crikey

Hey..Great post STYX.. Thanks for the update.. That picture of the warm anomaly is incredible Interesting the NH has a warming hiatus since 2007..but the SH has not followed suit ..yet? Also interesting to see the signature of rain associated with those much earlier north west infeeds across the interior. There is some moisture trailing in from the Indian ocean currently so lets see if the pattern changes? Notice the medium term GFS models is giving a snow event to Vic/Tas and NSW around the 10th september. SAM has taken a neg' dip lately. I have collected a few of those recent heat records as documented by some of our weather bureau journalists .. http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/early-spring-heat-records-for-parts-of-australia-2013/

We had some interesting atmospheric wave action in the sth Hemisphere this winter which is stillunderway I had taken some notes if anyone is interested. http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1188254/Stratospheric_sudden_warmings_#Post1188254 http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/another-stratospheric-warming-event-ssw-in-the-southern-hemisphere-august-2013/ ---------------------------------------------------- BTW.. Stratospheric warming is commencing at 10mb since the 29th Aug2013 just Nth of Alaska.. Hey what do you think of our waves orbiting the south pole atm!! Awesome animation here. The crests are warmings , the troughs are cooler anomlaies. Is there a stratosphere experts who could fill me in one what's happening here.. Thanks.. source of animation http://theweathercentre.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/2013-official-severe-weather-outlook.html

I noticed the met office has added ice and snow storms to the AGW severe weather events forecast In fact all weather is caused by AGW.. That pretty much covers all bases....

Great to see someone on 'wikopedia' is updating the current season regularly.. Even an entry today A nice synopsois and historical account of the 2013 season here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Atlantic_hurricane_season Who would have thought l would bookmark wikopedia for up to date information on hurricanes from wikopedia Current storm information As of 5 a.m. AST (0900 UTC) August 17, Tropical Storm Erin is located within 30 nautical miles of WikiMiniAtlas 18°54′N 35°36′W / 18.9°N 35.6°W / 18.9; -35.6 (Erin), about 790 miles (1,270 km) west-northwest of the Cape Verde islands. Maximum sustained winds are 35 knots (40 mph, 65 km/h), with stronger gusts. Minimum central pressure is 1006 millibars (hPa; 29.71 InHg), and the system is moving west-northwest at 13 knots (15 mph, 24 km/h). Tropical storm-force winds extend outward up to 70 miles (110 km) from the center of Erin. [*]The NHC's latest Public Advisory on Tropical Storm Erin http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT5+shtml/ [*]The NHC's latest Forecast Discussion on Tropical Storm Erin http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT5+shtml/

Hi .. I have noticed on the MET OFFICE global satellite picture. The ITCW has changed dramatically this past 2 days and is now coalescing and spawning a mass of tropical lows across the ITCZ in all ocean basins and land areas near the equator. The image looks feisty Looks like an active phase underway.. I suppose the NH is approaching peak cyclone/hurricane/typhoon season.. August--September Here are a few notes and a snap of the present situation latest post on home page http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/

The AAO ( Antartic oscillation) takes a record dive and is off the scale as 16th August! Minus 4 and lower ! A pleasant surprise .. As AAO has been horribly positive all year keeping the cold westerly belt from clipping the mainland for the autumn winter period Today a cold front is forecast to clip southern QLD tomorrow . A nice sized beast with lots of wind. Maybe some winter weather for spring? I am following this record event on my blog/ study space and have started taking notes if your interested http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/antartic-oscillation-ao-finally-plunges-and-westerly-belt-gives-southern-australia-a-lickin/ More snow for the ski fields. It has generally been fair for many resorts. This strong wave? of negative AAO might give them something to grin about.

