


        Oh spare me the fake outrage,Eric. Obviously,Pachauri tailored his comment to mimic the bilious style of Booker.,who has carried out a vicious personal vendetta. You ought to know it,it’s your kind of rag

        I believe Pachauri tells people what they want to hear, so I’m glad you support my view.

    • Nick says:

      Nova is a poisonous incompetent bore,Eric. Another thing you were not aware of.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Why poisonous Nick?

      • Nick says:

        She’s a well poisoner. Denigrates scientists as grant-seekers, spreads disinformation professionally,has no consistent standards,except that it’s usually a misinterpretation of a legitimate authors work. Ad nauseum. One of the tragic byproducts of the freedom of the internet is that it enables bad-faith operators,and bullshit artists to get a greater share of the public ear than they formerly could with letters to newspapers,pamphlets,magazines and fringe radio. She’s conning you,of course.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Eric, she’s poisonous because her site gets more page views than any activist site could ever dream about getting.

      • Nick says:

        Sorry… she’s conning you and ‘Skeptikal’,of course. Fixed.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I see – bullshit artists are only acceptable if the hide declines, start name calling smear campaigns against inconvenient rivals, delete emails and advocate others do the same, to dodge FOI requests, nod through each others papers without proper checking, and, when all else fails, commit wire fraud when serving as the scientific ethics chairman of a formerly respected scientific body.

      • Nick says:

        “name calling smear campaigns” Delingpole,Booker and Nova to a tee!

        “delete emails” no one deletes emails except climate scientists! fake outrage again,E

        “Nod through each others papers without checking” Sweeping charge,but how many? Let’s not mention the rejectionists like McIntyre for example have published through low-impact ‘journals’ without any editorial input whatsoever. Blog science is sooo much more rigorous,it’s the new standard!!

        “Dodge FOI requests” Oh how shocking that one,on recognising a string of clearly vexatious and time-draining requests, uses discretion granted in the legislation to defer or block such. All the data they wanted is public domain,and have they done anything, ANYTHING AT ALL, with it? Hell no!!!! F**K off,bad faith operators!

        “Commit wire fraud” charges? Rhetorical. Conviction? None. Claims of fabrication? Made noisily,but not supported at all. I regard Gleick’s actions as necessary civil disobedience against an secretively-funded organisation attemting to debauch US science education that exploits the US tax system as a fake charitable group…and whose science ‘director’ actually was convicted and fined $200000 for defrauding a government agency in the 1990s. Gleick fished out some very interesting details in the interests of the broader public. You would rather support bandits. So be it.

        You can withdraw your ‘respect’ for a scientific body anytime you like. It means nothing.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Are you ready to admit the desal plants were a waste of money, or do you need more time? Given that “extreme events” is now the prediction de jour, surely it would have been better to spend the money on larger reservoirs and improved flood control measures, to better harvest the water we would expect from extreme rainfall, to tide us through the extreme heatwaves?

      • john byatt says:

        Look says eric

      • Eric Worrall says:

        No answer then John? 🙂

      • Nick says:

        Eric,we have plenty of dams,and there is not an endless supply of virgin valleys with low environmental value that we can flood at the whims of Tony Abbott or yourself.. We do not need more dams,we need to continue efficient-use efforts. Have you ever realised that the best dam sites have been used already. It was open slather for dam building up to the 1980s and no unsuitable site was ignored. We cannot contrive dam sites.

        Perth’s desal is absolutely vital every day of the week. Those in Sydney,Melbourne and Brisbane are useful…the real problem with them,worse than their energy use,is the absolutely woeful deals struck on behalf of the taxpayer by incompetent or conniving governments with the corporates. This reveals our societies major problem is commercial in confidence,not welfare fraud. Costings for infrastructure work are insulated from widespread scrutiny. We have had rough deals.

        In Brisbane’s case unwise home building was allowed,contrary to the advice of consultants and inquiries around the time of building Wivenhoe. So Brisbane’s flood vulnerability post-Wivenhoe was entirely anticipated and legislators failed to address it.. There has also been advice and impetus to harvest storm-water. Improved flood control measures have been rolled out in many places over the past two decades with the construction of levees,detention basins and higher rated drainage work… perhaps you were not aware of this? Another thing to consider is that levee building has costs to other flood-plain dwellers: you put a levee around a town and you change flood behavior to others detriment.

