Hotter and hotter …

It’s worse than we thought. Gee, it’s getting hot.

All the models show it and according to the consensus we all know it.

The thermometer, however, has been uncooperative. To counter this Australian thermometer readings have been homogenised, that is adjusted.

The Bureau of Meteorology have published the improved temperatures as the ACORN data set. The result – an increase in temperature of 0.9 °C over a century. QED.

Two issues cloud the matter somewhat. One is the urban heat island (UHI) effect. Increase the bitumen and the buildings around weather stations and you expect a warming bias in the record. The second issue is the adjustment process. One would expect that, for urban weather stations, either the modern records would be corrected downwards or older records to be corrected upwards, in order to compensate for the UHI. The mechanism the BoM uses for temperature adjustment has not been published. But trust us, we are from the government and are here to help. As was said of another government “the future is certain, only the past is subject to change”.

The past has left a record. In 1933 what was then called CSIR published 74 years of weather records. Twenty years later The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics published an Official Year Book of Australia which included the mean temperature readings from 1911 to 1940 at 44 locations.

One Chris Gillham has been working very hard to compare the historical records with the ACORN set. And guess what … the older records have been adjusted downwards. Almost half of the vaunted warming has been due entirely to changes in the record. My guess is that the rest is due to the UHI.

My source is Jo Nova where you can find far more detail.

Karma …

The story so far …

In 2002 Rajendra Kumar Pachauri was appointed chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is supposedly an authoritative agency giving scientific advice to governments regarding what was once called anthropogenic global warming.

Please take note of the word scientific.

Great honour was done to the IPCC by the award of a collective Nobel Prize, as it happens a peace prize. Please note the absence of the word science.

A momentary aside, three years ago Michael Mann, the hockey stick guy, launched a defamation suit against Mark Steyn because of a “knowingly false comparison” between climate science and sexual molestation. Steyn and others  had to defend themselves against the hitherto unknown crime of “personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient“.

The link between global warming and sex crimes was evident in other places quite early in the piece. You may recall this story from a year ago …

Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099

So far as I know the study was not conducted in the IPCC offices. However earlier this month a woman research analyst lodged a complaint alleging …

Pachauri committed offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 506 of IPC, which deal with outraging the modesty of a woman, sexual harassment, stalking, and criminal intimidation, respectively.

The matter hit the press in the Economic Times (of India) on February the 18th. The Economic Times was hit by the full force of the outraged Pachauriderm and withdrew the article post haste. It was the old “I was hacked” defence …

The said email has indicated misuse of my computer resources and communication devices, without my permission or consent. From your email, I have come to know the factum that my computer resources including my email ids, mobile phone and WhatsApp messages have been hacked and that unknown cyber criminals have gone ahead and have unauthorisedly accessed my computer resources and communication devices and further committed various criminal activities.

He had, of course, filed complaints regarding the hacking with the commissioner of police, the controller of certifying authorities and the adjudicating officer under the Information Technology Act.

That prompted this very unsportsmanlike cartoon …

josh-patchy-resignsAnd as the cartoon notes, his resignation.

The resignation letter has been described asa two page love letter to himself” but most significantly it contains the very telling snippet that I quoted yesterday …

For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.

Please take note of the word religion.


Grim for the reaper’s assistants …

Sydney has had a mild winter …

”We’ve seen the biggest drop in business in a generation,” said Andrew Smith, chief executive of InvoCare, the largest private funeral, cemetery and crematorium operator in the Asia-Pacific region. ”Winter is usually our busiest time, but there’s been no real flu season this year and no real cold snaps, and that’s being reflected in a big drop in business.”

Wollongong mortician Warwick Hansen has been in the industry for 47 years. ”It’s probably the slowest winter I’ve ever seen,” he said. ”We’ve had a 10 to 15 per cent drop in the death rate. Talking to other people in the industry, suppliers and coffin makers, they are all saying they have been affected.” SMH.

I guess the thermageddon alarmists won’t be publicising that.

More heat than light …

Just imagine a world with a carbon tax so great that energy was so expensive that all the industrialized countries reduced their carbon emissions by 60%.

We could stay home, cold in the winter and hot in the summer and rejoice in the knowledge that by 2050 we will have reduced global warming by 0.064°C, by 2100 our privation will make a difference of 0.192°C. Hey guys that’s very nearly two whole tenths of one degree!

This assumes that climate sensitivity is 3.0°C in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC).  This is probably an overestimate, recent global temperature behavior makes a value of 1.5°C more likely. In which case the reduction would be less …  0.042°C by 2050, 0.116°C by 2100.

Of course Australia’s contribution would be about 1.34% of that i.e. less than 0.0026°C by 2100 (at 3° sensitivity or 0.0016°C at 1.5°.)

You wouldn’t notice the difference in temperature but you would notice the difference in the cost of living.

The background to these calculations can be found at The Cato Institute where you can find a handy little calculator to try some other scenarios.