JETHRO said "We're running out of fossil fuels " When l was teaching in the 1980's they were talking in text books 50 yrs of supplies left Now in 2013.....30 yrs later.? CRIKEY NEWS published an article on this very topic today . When will Australia’s coal run out? http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/10/28/when-will-australia%e2%80%99s-coal-run-out/ OFFICIAL ESTIMATE At the 2008 rate of production of around 490 Mt [mega-tonnes] per year the EDR are adequate to support about 90 years of production. However Crikey writer' Stubborn Mule' suggests that this estimate is far too large The estimate of 90 yrs is based on 2008 trends assuming no growth in coal production Ok.. Get this....quote if production growth returns a long run average of 5%, then reserves would only.... last 34 years. !! We also have a healthy population growth rate .. Are they leaving things a little late for an alternative? We have frakking projects underway here but MUCH opposition we have no nuclear yet.. The growth in solar on roofs here is excellent Wind farms are springing up in many districts You can get a 2,000 watt system for $3,200 installed Our electricity prices have over doubled since 2008 mainly due to privatization Hearing reports of electricity bills at $2000 per 3months ( we have a generator in the country here) Today our interest rates have dropped again to reach historically low levels. "With about 66% of our coal going offshore, there is quite a bit that could be clawed back there. But who would dare suggest slowing export growth?!!" We have an election on the 7th September The liberals are likely to get in. The Liberal party are going to remove the carbon tax and razor the climate change dept. Our debt has blown out and govt' cut backs and further recessive activity are likely. THe comments at the end of this article are also interesting

The record warm July record that was beaten was for 1975.. 1975 was both warm in july and had a relatively por snow season., a la nina year with expected warm SST's around OZ. Neg IOD Possible this is shaping up for a la Nina year to equal 1975.. We had flooding and lots of rain in October 1975.. This warm July in OZ could be symptomatic of a building la nina . Why do l think this some findings I read a post by STEVE 777 on Weather Zone forum in Australia He has listed 8 yrs that were quite anomonously warm in a JULY( post 1917 ) at observatory hill Sydney http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthre ... ost1204637 quote "Today marked a record run of 20+ degree days ending in July at Observatory Hill, i.e. 6. The previous record was 5, which occurred once only, ending 12/7/1928. A run of 4+ has occurred 8 times previously: 1928, 1944, 1964, 1975, 1988, 1994, 2005 and 2011. So warm July days are becoming more common at that site, probably largely due to increasing heat island. Also, we can probably disregard years before the move of the site in 1917(?). But I don't think it's just that. Winters don't feel as cold as they used too, even though I feel the cold more now than when I was younger" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was interested to see the correlation of warm July's in Sydney, with ENSO index not to criticise Steve's post.. Thanks for the observation STEVE777 Checking those years ( 1928, 1944, 1964, 1975, 1988, 1994, 2005 and 2011). against ENSO rating yields 5 out of 8 of those years yielded official la Nina years The other 3 years -two were cool neutral years and the other one year went strong El Nino in 1994 So this warm spell of JULY 2013 is only of 100 yr or so records is highly related to the ENSO cool neutral to La nina state by a ratio of 7: 1. and NOT necessarily and conclusively related to 400ppm of C02 . There has been no rise in global temps' from 2006 to 2013 .. surface synoptics We have had an abundance of Northerly winds ..Favoring a warmer profile SAM / AAO index has been positive. High pressure belt becomes latitudinal wider? SST spatial patterns in both thePacific ocean and the Indian ocean are likely to be influential here including the IOD dipole in the indian ocean. We usually have warm SST's around OZ during la nina development The following is a record of what happened in the top warm July months since 1928 in Sydney ( east coast of oz)and closely they relate to the state of ENSO ------- A brief summary of findings 1928 La nina A dry la nina http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/lnlist/index.shtml. 1944 cool neutral low rainfall tending cool neutral http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com.au/2010/ ... o-and.html 1964 La Nina The June to October period was marked by above-average falls across the southern one-third of Australia, particularly about the exposed coast and ranges in the southeast. Record-high July totals were recorded near parts of WA’s southern coast, in a large straddling southeast SA and western Victoria, and across Victoria’s northeast ranges into the Snowy Mountains of NSW. Above-average falls were widespread over Australia in September and October, especially the former when record-high totals were observed over much of central to southeastern SA and the adjacent parts of northwest Victoria and the far west of NSW. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/lnlist/index.shtml 1975 La nina Average SOI 18.6 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninacomp.shtml http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/lnli ... 197510.gif 1988 strong la ninaAv SOI = 13 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/lnlist/index.shtml 1994 strong El Nino Av SOI = -14 Juily was neutal but later a strong el nino evolved 2005 Cool neutral Neutral in July but later tended weak cool neutral http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com.au/2010/ ... o-and.html 2011 La ninahttp://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/feature/ENSO-feature.shtml 2013 ?? record warm july temps SOI is positive 8.2 in July ------------ Note: according to long paddock annual rainfall maps these years were not necessarily all wet spatially over OZ but were classified according to ENSO criteria of SOI and SST's http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/rainf ... p?area=aus ----------------------- I wonder why this correlation was not noted by the climate dept in Australia. I

BftV Posted below .. A sample of the integrity of the NEW RESEARCH Phil Jones writes in email From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu> To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>,rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,srutherford@gso.uri.edu,tcrowley@duke.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500 Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu, keith.alverson@pages.unibe.ch,mmaccrac@comcast.net,jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@virginia.edu Thanks Phil, (Tom: Congrats again!) The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department... The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose'). Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors: [1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole... It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board... What do others think? mike ------------------------------ Robust scientific process ?? in NEW RESEARCH... May l be excused to 'puke' I must check out the sceptical journal CLIMATE RESEARCH?? Do you select research from this Journal KNOCKER? I believe the SCIENCE and NATURE journal are AGW only research papers with AGW peer reviewers 21st century climate science is in serious disarray The link here..a compilation of the sordid email exchanges between our 'immenent..NOT' scientists compiled by Lavoisier http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf This compilation was taken from 1996 to 2009. How they did any science research in this time period is beyond me! a pack of school yard bullies Just the fact that many of these controlling and conniving scientists are still employed and on the loose gives me no confidence in the fidelity of the new research published and its integrity. Has the floor been cleaned since these distasteful revelations or is this still the status quo in climate research I am only up to page 50 of this email correspondence out of a hundred and 60 pages of this espionage I am quite prepared to admit that this sort of bias loading occurs on both sides of the AGW /skeptic fence I have learnt that in order to have a balanced consideration of the arguments surrounding the pros'and cons'of AGW one must select BOTH pro AGW journals like SCIENCE and NATURE and also journals willing to accept sceptical research like CLIMATE RESEARCH . I will be paying attention to the next IPCC report as to how much of its new research is published in which journals A nice research study for someone here. To expose the great divide.. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

I haven't mentioned global conspiracy BftV . I think that generally the workplace can be treacherous in any industry really. Power play, bullying, hierarchy's, career fears, loss of income fears. You have to fit in and survive ... New research is often tied to govt policy and directives In Australia. The CSIRO advises GOVT which pays the CSIRO. THe GOVT takes CSIRO advice.and appoints staff and researchers accordingly. Nothing related to conspiracy. The climate research is funded by govt who pay the climate researchers. It is a symbiotic relationship Where is the accountability to test the validity and success of this process. Who can question? There is NO entry point for any professionals who have ANY reservations about AGW You say Heartland has vested interests. But yes so does the CSIRO/GOVT. Continuing funding and survival . My point is that NEW RESEARCH is often published on the conveyor belt of these major players OPEN unrestrained climate research is an ideal But l believe the AGW hypothesis is overly funded at the expense of other areas of climatic research In this forum.. The new climate research is ALL about C02.. I find that a little obsessive.. 400ppm of co2 will continue to be the major driver for climate research..as far as l can ascertain Looking at the NATURE journal directory tonight. They do have an emphasis on C02 .and that

Well l suppose BftV that if John cooks study is correct, 97% of research supports AGW so it would not be surprising to see only 3% of publications in journals sceptical of AGW.. John EDDY the author of Maunder minimum published in 1976 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/192/4245/1189.extract In an interview with John Eddy http://www.agu.org/history/sv/solar/eddy_int.html John describes the problems with trying to research an area of science that is considered taboo. He lost his first research job as a non-conformist he was moved on and pursued his research interests in non-traditional areas without funding. At the time he also 'poo pooed' the theory that the sun is variable anthis has implications for our climate. These believers were thought to be charlatans and funding to research a variable sun what out of the question and his initial research set out to prove them wrong. Years of data collection later. Funded by his own monjey and time He was fortunate to have his maunder research paper published by SCIENCE journal His interview highlights the difficulties of researching in controversial fields including loss of employment and research without remuneration. Also cross departmental competition. For example climatologists don't like astrophysicists publishing on the climate. Here are a few snippets of the struggles and final acceptance Eugene Parker of the University of Chicago, when promoting his theory of the existence of a solar wind, which caused Parker to receive much scorn from the community, exposed Eddy to the work of Maunder vis a vis sunspot records.[4] Eddy was laid off from the High Altitude Observatory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in 1973 due to budget cutbacks and the poor performance reviews he earned due to his interdisciplinary forays, which were frowned upon at the time the EDDY interview regarding his trials and struggles in researching a variable sun in the 1960's 1970's http://www.agu.org/history/sv/solar/eddy_int.html WEART: What kind of resistance did you encounter? Were there any particular people or places that explicitly resisted it? EDDY: Climatologists were really skeptical about it. And I can say that the Europeans were very skeptical about the solar part of it. WEART: The European climatologists, not astrophysicists necessarily. EDDY: I think mostly both. I realized I was getting into kind of a territorial thing here. Several people wrote papers saying that the Maunder Minimum couldn't be true, what Eddy's done about the historical stuff isn't right. EDDY "The climatologists were far more skeptical, just in general." ----------------- Being an AGW skeptic myself l have read many testimonies of AGW sceptical scientists and their struggle with bullying and maligning.. The refusal of the climate to warm further will speak for them all in the future ..is my belief. I support the view of sceptical scientists and their publications in sometimes obscure places ------------ Some NEW research indicating that the climate models are being refined and the outcome for global warming is not as bad as expected extracted From an AGW weighted/dominant journal. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n8/full/nclimate1964.html Climate projection: Refining global warming projections [*]Chris Huntingford1 Accurately determining the warming associated with scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions remains an overarching aim of climate modelling. Research now shows that contemporary measurements significantly reduce uncertainty bounds and indicate that some more extreme warming predictions may be less likely. ---------------------------