        Harvesting more water to tide us through more extreme heatwaves is superficial pap,Eric. Extra water will not axiomatically protect crops and animals from extreme heat events.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Havesting and storing additional water won’t help, but desalination will?

        Do you actually think before you hit the “reply” button?

      • Nick says:

        You idiot,do you even digest a comment before you reply to it? My reply to you dismisses your linking of extra water storage with “tiding us over through extreme heatwaves”. Heat waves are not a problem because of a lack of water,they’re a problem because of their HEAT. All the water in the world will not protect crops from acute heat beyond their comfort zone. You’ve never been anywhere near agriculture, have you?

        We have a lot of water in storage for agriculture in NSW currently,including one boondoggle of a dam built in the early 1980s that has been largely empty throughout its existence. All that water will not protect crops at critical stages if they cop high thirties and low forties for days on end. It’s good to have it for many other reasons,obviously,but it is little help in the projected climate unless we can breed more heat resilience into crops. Rice productivity declines with increase in average temperature…part of the resilience armoury of plants is to stop or slow growth in extreme heat.

        And where did you get the impression I opposed water harvesting in a broad sense.Storm water harvesting is a positive,

        It’s too fricking easy for some…oh,build another dam,must be a positive,move on to some other glibness. Perth has shitloads of water storage that cannot be filled in the current climate,Melbourne still has spare capacity after two of the wettest years on record. Build another dam for Melbourne’s urban growth? The next best dam site will only provide 5% to 10% of current demand,at great distance and expense,with local usage needs to be met. But I guess you just swallow the line that The Greens dictate water policy in Victoria,you naive prat.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I see – building an expensive dam is a bad idea, but building a hideously expensive desalination plant which requires megawatts of fossil fuel energy to run will help save the environment.

        Is your prediction of continuous crop destroying heatwaves as reliable as the predictions which led to the construction of the white elephant desalination plants?

      • Nick says:

        I did not predict ‘continuous’ crop destroying heatwaves. Good-faith paraphrasing and hyperbole management please,Eric.

      • zoot says:

        Good faith paraphrasing? Eric??
        That’s a laugh. His whole stance is predicated on cherrypicked “evidence” and misinterpretation. His faith in the church of Watts & Coddling trumps anything that happens in the real world.
        Good faith paraphrasing is anathema to him.

  18. john byatt says:

    Found a copy of the Australian and then it hit me what the fuc8wits had written

    Are the Journalists at The Australian brain dead or is their strategy just to continue the confusion on climate change? Now using the visit from Dr.Pachauri, head of the IPCC to spread a rather idiotic meme.
    “In a wide-ranging interview with Dr. Pachauri on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth”…. Each year the Arctic goes from its minimum summer area to its maximum winter area.
    A small area melt must then be followed by a small growth of ice to again reach the maximum area. This is basic logic. So the massive record area melt of 2012, which astounded the scientific community, must then be followed during the winter by a record winter ice growth as the winter ice again spreads to cover the Arctic Ocean. This year’s re-growth is dominated by first year, very thin ice. The Arctic is in a death spiral. Climate change needs to be accepted as fact and addressed. The Australian needs to stop the confusion . It is also obvious that the Australian does not even know in what season the ice melts

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Go on, give us an ice free prediction John, so we can laugh at you when you are proven wrong.

      • john byatt says:

        well I would not laugh at the facts eric

        so is it not happening?

        more likely in 2015 than 2020 to reach one day near zero minimum

        minimum only 4000cubic km last year down from 22000cubic km in 1980

        how about a thousand dollar bet that it will reach zero prior to 2020,
        if it reaches zero before then you pay me $1000, if not I pay you $1000

        shake on it?

      • john byatt says:

        Why just laugh when you can collect some cash as well?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        We’ve been through this – I don’t gamble cash I don’t have.

        But I’m happy to discuss a forfeit – you can apologise to me for calling skeptics “deniers” if you’re wrong.

        I’ll apologise for doubting CO2 has a major influence on climate if you’re right?

