The pace of past episodes of climate change is likely to have been underestimated, according to research carried out by scientists at the University of Aberdeen and Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) in Germany with Dr David Kemp from the University of Aberdeen School of Geosciences as lead author of the study.
In a paper published in Nature Communications, the research team demonstrate how geological archives do not capture the full variability of climate change likely to have occurred in ancient times. The result, they argue, is that maximum rates of climate change in Earth’s history are systematically underestimated.
Dr Kemp explained: “Our work shows that rates of temperature change through Earth’s history scale with the timespan over which the changes are measured, meaning that the rates of recorded change are inevitably slower when measured over longer and longer time periods.
“When you look at geological changes in temperature, which can typically only be measured over thousands to tens of thousands of years, you inevitably don’t capture the detail and full variability of changes that we know from more modern records occur on much shorter timescales.”
Professor Wolfgang Kiessling, from FAU, adds that rates of warming through ancient episodes of large-scale climate change were probably much quicker than previously thought, perhaps similar to, or exceeding, the pace of warming today.
“Our work emphasises how the geological record biases the data. More recent history shows that significant climate change can occur over short periods of time, and it is these types of relatively short-term events that cannot be resolved from the geological record.”
The team emphasise that their research doesn’t negate present-day concerns over climate change, but rather highlights a gap in our understanding of ancient climate change.
“Our work doesn’t impact on how quickly climate is changing today, but instead it emphasises how the geological record is an imperfect archive of ancient climate behaviour,” explained Kilian Eichenseer, a graduate student on the study team. “Reliably comparing and contrasting ancient and modern climate change is therefore problematic.”
He added: “While there is little doubt that the current rate of climate change is unusual and something that causes understandable concern, caution should be exercised when describing modern changes as unprecedented in the context of Earth’s history, since this doesn’t take into account the clear bias that complicates the assessment of ancient rates of climate change.”

If there’s one thing I hate, it is hyocrites like these troughers flying thousands of miles off to some luxury resort, falsely claiming warming and then telling all of us who know far more about the science, the we THE LITTLE PEOPLE have to cut back whilst they gorge themselves.

Watch: Flashback 2010: Warmists Call for WW2-Style Rationing While ‘Bureaucrats Gone Wild in Cancun’ at UN Climate Summit

Until the beginning of this year I would write on forums something along the lines of: “no warming for XXX years, but there is evidence for some melting of polar ice – that is what we would expect after the little ice-age”.
Then Tony Heller pointed out that globally sea ice was back to normal (now rising).
Then we heard that Antarctic ice had been INCREASING. also sea ice.
That left one real substantial pillar of the global warming religion: there had been studies showing Greenland ice had decreased.
Now today I read this report from the Danish site: Weather, Climate and Ocean Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which shows that Greenland surface ice-mass has also been increasing.

So let me now review the main evidence I had for CO2 warming:

1. Even though 69% suspect the temperature record has been tampered with, it is still safe to say there was an apparent temperature increase large enough to turn a predominate cooling scare into a warming scare. So, whilst we can’t ignore instrumentational errors and outright fraud, underneath was an apparent trend large enough to persuade those who then believed in global cooling. STILL TRUE
2. CO2 levels have risen. There’s debate about how much of this rise is due to mankind, but the fact it has risen is not in dispute. STILL TRUE
3. There is a scientific basis for the CO2 blanket. This is only large enough for a fraction of the predicted warming, but the fundamental, but small direct increase due to CO2 is based on reasonably sound science STILL TRUE
4. There are indicators that the temperature may have changed. E.g. a small change in Arctic ice NOW FALSE and Himalaya glaciers. (False?) But these indicators are all dubious. NOW: CONTRARY TO CURRENT WARMING
5. I’m going to add in sea level rise – even though the evidence points to a deacceleration of sea level rather than the necessary acceleration. NOW TAKE OUT

Now let me add in all the evidence for criminal activity:
Evidence of Criminal activity, fraud and corruption

1. Climategate showed attempts to “get rid of medieval warming” and “hide the decline”. As this research was cited when applying for funds, it amounts to fraud.
2. East Anglia University broke Freedom of Information law (but were not prosecuted due to time delay – although conspiracy to break FOI law doesn’t seem to have the same time limit)
3. The Inquiries into Climategate showed widespread and high profile conspiracy to break the law and pervert the course of justice.
4. NASA have repeated been found to have dishonestly cooled the past.
5. NOAA have broken US law by refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena from their oversight committee.
6. The fact NOAA will not disclose emails as the law requires, is very strong evidence that they have altered global temperature to fabricate a warming trend.
7. Gleick committed a criminal act when he stole emails from Heartland.
8. The continued use of out of date CO2 warming figures based on out of date HITRAN data when the new data shows considerably less warming.
9. The BBC libel of sceptics and various other hate crimes by the BBC and like minded people.
10. Shukla who syphoned off public money into a company run by all his relatives in what clearly looks extremely dubious: Uh, oh. Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 has captured the attention of Congress, and FOIA documents are coming out
11. The Hockeystick – which no doubt started as a mistake by Mann, but which due to his failure to come clean, his repeated and false claim to be a Nobel laureate and other daft claims and assertions and his use of this bogus material to get funds and generally benefit himself, seems to constitute fraud.

Note: the only potential “crime” by any sceptic is the alleged “hack” of emails which the information commission later ruled should have been in the public domain. So the worst that can be said, is that if any hack occurred, it merely forced the UEA to comply with the law. (although I suspect it was an insider disgusted with their behaviour).

Conclusion

With the recent scandal at NOAA whereby they and NASA fabricated warming, it is now clear that none of the surface measurements can be trusted. As such, given that Antarctic and now Arctic ice is gaining in volume and not melting, and given the widespread corruption in the subject, it is now safe to say that there is no credible evidence of current warming. With no trends in extreme weather, floods, droughts, children know what snow is, CO2 the plant food is leading to record harvests and greening deserts, etc., there is now no credible evidence of any harm and indeed significant evidence of positive benefits.
Therefore I declare that Global Warming – the theory that said we should now be seeing massive warming and catastrophic effects – is disproved.

---

Note:
The data shows surface ice level is increasing. If temperature were affecting the ice, the first place we would expect to see melting is at the surface and therefore this is strong evidence that over the period 1990-present, that Greenland has not been melting. This however is not the same as “Greenland ice-mass” (as originally written). This would need to take account of glacier calving – a process which may reflect an “excess” accumulation of ice 10s of thousands of years ago (i.e. during the ice-age) and so the rate is not a good indication of what current temperature is doing as there need not be any correlation with present temperature.

Following my previous post highlighting the emergence of humorous articles regarding Global warming The Global Warming comedy show I realised this marked an important change, but in order to explain it, I needed to publish my Social Boundary Theory of Humour.
To put it simply, the Social Boundary Theory of Humour says that we find things funny because they are at the boundary of acceptability, AND that we use humour to communicate and “discuss” these boundary. (Which rather explains why I no longer find the BBC funny!)
However, the implication of that, is that people will tend to use humour when they are unsure of the social boundary and are searching for the “social norm” or the limit of social acceptability. (We don’t e.g. ask is it OK to say “cunt” – people instead make a joke and judge the acceptability of ideas and words from the response – which is significantly different in different social groups).
In other words, the recent emergence of articles in a humorous tone, is highly indicative of a view that the social boundaries on reporting climate are perceived to have changed. So those journalists treating the subject humorously are in effect asking the question “is this the new social boundary?”.
Thus, based on the Social Boundary Theory of Humour I can conclude:

1. There has been a perceived change in what is acceptable within society regarding this subject (the moral stigma of being a sceptic has dissipated).
2. That more than likely once other commentators see the subject being treated humorously, that they too will begin using humour so that they too can explore and discover the new “socially acceptable boundary”.
3. And basically: that the Global Warming propaganda machine is failing, the fear of “crossing the boundary” to the sceptic side has disappeared and that we sceptics face the real risk of becoming socially acceptable.