BftV. Thanks for your comments and link. The reason l site Scafetta as a luke warmist is that he considers that up to about 60% of recent global warming is from natural variation and the other 40 % possible AGW ( l define luke warmist as someone who weights about half AGW and half natural variability) There are some sceptical AGW scientists that only attribute 3-7% or less from AGW and 97 % of warming to natural variability. To me that is a skeptic of AGW.. On the opposite side of the fence.. What percentage of global warming does IPCC rate as AGW. I don't think it is 100%? There is a range of views in the contribution of AGW vs natural variability. I get the feeling that 'major ' journals have aligned themselves with AGW and select papers accordingly Consensus viewpoint = accepted peer review Skeptical scientists have no choice but to publish in non major journals. In the same way meteorological students are unlikely to gain employment if they are sceptical AGW The CSIRO, BOM, met office are like the major journals. They will not support insubordination and a skeptical or critical mind on AGW and computer modelling Dices are loaded. The scientific process strangled.. Scafetta is uniquely employed at a university l believe.. So if you don't sprout C02 AGW. You are unemployed.. The scientific process in climate research is strangled by the power of the output of beta climate computer modelling. despite the cries of many researchers who have concerns regarding their methodology.. I think it is a sad inditement of the state of gov't funding selection that this bias has got so out of hand.. Heartland and WUWT are necessary to balance this travesty.. many defectors work unpaid in publishing their work Take for example by William Kininmonth He used to be a very 'big wig' in Australian climate science but.. now he writes his own book quote In his new book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, he demonstrates that the model of the climate system represented by the IPCC is inadequate as a foundation ' Now this is not peer reviewed by these 'major' journals.. but yet his credentials and experience are extensive.. Oh and look where he has to publish http://www.multi-science.co.uk/climatechange.htm William Kininmonth is hardly a novice. He is an expert who has defected from the so called 'consensus'

New research article by Scafetta JULY 2013 His work is outstanding Here he combines his knowledge of planetary , solar and lunar forcings on our climate and overlays his findings with GCM 's projections for AGW. His model modulates the current computer model forecasts and he comes up with a less catastrophic outcome I would classify Scafetta as a luke warmist Half skeptic and half AGW If you are interested in how our planets sun and moon modulate our climate then Scafetta's research is a must read. One of the leaders in this field of research Enjoy. As usual l was on the edge of my seat when reading his work. His findings are breathtaking and comforting. He finds order in the cosmos instead of the misunderstood notion of the 'chaos theory' in climate Scafetta, N., Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hindcast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs. Energy & Environment: special volume ‘Mechanisms of Climate Change and the AGW Concept: a critical review’. Vol. 24 (3&4), Page 455-496 (2013). DOI 10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.455 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3706v1.pdf

How long is the record for newly formed first year ice? from that data set

Hey.I didn't know the ARCTIC had record first year ice pack !! Didn't hear that on the media... Is this' inconsequential'? quote from Knockers article posted above http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/07/18/snow-and-arctic-ice-extent-plummet-suddenly-as-globe-bakes/ quote "Even though this year’s ice pack consists of a record amount of first-year ice ...."

BNS Theodor landscheidt has a research paper on lag time between solar and global temp' Theodor Landscheidt Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Proceedings of 1st Solar & Space Weather Euroconference, 'The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate', Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Tenerife, Spain, 25-29 September 2000 (ESA SP-463, December 2000) Abstract. Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature ( r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years. http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/SolarWind.html

The 1975 record for max July temp for Melbourne regional office was broken Knocker by 0.2 deg c Records go back to 1908 1975 was a la Nina year and in many places in 1975 we had record rain and floods so watching the rest of this year with interest Snow levels in ski resorts are very poor at the moment in Australia but excellent in new Zealand!! we have had warm moist tropical in-feeds and the cold westerly belt has been contracted well south toward Antarctica The AO/SAM index has been positive just about al year the polar Jetstream is weak and contracted the sub tropical jet has been dominating It is not like this every year. Here is a link to our climate data base http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ There is some chance of mean July monthly' temp' being broken as well some site records like highest minimum at Thredbo ski resort this week Certainly winter has hardly made an appearance here and yet in the UK and other NH locations you have had the opposite with icy cold winters. This is one of the mildest winters l have ever experienced here Hope we are not on track for record low snow depths either. More sub tropical in-feeds arriving next week on either side of the continent.. AArghh!

Record temperature in the southern hemisphere still holds as well NO NEW RECORD despite some higher temps' in OZ this decade http://wmo.asu.edu/ 1960 was the year of the highest temperature In Australia and southern hemisphere The weather station at Oodnadatta opened in 1939 http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2013&p_c=-58154612&p_stn_num=017043 southern hemisphere Highest Temperature 50.7°C (123°F) 2/1/1960 59 years Oodnadatta, Australia 27°32'S, 135°26'E 112m (367 ft)

BNS said This from the other place: http://docs.lib.noaa...050-01-0010.pdf Apparently, it has relevance to the AGW debate; however, I can't see what that might be. Can anyone shed any light? ------------------ and your point is?? The residents celebrated the 100th anniversary of that record of 134 deg c on the 13th July 2013 Join the Celebration: On July 10th, 1913 the weather observer at Greenland Ranch in Death Valley, California recorded a high temperature of 134°F (56.7°C). This is the highest reliably recorded air temperature on Earth. Please join us at the Furnace Creek Visitor Center on Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the world record high temperature. By attending you will: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/vef/deathvalley/ The record has not been broken at Greenranch Death valley California during the recent heatwave in 2013 ??. Gee it pays to check the claims made on forums.. please explain?

Quote from new research Extracted from Abstract "Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, in northeast (NE) Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6 to 3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million" ?? My question ( The same level of C02 as 2013 at 400ppm.... but the temps were 8 deg c warmer !! ) Is this research for or against AGW? I thought temps followed C02 concentration in the atmosphere? Always? What the? Pliocene Warmth, Polar Amplification, and Stepped Pleistocene Cooling Recorded in NE Arctic Russia [*] [*]Julie Brigham-Grette1,*, [*]Martin Melles2, [*]Pavel Minyuk3, [*]Andrei Andreev2, [*]Pavel Tarasov4, [*]Robert DeConto1, [*]Sebastian Koenig1, [*]Norbert Nowaczyk5, [*]Volker Wennrich2, [*]Peter Rosén6, [*]Eeva Haltia5,†, [*]Tim Cook7, [*]Catalina Gebhardt8, [*]Carsten Meyer-Jacob6, [*]Jeff Snyder9, [*]Ulrike Herzschuh10 Published Online May 9 2013 Science 21 June 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6139 pp. 1421-1427 DOI: 10.1126/science.1233137

Some more links emerging from this gross misconduct in our Australian universities Wonder who else gets the 'big left foot' in the CSIRO, BOM, schools, govt dept etc if they dare promote AGW scepticism Unlawful dismissals and discrimination based on AGW beliefs . Outrageous!! "Between John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, plus Mike Marriot and his idiotic ideas, I’m beginning to think Australia is ground zero for AGW crackpottery. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/ University dumps out-of-step climate change sceptic ONE of Australia's most prominent climate change sceptics believes he has been dumped by James Cook University because of his outspoken views. Professor Bob Carter, who argues global warming stopped 17 years ago, has been given his marching orders after 32 years at the university. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-university-sabotages-exiles-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/ “This case is outrageous. I shall be finding out further details from Professor Salby and shall then arrange for powerful backers to assist him in fighting the university, which – if his side of the story is in all material respects true – has committed multiple criminal offenses. This needs to be a high-profile case.†Christopher Monckton and http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2013/06/28/384514_news.html Comedy and truth

RE: Peer review I regret to inform you that In some Australian universitys. AGW skeptic scientists are being dismissed for their stance as AGW skeptics Poor Bob carter was removed from James cook University http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/jcu-caves-in-to-badgering-and-groupthink-blackballs-politically-incorrect-bob-carter/ So what did Bob do to deserve this dismissal - because he speaks outside the permitted doctrine. His views on climate science do not fit with the dominant meme (or the grant applications). And then there were pesky complaints and emails from disgruntled fans of the prophets-of-doom. (Quite a drain on the office.) Bob Carter has been working there for 31 years - The only reasons given were that the staff of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies had discussed the issue (without any consultation with Carter) and decided that his views on climate change did not fit well within the School’s own teaching and research activities. --------------------- aaaahhh Now l see why James cook has 2 strong AGW 'experts onm board and there reputations would be in tatters Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Chris Cocklin (Lead Author for the IPCC’s 2007 Report!! and doesn't john Cok the author of 97% consensus teach there as well. Por Bob carter didn't have a chance I think he has retired and writes AGWkeptic boks like “Taxing Airâ€, -------------------- There has been another scandalous dismissal at another of our universities MACQUARIEUNIVERSITY This time its is imminent professor Murray Salby He has been dismissed for 'misconduct' He does not support AGW.. A copy of Murrays Salbys biography of his experience at this horribleAGW university It would seem you would not hold a job down in a govt department in Australia if you are an AGWdenier So much for peer review and integrity of the scientific method Fools. They will come undone!! Tim Flannery associated with the climate commission also lecturing at the Macquarie uni' would of been involved in his dismissal l would think? Murray had the power to make Flannery and his colleague's look like shams.. Peer review my friends in climate science is corrupt Take no notice Alternative viewpoints are 'rolled' . You would have your research rejected based on the powerful AGW big wigs ----------- Report this postReply with quoteDid Macquarie University sabotage, exile, blackban, strand and abandon Murry Salby? Short of sending Murry Salby to Siberia, Macquarie University have seemingly done everything they could to sabotage and silence him and his PhD student. Is his research is so dangerous to the cash cow that is “global warming†that it had to be stopped at any cost? The truth will out in the end, and how will Macquarie’s reputation stand up then? Is is difficult to imagine any response they can give which would justify the behaviour described below. I have confirmed with Macquarie’s switchboard that Professor Murry Salby is no longer working there. I have written to the University seeking their response. – Jo ——————————————————————————————————— Thanks for your interest in the research presented during my recent lecture tour in Europe. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... coffin.php Remarks from several make it clear that Macquarie University is comfortable with openly disclosing the state of affairs, if not distorting them to its convenience. So be it.Macquarie’s liberal disclosure makes continued reticence unfeasible. In response to queries is the following, a matter of record: 1.In 2008, I was recruited from the US by “Macquarie Universityâ€, with appointment as Professor, under a national employment contract with regulatory oversight, and with written agreement that Macquarie would provide specified resources to enable me to rebuild my research program in Australia. Included was technical support to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code, comprising numerical models and analyses (the tools of my research), to enable those computer programs to operate in Australia. 2.With those contractual arrangements, I relocated to Australia. Upon attempting to rebuild my research program, Macquarie advised that the resources it had agreed to provide were unavailable. I was given an excuse for why. Half a year later, I was given another excuse. Then another. Requests to release the committed resources were ignored. 3.Three years passed before Macquarie produced even the first major component of the resources it had agreed to provide. After five years of cat-and-mouse, Macquarie has continued to withhold the resources that it had committed. As a result, my computer models and analyses remain inoperative. 4.A bright student from Russia came to Macquarie to work with me. Macquarie required her to abandon her PhD scholarship in Russia. Her PhD research, approved by Macquarie, relied upon the same computer models and analyses, which Macquarie agreed to have converted but did not. 5.To remedy the situation, I petitioned Macquarie through several avenues provided in my contract. Like other contractual provisions, those requests were ignored. The provisions then required the discrepancy to be forwarded to the Australian employment tribunal, the government body with regulatory oversight. The tribunal then informed me that Macquarie had not even registered my contract. Regulatory oversight, a statutory protection that Macquarie advised would govern my appointment, was thereby circumvented. Macquarie’s failure to register rendered my contract under the national employment system null and void. 6.During the protracted delay of resources, I eventually undertook the production of a new book – all I could do without the committed resources to rebuild my research program. The endeavor compelled me to gain a better understanding of greenhouse gases and how they evolve. Preliminary findings from this study are familiar to many. http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/sp ... rry-salby/Refer to the vodcast of July 24, 2012. Insight from this research contradicts many of the reckless claims surrounding greenhouse gases. More than a few originate from staff at Macquarie, who benefits from such claims. 7.The preliminary findings seeded a comprehensive study of greenhouse gases. Despite adverse circumstances, the wider study was recently completed. It indicates: â—¦(i) Modern changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane are (contrary to popular belief) not unprecedented. â—¦(ii) The same physical law that governs ancient changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane also governs modern changes. 8.These new findings are entirely consistent with the preliminary findings, which evaluated the increase of 20th century CO2 from changes in native emission. 9.http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/02/ ... te-change/ 10.8. Under the resources Macquarie had agreed to provide, arrangements were made to present this new research at a scientific conference and in a lecture series at research centers in Europe. 11.9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie. The obstruction was imposed after arrangements had been made at several venues (arranged then to conform to other restrictions imposed by Macquarie). Macquarie’s intervention would have silenced the release of our research. 12.10. Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties. My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers for other staff – junior staff. I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract. 13.11. In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of “misconductâ€, cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US. 14.My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me. She was isolated – left without competent supervision and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation, research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia. 15.12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense. 16.13. In April, The Australian (the national newspaper), published an article which grounded reckless claims by the so-called Australian Climate Commission: 17.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6611988057(Open access via Google News) 18.To promote the Climate Commission’s newest report is the latest sobering claim: 19.“one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet†20.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... 6666505528 21.Two of the six-member Australian Climate Commission are Macquarie staff. Included is its Chief Commissioner. 22.14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed. 23.15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled. The latest chapter in a pattern, this action left me stranded in Europe, with no arrangements for lodging or return travel. The ticket that had been cancelled was non-refundable. 24.16. The action ensured my absence during Macquarie’s misconduct proceedings. 25.17. When I eventually returned to Australia, I lodged a complaint with the Australian employment tribunal, under statutes that prohibit retaliatory conduct. 26.18. In May 2013, while the matter was pending before the employment tribunal, Macquarie terminated my appointment. 27.19. Like the Australian Climate Commission, Macquarie is a publically-funded enterprise. It holds a responsibility to act in the interests of the public. 28.20. The recent events come with curious timing, disrupting publication of our research on greenhouse gases. With correspondence, files, and computer equipment confiscated, that research will now have to be pursued by Macquarie University’s “Climate Expertsâ€. http://www.science.mq.edu.au/news_and_e ... _commision Murry Salby obtained from Australian AGW skeptic weather forumhttp://www.therealworldweatherforum.com/the-ceebee-hotwhopper-john-cockhead-thread-t94-20.html

KNOCKER I have found a really good tutorial on the stratosphere and Jetstream for you. It is probably targeted 1st/2nd yr uni http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/index.htm I would like to sit down and read myself.. ..One day.LOL I have taken one of the professors diagrams and highlighted the position of atmospheric layers and also the position of major Jetstream/s on the pic' below This is a vertical profile that illustrates the change in temperature at different altitudes and at different latitudes of first of the global atmospheric layers Notice the top of the tropopause is highest at the equator and lowest at the poles ( a thermocline or temperature gradient) the temperature gradients from equator to pole This temperature difference between poles and equator is different at different altitudes I have marked in a thermocline in brown. Changes in solar contribution amongst other things alters the temperature gradient profile. This can affect Jetstream strength and position and weather in the troposphere picture from http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_Js/6-02.jpg and modified and linked to my pics https://picasaweb.google.com/104698633266954768357/STRATOSPHERE#5897831796751546930 Hope that assists.. CLICK the thumbnail below to invoke an enlarged picture

KNOCKER Equatorial to polar temperature gradient in the stratospheric layer Forms a horizontal thermocline from equator to pole at the stratospheric altitude Changes in stratospheric temp' due to a range of factors can change the thermocline gradient and impact Jetstream strength and position as the Jetstream resides in the stratosphere. There is also a vertical thermoclines that varies with altitude from the surface to the stratosphere and even higher Solar minimum and maximum impacts ozone and UV concentration in the stratosphere and relates to temp 'changes there My favourite researcher of the stratosphere is Prof. Dr. Karin Labitzke awesome !! http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/ ---------- Thankyou JETHRO for those links. They look fabulous . I will read in the coming days and comment I did read that news article about' lockwoo'd on the cool spells in the UK. I was surprised he said the downturn commenced mid 80's? and we are half way through the downturn? ???? Not all agree on timing then, which surprise me . I must read his research ----------------- BftV Yes Interesting that some scientists calculating a steep descent in global temp; like Abdussamatov This is based on cycle harmonics of when cycles overlay and produce constructive interference Some cycle researchers have identified up to 4 cycles aligning at max around 2000 and hence say we have reached modern maximum.ie.. Qian and lu (2010) All 4 cycles decline at the same time producing a saw tooth wave effect a steep downturn. Archibald also has similar bold predictions of large drops in global temp Some are more conservative like Scafetta that recognise some C02 forcing and calculate the mix of cycle downturn and C02 forcing I think Archibald , Landscheidt and Abdudussamatov subscribe to a zero or negligible forcing of C02 ________________ Thanks for those thumbnails KNOCKER. I will copy and archive those. By the way. Don't forget the solar system tidal influence. Its not all solar induced also amplification effects from solar . Top down theory. ----------------- BNSue. When will the 200 yr De Vries minimum bottom out and how much can GHG retard the downturn? I think in the first of Jethros links( LOCKWOOD) the minimum could retard global temp incline from AGW 0.3 deg c by 2030 0.1 deg c per decade l assume? However this will depend on the 'true' climate sensitivity of C02 and the true forcing values in the downturn in the 11 yr cycle AND the downturn in forcing of the other 3 cycles including 200 yr cycle which Lockwood has not quantified? Lets add in the downturn as well of the 60 yr cycle (AMO) commencing maybe 2020? Could get a downward saw tooth effect as cycle analysis indicates Could get surprisingly ugly if the likes of Archibald ,Landscheidt et al are correct

Re: Jetstream BftV. Do you have some time series data on the Jetstream position. Would love to see that? Anomaly of latitude position and zonal /meridonal anomaly? Link? Sorry Pier isn't popular.. For me its the paywall problem..to get a look in..a turn off~! I agree with his analysis of his general downward global trend based on cycle analysis. The down cycle has just started 'G Wolf,' and wouldn't be noted by the WMO as they report decadal trends 2008--2018 will be next decadal decline. Does the WMO do a global temperature prediction like the Met office? Could you post that on global temps thread? Yes . I did note theWMO have not mentioned at stall all. But the MET office has mentioned in their forecast? Posted below is the WMO decadal trend. and global temp'oscillation snap shot The hiatus period from 40's to 70's stand out. Is that a cycle or AGW attribute? I think that is a cycle..? http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html KNOCKER I read an article claiming that the satellite measurement is faulty because they measure quote "SORCE is orbiting about 90,000 kilometres below the top of the Earth’s atmosphere." and so may not be a true representation of TSI? http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/tim-cullen-the-problem-with-tsi-total-solar-irradiance/ quote "SORCE is not precisely measuring TSI. SORCE is precisely measuring Transformed TSI. however maybe this doesn't matter as TSI is not the only variable in question for global warming UV, Ozone concentration, equatorial stratospheric gradient, stratospheric warmings, downwelling, tidal forcing both oceanic and atmospheric ,expansion and contraction of stratosphere, Jetstream changes cosmic rays, geomagnetic influence etc as some cards on the table -- I am not too familiar with Piers work but he is not alone by a long shot regarding forecast for global cooling and a maunder/Dalton type minimum forecast in play Statistically cycle analysis says it is upon is. Now how this impinges on AGW theory is interesting Minus 0. 3 deg C maximum impact you say from solar downturn. Is that per decade?. Is that for an 11 yr solar cycle or a 200 yr solar cycle? cheers all It is currently 10.30pm in Melbourne Australia. Thanks for the interaction all. . I do have problems with those pay walled studies KNOCKER. You can never read the details or method and are basically useless for analysis Glad to seel l am not alone in my belief in the power of cycles' sparticle.'