        Personally I think you’d rather gamble cash – obviously easier for you than the risk you might have to say something nice to a “denier”.

      • Debunker says:

        OK Eric, lets try a different tack, I assume you have looked at the graph that John Byatt posted previously…

        If that graph represented a stock on the All Ordinaries index, would you have your super fund invest in it? You would have to be nuts. That graph is in terminal decline. What possible forcing could cause that graph to start heading upwards again? Not only is it in decline, but the decline is not even linear. It is a tailspin. May not happen by 2015 but it’s gonna happen soon.

        Looking forward to your abject apology anytime after 2015…

      • Eric Worrall says:

        What kind of forcing could have prevented any warming for the last 16 years?

        And I like your stock market analogy. Betting the trend will continue unchanged on the stock market is practically a cliche.

      • Debunker says:


        You have obviously not kept up with my comments to Skeptikal. I reproduce the relevant bits below:

        “And by the way, there are also various natural forcings that have acted together to slow the increase of Global Atmospheric temperatures, such as a combination of strong La Ninas and volcanic eruptions. Watch the video below and see if you can’t learn something:

        Take those factors out and that reveals the underlying trend, which is still up. That is just planetary physics mate”

        So check out the little video above which shows very clearly how some natural forcings have depressed the global atmospheric temperature chart. We can account for these, and if we remove them, the anthropogenic component is revealed, and it is still going up. Oh, and by the way, the oceans trap way more heat than the atmosphere, and there is no sign there of any pause.

        The stock market analogy only goes so far. When we have lost over 80% of the ice by volume from the Arctic, something really serious is going on, and there does not appear to be any natural variation on the horizon that will reverse that trend. Unless you, in your infinite wisdom can suggest one?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Cyclic variation. In the 1930s, arctic ice extent also fell, to a similar extent to present day.

      • Nick says:

        Fibber Eric.The Wattsian Ice Maps,and all other real reconstruction studies actually show that the 1930s were nothing on the present.

      • Here’s a prediction. Unsurprisingly, Watts has the worst track record by far. Only fools cite Watts.

      • john byatt says:

        Within the error bars, volume minimum could be between 4100cubic kms and zero this year. When statistical analysis includes zero as a possible outcome it is time to accept that extent in any meaningful context is now invalid

      • Debunker says:


        “Cyclic variation. In the 1930s, arctic ice extent also fell, to a similar extent to present day.”

        Did you even bother to look at the link you posted? There are no sea ice extent calculations there, just maps, so we have to eyeball it; but just look at the August minimum in Sept 1938 (fig 11 on the link you posted). This was the absolute minimum shown on those maps. Now look at this:

        OK, we are comparing August with September, but there wouldn’t be a hell of a lot more difference. As I said, just eyeballing it shows that 2012 minimum ice extent is about half that of 1938. So your comment about “a similar extent to present day” is about as ludicrous as saying your age is similar to that of an octogenarian!

        And by the way, the graph John Byatt posted was of ice volume, so by volume, the ice extent 2012 was probably a quarter of the 1938 minimum.

        Cyclica variation? Bollocks!

  19. john byatt says:

    Can anyone find a trend, skeptical does not seem to think that there is one

    gympie floods

    might have to ask tamino

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Yes, forecast increased precipitation is why the CSIRO predicted the need for desalination plants.

      • Nick says:

        The forecast was far more complex than that. Fundamentally, wet areas mainly get wetter,dry mainly drier and all areas experience rain in more intense bursts…a distributional change per event can have significance for flooding and drought without a change in an annual average. But, forever glib,eh Eric…it’s funny how climate science doesn’t really lend itself to pithy one line summations.hehheh..

      • Eric Worrall says:

        In other words your climate heroes don’t know what is happening.

        Their arrogant refusal to admit their uncertainty just cost Australia 10s of billions of dollars, and will cause water bill misery for ordinary families for years to come.

        Victoria’s desal catastrophe even made it to the top 10 world desalination project disasters in industry news.

      • Nick says:

        “In other words your climate heroes don’t know what is happening” Oh, you’re not a reader…

        “Their arrogant refusal to admit their uncertainty…” is evidenced by the copious reference to uncertainty and likelihood linked to lengthy discussion of climate and weather phenomena at the global and regional scale. Nope.You’re not a reader. ‘They’ have good basic physical reasons for certainty about the long term trend,and ‘arrogantly,they have always told you the whys,if you cared to read.

