"Looks like Arapiles forecast for Christmas didn't quite work out. ;-)
It might have briefly hit a high of around 28C on Christmas day, but it has generally been well below average:
....
Currently a chilly 9.5C in Melbourne."

But today was hot - 29C+. So, a 20C range for the day.

You need to understand Melbourne's weather - it is notoriously changeable and we can get 20C swings in an hour or so, and two days can be utterly un-alike. I had a fleece jumper on last night and wore socks to bed but got burnt to a crisp when I was slashing weeds this afternoon.

Case in point, overnight on New Years Eve will be 16*, which is pretty cool for this time of year, but the forecast for New Years Day is 38*. Then a top of just 24* the next day.

The forecast for the rest of summer is above average temperatures. But I actually prefer the cooler weather because it's keeping my water tanks full.

Hi Arapiles,
Yes, I think it'll perk up for a while temperature-wise. Last week stayed pretty cold though, contrary to expectations. Models tend to end blocking patterns sooner than reality does.

Glad you enjoyed your cool Yule anyway. :-)

I see Queensland had a good deluge this last three months. As much rainfall in a season as we get in a year here. So, drought broken despite Jim Hanson's "HOTTEST! YEAR! EVER!!"

Edited by tallbloke on 12/28/2010 18:09:42 MST.

RogT,

Keep on fighting!





Saw this yesterday...

Almost three miles of ice buries most of Antarctica, cloaking a continent half again as large as the United States. But when an Antarctic ice shelf the size of Manhattan collapsed in less than a month in 2002, it shocked scientists and raised the alarming possibility that Antarctica may be headed for a meltdown. Even a 10 percent loss of Antarctica's ice would cause catastrophic flooding of coastal cities unlike any seen before in human history. What are the chances of a widespread melt? "Secrets Beneath the Ice" explores whether Antarctica's climate past can offer clues to what may happen. NOVA follows a state-of-the-art expedition that is drilling three-quarters of a mile into the Antarctic seafloor. The drill is recovering rock cores that reveal intimate details of climate and fauna from a time in the distant past when the Earth was just a few degrees warmer than it is today. As researchers grapple with the harshest conditions on the planet, they discover astonishing new clues about Antarctica's past—clues that carry ominous implications for coastal cities around the globe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice.html

IMO There was a bit of Gorian sprinkled in, but their results clearly show how often the ice changed before humans existed.

Hey George, Happy New Year to you, and thanks for the sprinkling of humour, insight and great images you've put on this thread.

Alarmist catastophism about Antarctica makes me smile. Chunks of ice fall off the ends of glaciers and the warmists should get used to it. It's been happening since the year dot, long before man set fire to coal. Antarctica has been frozen for about 30 million years. It spends most of the year at about -60C. I don't see a degree of warming melting it down anytime soon, even if it were happening. Just recently, a group of sceptical scientists managed to get a paper published which successfully rebuts the nonsense Michael Mann, Erig Steig et al had published in the journal 'Nature' a couple of years ago, complete with lurid red Antarctica smeared all over the front cover.

So although I'm sure the video footage of the frozen continent is stunning, I won't be investing, as the commentary will only get me hot under the collar. Talk of Antarctic "meltdown" is just dishonest BS preying on the fear of people who don't have any scientific knowledge. I would impose fines on people who do that if I could.

Happy New Year

Rog T,

You'd definitely have to mute and fast forward during the commentary parts - some the footage was really silly (eg NYC underwater - Asian people wading through waist deep floods).

The good part IMO was the results of the core drillings. Those show how the ice has melted and returned for millions and millions of years as you pointed out.

I found it interesting that they came up with a way to drill given the moving ice, etc. Also, found it interesting that there was no mention of the lack of humans during those early times. Basically no comment like: hey, give or take a few million years or so, beach front party may lose its appeal either due to rising water or a much longer walk to the beach. : )

If the sun refused to shine
I don't mind, I don't mind
If all the mountains ah, fell in the sea
Let it be, it ain't me.

Got my own world to live through
And I ain't gonna copy you.