Social Boundary Theory of Humour

Socially acceptable behaviour is contained within a set of unseen boundaries which are not formally taught. As young children, we learn by praise and punishment what behaviour is acceptable in the same way that we learn by the same means what places we can go, what items we can touch and what behaviours are acceptable.
However, it is a well known phenomenon that some areas are taboo from discussion. So, many parents find it difficult to talk to children about sex, or perhaps in this age, many children don’t want to hear parents talking about something they already know.
So where does this knowledge come from? As children seem to learn the socially acceptable boundaries even though they are not being formally taught or communicated.
I would like to propose a very simple hypothesis: that the main purpose of humour is to explore and demarc the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour & thought. They are in effect ritualistic forays, toward and even beyond the bounds of acceptability, which are tolerated because these ritualised “attacks” enable society to discuss and communicate these taboo subjects.
Thus humour is in effect the formation of the question: “if someone did this – would it be acceptable”. Those “jokes” that do not push the bounds are not funny. Those jokes that go too far are deemed “unacceptable”. But in between there is a spectrum of acceptability and the response from the audience endorses and re-enforces or forms the social boundary. It is thus hypothesised that the the tone of the response from the audience, in some way communicates to everyone if or how far the boundary has been crossed. (i.e. laughter versus groans?)
In addition, by attacking other groups, humour is used to signpost the boundaries of the group: to create and maintain a group identity by denigrating “outsiders” and suggesting the insiders are superior, intellectually, socially and/or morally.
Many other theories of humour have been proposed as below. However none explain the purpose of humour or the reason why this form of behaviour would have evolved. However, it does fit in with these other theories as follows: Continue reading →

There’s a new phenomenon developing, presumably from a press sick to death with the Climate Extremists propaganda and/or gullibly copy and pasting their dumb press releases. And it’s this: headlines which just look comic! So, can you tell whether the following are intended to be serious just by their titles?

• Opinion: On global warming, will they come after hamburgers next?
• See How Global Warming Could Sink Parliament
• Global warming affecting Belgian beer
• Climate change hampers sex drive too
• Tis the season for all that global warming folly

Perhaps their expensive market “research” shows them that people like comedy, so in their gullible minds the climate extremists now reckon that if they make global warming comic people will like it?

After one particularly irritating letter from my children’s school in which contrary to human rights and without even so much as asking if they may, they wrote to say they were taking over the role of parenting of my child, I wrote this letter back to them using much of the original phrases/words in in the same dismissive style of their original (and yes, it wasn’t even addressed personally):

Mr Nightmare Elm Street Tel: 0141 666 1313 Fax: What’s a fax? Email: nightmare@home.com

To Teacher / Teaching Assistant / Head Master / Mistress / Janitor

Ref: Nightmare/1 (of 13)Friday 13/8/08

Let me introduce myself. I am Mr Nightmare, your pupil’s Guidance parent at Home. Parenting is an extra provision at Home concerned with the development of your young pupil as a hole. As an experienced parent (I went to school!) I will not be involved at the crucial decision-making time when teaching subjects are chosen, I will not oversee how your pupil is progressing academically in your chosen courses neither will I take any interest in how they are getting on socially, that’s what we pay you for! In the first year, I am your designated Nightmare. I will probably meet with your pupil outside the bathroom at 8:50 to be told “it’s an in-service day” and if there is nothing better on TV I will meet with you once a term to receive your deeply considered remarks about a different child. Also in S1, I am your pupil’s designated parent for our course: “Parent Interactive Social Sessions”. These lessons, which I have timetabled between 20:36:42 to 20:36:43 will develop your pupil through the key stages in their adolescence and will be underpinned by the development of essential life-skills such as criticism, getting out of bed, and advanced game console management so useful for further education, work, career, parenting and those key life stages: Pre and Post Work Career. Please be assured that I am on hand at all times and will be very pleased to take every opportunity to meet with you to assess your ability to recall anything of any relevance about this pupil. If you wish (and even if you do not wish) we will discuss every meeting with everyone else we know and share notes to determine which pupil you think you were discussing. Wishing you and your pupil a very happy and successful career, Yours truly, Mr Nightmare Guidance Parent.

PS. The teachers are actually very good.

(I found this today on my PC, evidently written a good few years ago).
There are well known phases to a project like this “tackling global warming”
1. Politics
Politically active people (within society or a company) seeking to manufacture a power base for themselves pick up on issues from well-intentioned individuals which they then push for their own self advancement, seeking to create the biggest possible project consuming the most resources possible for their own personal gain. The result, totally unrealistic goals which have little to do with the original issue.
2. Enthusiasm
After securing funding from the gullible people who control funding, a new project starts, many enthusiastic consultants, researchers, etc. are hired, because they will tell the managers how fantastic the project is and how much they can achieve.
3. Realism
As the initial enthusiasm turns out to be over-hyped, as goals are beginning to look more difficult, as early work fail to make the anticipated progress, those most responsible for the unrealistic goals see the writing on the wall (from all their other failed projects) and find another issue to push leaving an increasingly disillusioned group having to deal with the fallout.
4. Pistoffeness
The early progress grinds to a halt. The promises of how much will be achieved turn into grate with the reality of how much has been achieved and initial enthusiasm disappears.
5. Search for the guilty
Everyone, including even the extremely gullible, now realises the initial aims are unachievable. Now those involved, spend almost as much effort trying to pin the blame for its failure on others as working on the project and everyone is trying not to be the first to be sacked.
6. The clearout
With the key driver long gone, the blame now falls on the poor project leader (chosen for their enthusiasm not ability to deliver) And when they go, so goes all their expensive hyperbolic consultants and managers. The project goals are severely cut down to match reality, and the now cut-down and functional project team (led by engineering types) at last has some prospect of achieving the more realistic objectives (often bearing no resemblance to the original objectives, but only stated to be the same “project” so as to save face.
7. The Enquiry
Almost without exception, those who pushed the original unrealistic goals (e.g. politicians) have sloping shoulders and they know the best way to avoid taking the blame themselves is to lead the charge to pin the blame on others.
In the mud-slinging that ensues, the functional managers finally making progress usually haven’t a chance against the slick political types (who are really to blame). Dirty laundry is exposed.
8. The “it will never happen again”
Those most responsible now vow to never let the fiasco recur. They pin the blame on the last few good managers on the project, awarding them hugely inflated redundancy packages to keep quiet, so allowing the real culprits to remain in their high offices, who now cynically use the “example” of this failed and the appalling behaviour of the good managers to justify their next massively expensive project, with over hyped goals, etc.

The Scottish highlands was amongst the first to suffer a widespread wind related power outage (obviously denied by our idiot politicians but the change of events clearly indicated wind was the culprit). Then just this week we hear that England nearly suffered the same, and now it also appears to have occurred in Australia:

STT could be forgiven for being just a little smug after events unfolded last Sunday night (1 November 2015) in Australia’s “Wind Farm Capital”, South Australia.
As our post – Wind Power Disaster Unfolds: SA Facing Total Blackouts, Rocketing Power Prices & Thousands More Chopped from the Grid – was being put together for an airing on Monday, unbeknownst to STT – a bit after 10pm on Sunday – 110,000 South Australian homes and businesses were plunged into darkness.
STT’s SA operatives were quick off the mark, informing us of their unscheduled trip to the Dark Ages – with emails and comments on that post.
Without warning, traffic lights were dimmed to dangerous pointlessness; street lights were out, leaving less surefooted and vulnerable pedestrians creeping home nervously in the dark; hotel, cinema and restaurant owners had to show customers the door; service stations were unable to pump fuel for their motoring customers; and TV viewers missed the critical dénouements of favourite crime ‘whodunnit’, NCIS and batty-blockbuster, The Dark Knight Rises.
On a more serious note, those in charge of hospitals, like the Lyell-McEwin, had to cross their fingers in the anxious seconds before diesel generators fired up to produce the power needed to keep life support patients ticking along and other critical infrastructure up and running.
Likewise with supermarkets relying on their own diesel generators to keep perishables and frozen food from perishing. However, those small businesses with no access to backup power generation (Delis and the like) and, therefore, no refrigeration, had to otherwise try to stop valuable frozen goods from melting, along with their profits.
While NCIS fans missed out on the who-got-cuffed-climax, the ‘whodunnit’ of real interest to STT was played out in what passes for media in South Australia. Here’s some of it.
Widespread power blackout hits Adelaide
The Advertiser
2 November 2015
Power fault ‘could happen again’
Read More: Stop These Things

Hopefully no one so far has died, but it is only a matter of time before people do start dying directly as a result of this “insane obsession with global warming“

Note: this was originally posted on another blog specific to Scotland.

In response to the news on bishop hill that MSP Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland) was tabling the following question:

‘whether it has undertaken any further investigation into whether an over reliance on wind turbines as a source of electricity played a role in the grid failure on 16 April 2014′. (S4O-03258)

I decided to reveal what I had found in my comments on that blog. However, without the above graph the comments will not make much sense, so I’ve rushed out this post (apologies for the poor quality graph, click for a larger version). But before the graph, let me quickly look at the big picture:

What is the safe level of wind on a grid?

Continue reading →