        Victoria’s desal is a disaster in planning [mediocre decision makers],execution [bad luck with weather and labour] and costing [non-transparent deal-making,incompetent governance]…. It was at core a response to water planning needs for the next 50 years,and it will be useful soon enough. You should be happy because there was a certain political slyness to the idea: with its high energy demand,it locked in deals with business and labour to make it more difficult to get out of brown coal. Only the Greens opposed it.

    • Skeptikal says:

      Those are only the major floods…. although you missed the 1870 flood and the 1898 flood, which was Gympie’s second largest flood. 2010 and 2012 weren’t major floods. 1893 was Gympie’s largest flood… a record that global warming can’t seem to break. The only trend I can find is the trend of you banging on about Gympie as though it had never flooded before. The Mary River floods, that’s just a fact of life so get over it.

  20. john byatt says:

    “2010 and 2012 weren’t major floods.”

    The costs were major

    ,The damage was major

  21. john byatt says:

    Comment at RC, They have been commenting on The Australian distortion

    Time period | Observed trend | probability
    1994 -> present .15deg/decade .0003
    1995 -> present .13deg/decade .002
    1996 -> present .13deg/decade .005
    1997 -> present .10deg/decade .02
    1998 -> present .09deg/decade .06 (NS)
    1999 -> present .13deg/decade .02
    2000 -> present .10deg/decade .07 (NS)
    2001 -> present .05deg/decade (NS)
    2002 -> present .03deg/decade (NS)
    2003 -> present .04deg/decade (NS)
    2004 -> present .05deg/decade (NS)
    2005 -> present .01deg/decade (NS)
    2006 -> present .08deg/decade (NS)
    2007 -> present .12deg/decade (NS)
    2008 -> present .29deg/decade (NS)
    2009,2010,2011-> present also all trend >0 (one just barely).

    Autocorrelation not taken into account.

    Anyway, it appears that global warming continued until 16 years ago, then magically disappeared 15 years ago, then magically again reappeared 14 years ago before magically disappearing again.

  22. john byatt says:

    Have never seen the creek come up as fast as today, peak rainfall and high tide combination

  23. john byatt says:

    Never give up

    The simple rule , You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Interestingly when I was involved in politics we had the rule of 6.

      If you delivered 5 leaflets, noone remembered any deliveries.

      But deliver that magic 6th leaflet, and suddenly everyone knew who you were.

      People’s minds seem to have a funny threshold, which controls whether we bother to take an interest.

      Of course, this can work against you, such as when a nasty scandal like Climategate trips you up in your hour of triumph, when the eyes of the world are on you.

  24. john byatt says:

    Suncorp refuses to insure flood areas while at the same time insisting that non flood areas must have flood insurance

    do they know something we do not?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Yes – idiot Labour politicians are more interested in a bunch of stupid lungfish than improving flood safety.

      • john byatt says:

        Obviously you do not know the full story, Beattie proposed the dam and Bligh carried through
        It was both the greens and the LNP who fought tooth and nail against the dam.

        The locals here mostly were dead against it and it’s demise seen as a victory for people power.

        The truth is that both the lungfish and the mary river turtle would have been bred up in huge numbers in a planned aquarium on the foreshore,

        The fed environment did what had to be done under the legislation

        Most did not give a hoot about lungfish or turtle , they did care about a government that ran roughshod over their lives

        It is a long time since the mary valley was productive, dairy farmers were pulling out due to dereg in droves before the buyback.

        Horse and dog shit were its main products, all of which ended up in the great sandy strait, the best thing to come out of it is the awareness that protecting the river goes far beyond just stopping a dam..
        the tugun desal was already approved before the traveston dam was scrapped,

        tugan deal 2005
        dam scrapped 2010

      • john byatt says:

        The Gympie CBD flooding is accepted, the dam would not have prevented flooding were it counted, within the valley, as it was to be permanently flooded ‘

        the CBD is only a very small section of Gympie, you do not see bikes in Gympie it is all hill and valley

      • Eric Worrall says:

        A decade of hostility to development projects, coupled with idiot CSIRO predictions of endless drought (hence the need for desalination plants), probably did more damage than one scuppered dam project.