Now if uh, six turned out to be nine
Oh I don't mind, I don't mind
If all the hippies cut off all their hair
Oh I don't care, oh I don't care.

'Cause I've got my own world to live through
And I ain't gonna copy you.

White collar conservatives flashin' down the street
Pointin' their plastic finger at me,
They're hopin' soon my kind will drop and die but
I'm gonna wave my freak flag high, high !

Ahahhhhhhhahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Ahahhhhhhhahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow

The hammer of the gods
Will drive our ships to new lands
To fight the horde
Singing and crying
Valhalla I am coming

On we sweep with threshing oar
Our only goal will be the western shore

Ahahhhhhhhahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Ahahhhhhhhahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow

How soft your fields so green
Can whisper tales of gore
Of how we calmed the tides of war
We are your overlords

On we sweep with threshing oar
Our only goal will be the western shore

So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins,
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing

2011

+1 Roger

And the Third wise monkey uncovered his mouth and said:


"A doubling of carbon dioxide, by itself, adds only about one degree Celsius to greenhouse warming. Computer climate models project more warming because the modellers build in feedbacks from water vapour and clouds that amplify the initial change. These are the so called positive feedbacks. For example, higher temperature would mean more evaporation globally, which in turn means more heat-trapping water vapour is put into the atmosphere leading to even higher temperatures.

On the other hand, negative feedbacks might prevail. For example, more water vapour in the atmosphere could lead to greater cloud cover. Clouds reflect the heat from the Sun and cool the Earth, offsetting the initial rise in global temperature.

The role of negative feedback processes are played down by global warming alarmists, whereas sceptics point to the four-billion-year-old global climate record that shows runaway global cooling or warming has never occurred because negative feedbacks regulate the global climate system."


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10697845

Good to see some sanity returning to media coverage of the climate debate in the wake of the NZ temperature record scandal.

>> Good to see some sanity returning to media coverage of the climate debate in the wake of the NZ temperature record scandal.

Was just a matter of time. Interesting how a couple of cold winters can shiver a stubborn mindset. I recall the late 1970's cold winters here in USA East: the discussion was about the coming ice age.

"None of this is to say we should simply walk away from considerations of a global warming threat, but prudent consideration of the scientific facts is essential.

No science should have to rely on one group or authority saying, "Just trust us," particularly when tens of millions of dollars of public policy decisions are on the line."

I think that is a pretty balanced statement!

In the spirit of trying to keep this thread alive long enough for Dean Fellabaum to make the ceremonial last post on the 100th page.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/ocean-nitrification/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wiredscience+%28Blog+-+Wired+Science%29

This is an article on the effect of ocean acidification on the nitrogen cycle, and the potential ramifications for the phytoplankton that form the base of the food chain and supply ~50% of the O2 in the atmosphere. The nitrogen cycle is often overlooked in discussions of the impact of anthropogenic CO2 on climate change, but the nitrogen cycle is equally critical to the stability of the biosphere, and may ultimately prove to be the system most affected by increased atmospheric CO2. It is definitely high on the list of oceanographers' concerns.

Have at it, you carbon warriors. ;-)

Happy New Year Tom.

The only 'ceremonial last post' Dean gets to make is the one where he confirms a $1000 payment into my paypal account after he loses our bet.

Six months ago I predicted that sea surface temperatures would soon start to fall steeply. Here's what has happened to SST:
.

And it has further to go. Could be around -0.32C +/- 0.05C by September.

I further predict that sea level will stop rising within 5 years.

I have the theory and the numerical modelling to back these predictions up.

I have been correct with all the predictions I've made on this thread which have run to term.

They don't rely on extrapolating unmeasured tiny changes in ocean pH out centuries ahead on the basis of highly questionable modelling code.

And a happy top o' The New Year to you, Rog!

"The only 'ceremonial last post' Dean gets to make is the one where he confirms a $1000 payment into my paypal account after he loses our bet."

The silence is deafening. Me, I won't ask for much. All I want is to be the fly on the wall for that one, whichever way it goes. I can just see the excuses and caveats flying every which way. ;)

"Six months ago I predicted that sea surface temperatures would soon start to fall steeply. Here's what has happened to SST:....."

Which means the oceans will be able to absorb more CO2? Which means a further increase in the number of those hyperactive hydrogen ions running amok up and down the food chain?

"They don't rely on extrapolating unmeasured tiny changes in ocean pH out centuries ahead on the basis of highly questionable modelling code."

In the literature I have read, they are talking about the next 50-100 years.

What is your basis for labelling the modelling code "highly questionable"? Just curious. Lots of serious, well intentioned people seem to think otherwise. And how's a poor layman like me going to tell who's pulling the wool over me eyes? :(

And how's a poor layman like me going to tell who's pulling the wool over me eyes?

Easy, if the claim is about something which can't be verified or falsified until long after the scientists making it have drawn their pensions, don't trust it. Or them.

We did the whole 'uncertainty about model predictions' thing before Christmas, and I don't have time to rehease that debate again just now, I fly to Lisbon on Monday!

Listen to Roger Caffin, he knows the value of predictions extrapolated far into the future from short time series in the present.

"Easy, if the claim is about something which can't be verified or falsified until long after the scientists making it have drawn their pensions, don't trust it. Or them."

Roger, I disagree. Remove "falsified" from you statement and it is still true :)

Too many scientists are like homeless people. They go around "carrying" "Will work for food (or money)" signs on their shoulders. Other scientists are lobbyists trying to get money from people or corporations that have an agenda. Other scientists are good intentioned, but their science is a "hunch" they desperately want to "prove."

Often us "lay people" need to rely on good old common sense or plain Aristotle logic.

"Easy, if the claim is about something which can't be verified or falsified until long after the scientists making it have drawn their pensions, don't trust it. Or them."

Sounds logical, up to a point. However, if you read the article I referenced, you would find that some of these guys are conducting experiments with actual sea water and finding that the production of NO3 decreases as Ph drops. It doesn't take a huge drop to have quite an impact on NO3 availability, and if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, in conjunction with your predicted decrease in ocean temperatures, it seems to me that it doesn't take a model to predict that Ph will continue to drop. The likely result: A decrease in the availability of NO3, which is vital to phytoplankton for protein synthesis. Other scientists have conducted similar experiments, which I referred to in a series of links before Christmas as well, on the decreased availability of Fe, another scarce nutrient which is commonly seen as the general limiting factor for phytoplankton populations.

Have a great time in Lisbon, and we'll be expecting a full debriefing upon your triumphant return. ;)

"Too many scientists are like homeless people. They go around "carrying" "Will work for food (or money)" signs on their shoulders. Other scientists are lobbyists trying to get money from people or corporations that have an agenda. Other scientists are good intentioned, but their science is a "hunch" they desperately want to "prove.""

Geez, Nick. Does that leave any scientists out there who might actually be doing real science and coming up with valid answers, or at least increasing our understanding of what is going on in the physical world, including, just maybe, providing a better understanding our collective impact on it?

Or are they all just a bunch of prostitutes, beggars, and witch doctors?

Common sense applied to the progress that humanity has achieved over the last 5000 years tells me that there have been quite a few of them who actually did real science, and not just in pursuit of knowledge that could be applied to enhancing our material standard of living or annihilating our fellow man. That being the case, I tend to sit up and listen when a very large number of them express concern over our collective impact on the only livable planet we are likely to have for the foreseeable future. I realize that the implications of what they are saying may be bad for business, but maybe, just maybe, it's time to reevaluate doing business as usual before proceeding further, rather dismissing them out of hand?

"Too many scientists..."

Maybe even one is too many. It doesn't mean all or even most scientists are guilty of this. Nearly all great scientific breakthroughs began as hunches. As long as you maintain the null hypothesis approach to testing your hunches, it's still good science. I agree that "many" scientists do not stick to the null hypothesis approach!

I, for one, do not consider the drop in ocean pH in the last few hundred years to be insignificant. At least at the surface, the drop has been huge and rapid IMHO. I don't think you can blame all of it on atmospheric CO2 though. I'll bet other influences like our addiction to concrete are also having some effect. It is a worrying trend.