      • john byatt says:

        Again you are an idiot, the document (climate change Queensland) released prior to to the end of the Bligh government projects exactly what is happening in the SEQLD .now though it has happened much faster than even that publication predicted because it was too conservative

        everything you write is based on your own ignorance

      • Nick says:

        Eric is an unwitting alarmist. His blurtings are motivated by an deranging fear of an imaginary foe, the ‘eco-mates’,whose activities are ubiquitous and entirely misanthropic. Apparently,this imaginary foe is alarmist,but really who’s fooling who?

  25. john byatt says:

    While the floods have been sending local farmers to the wall, skeptical thinks that it is only about the Gympie CBD

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Given the wall of red tape your eco mates have thrown at ordinary farmers over the past few decades, your mates have got a cheek blaming all their problems on a bit of bad weather.

      • Nick says:

        Desperate comment from Err-ic. As the Mary valley faces its fifth flood in a year,a cynical comment indeed.

        You might remember a bit of cosy domestic retail duopoly,currently under review by the ACCC, that is squeezing dairy farmers [the farmers in the link] nationally. WTF has that to do with eco ‘red tape’?

        The ‘red tape’ that applies to the dairy industry has nothing to do with Greens or their mates. It involves product standards and farm conditions intended to ensure safe,quality exportable foodstuffs. For your safety,Err-ic.

        And are you going to blame ‘eco-mates’ for the hurdles facing food and livestock exporters trying to enter other markets?

  26. john byatt says:

    Claim that mining boom has halved farm earnings
    By Lisa Herbert
    Monday, 25/02/2013

    It’s claimed Australia’s farmers have lost more than $60 billion in export income because of the high exchange rate brought about by the mining boom.
    The Australia Institute’s senior economist Matt Grudnoff says producers have suffered a 47 per cent drop in export earning since the boom began almost ten years ago.
    “Our exporters of rural goods are price takers and so as the dollar has risen in value, the amount of foreign currency they’re getting for it has gone down.
    “It’s fallen by about 50 per cent. That is, the price that our wheat, cotton, beef, sugar and other rural exporters are getting is about half what it would be if the mining boom hadn’t increased the exchange rate.”

    • Dr No says:

      1.24 pm. 27.4 and falling.
      Thank the Lord, it looks like there will be no new record today.
      As I said, there was really nothing to worry about. Go home. Everything will be just fine.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Thats actually probably true – which is why damaging taxes like the Carbon tax, which add to the incentive to offshore any business activity other than digging ore out of the ground and exporting it, should be scrapped.

  27. Bernard J. says:

    John Byatt.

    Recently you posted on another site a link to a collection of anti-climate science pronouncements made by Australian politicians, following on from a suggestion that came up about a month ago.

    Could you post it again please? I’d keen to see how it’s looking, before I go too much further with the job of gathering them myself.

  28. […] 2013/02/18: WtD: The new normal: Fires come close to Melbourne, fire plume visable from city […]

  29. Eric Worrall says:

    Remember how you guys keep suggesting that the pause in surface temperatures is irrelevant, because the ocean is sucking up all the heat?

    Turns out you’re wrong.

    Note the link to the graph on the NOAA site, which shows no ocean heating since 2003.

  30. john byatt says:

    The new normal Gympie, the fifth time in just over two years (months)


    • Eric Worrall says:

      Ever notice how a lot of old Queensland houses are built on stilts? I guess that was because wood was cheap back then, and people liked the look of stilt houses?

      • john byatt says:

        My house is off the ground, lots of houses here do not even have eaves.

      • Dr No says:

        Ever noticed how a lot of old homes in Tuvalu are built close to sea level?
        I guess they thought it would never increase.

      • john byatt says:

        My friend over from tuvalu at the moment has said that the house he lives in is much closer to the Ocean than a few years ago. from six metres to now 5 metres.

        Mount Tuvalu is about 4 metres above HAT, during this time the sea water comes up through the coral and covers a large area on Funafuti. scary in his words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: