Archive for November, 2011

The Glacial Climate: Why so Cold?

Posted: November 30, 2011 by Rog Tallbloke in climate, Ice ages

On the ‘Suggestions’ page,

Roger Andrews says:

Reading through the RealClimate discussion of the recent Schmittner et al. paper on ice age climate sensitivity ( I came across the following claim:

“without the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, i.e. the cooling effect of the lower glacial CO2 concentration, the ice age climate cannot be explained.”


Thought this might be worth a thread.


The paper isn’t difficult to follow, and gives a useful insight into the current state of play with models which  are used to attempt tasks such as trying to determine the climate sensitivity (assuming it is linear), from long time span runs. This one runs from the Last Glacial Minimum in temperature around 23Kyears ago.


Six die in Kwa-Zulu-Natal floods as COP17 begins

Posted: November 29, 2011 by Rog Tallbloke in atmosphere, Politics, weather

What is it with International Climate Jamborees and unseasonal weather? Two years ago Copenhagen got an early blast of wintry storms. Last year Cancun shivered in temperatures 9C below average. Now Durban gets flooded as the show gets underway.

According to the South Africa Weather Bureau, 2.5 inches of rain fell last night in Durban, which had already recorded 8.2 inches for November, almost double its average. It’s forecast to continue persisting it down all week. Awww, and I bet all the delegates had sun lotion with them rather than brollies… It’s almost like Nature has decided that climatologists and policy wonks won’t get any fun out of holding their conferences in exotic locations.

From The Mail and Guardian online:

A violent storm killed six people in Durban and Pietermaritzburg on Sunday night and destroyed scores of homes.


The Talkshop: second anniversary

Posted: November 29, 2011 by Rog Tallbloke in solar system dynamics

As of today, Tallbloke’s Talkshop has been running for two years. A moment for reflection and also for looking forward. Firstly I want to express my gratitude to the people who are the main reason this blog is still running – that’s you. Without the encouragement, admin assistance, guest authors and comment contributions, the talkshop wouldn’t be a talkshop, but a silent tomb of stillborn thought. I thank you all for your interest and involvement.

Some milestones have been passed this last week:

  • Total site views have risen to just over 1/3 of a million
  • Over 300 articles have been posted
  • Over 9000 comments have been published
  • Over 40,000 visits in November, our biggest month yet -thanks largely to a brief comment from ‘foia’ I should add.


Talkshop Poll

Posted: November 28, 2011 by Rog Tallbloke in climate, Politics

After the revelations of the emails, and subsequent blandishments from Phil Jones and the mainstream media that there is nothing untoward and it’s just that quotes have been mined out of context, I thought we should conduct a reality check to see what the readership thinks. Please visit below the break to cast your


CO2 or Sun ? Which one really controls Earth’s surface temperatures ?

Stephen Wilde – November 2011

1) Here is a chart showing the Temperature of the Lower Stratosphere (TLS) from 1979 to date.  From 1979 the modern satellite temperature record first became available.



UBS Report: Europe’s $287bn carbon ‘waste’

Posted: November 28, 2011 by Rog Tallbloke in Energy, Incompetence, Politics

SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.

In a damning report to clients, UBS Investment Research said that had the €210bn the European ETS had cost consumers been used in a targeted approach to replace the EU’s dirtiest power plants, emissions could have been reduced by 43 per cent “instead of almost zero impact on the back of emissions trading”.


Image 21st Century

Image credit 21st Century

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski died whilst undergoing surgery, Nov 12th 2011, Poland

A brief obit is  here on 21st Century Science and Technology

An EIR interview given last year is here

Warwick Hughes has a copy of another EIR text here

I apologise for not picking this up days ago.

Tim Channon

It’s rare that I republish a strongly political opinion piece here on the talkshop. Mostly because on other blogs it it tends to generate exchanges which create more heat than light. But the time has come to consider the consequences of the policies being foisted on us in the name of averting the threat of global warming if they turn out to be aiming in the wrong direction.

A common argument from the better informed people on the co2-drives-climate-change side of the debate is that although we don’t know for sure if co2 really does drive climate change (formerly known as global warming) the consequences of not acting now if it is true are so bad that we should not delay in drastically cutting co2 emissions.

The article below from Christopher Booker is the counterpoint to this line of thinking. It asks what the consequences of  pursuing the policies already in place will be for us if they continue. In the face of the evidence that the small group of scientists at the centre of the co2 scare have strongly oversold the certainty of their public pronouncements, this is a salient question.


For many years, attempts to encourage debate on global warming science or policy have run into the obstacle that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued definitive statements, and therefore—the reasoning goes—the era of debate is over. The IPCC is made up of thousands of the world’s top scientists, it has one of the most rigorous and exhaustive review processes in the history of science, and the oversight by 195 member governments ensures balance, transparency and accountability. Or so we are told.


Reposted from Roy Spencer’s blog

November 23rd, 2011

Ever since the first Climategate e-mail release, the public has become increasingly aware that scientists are not unbiased. Of course, most scientists with a long enough history in their fields already knew this (I discussed the issue at length in my first book Climate Confusion), but it took the first round of Climategate e-mails to demonstrate it to the world.

The latest release (Climategate 2.0) not only reveals bias, but also some private doubts among the core scientist faithful about the scientific basis for the IPCC’s policy goals. Yet, the IPCC’s “cause” (Michael Mann’s term) appears to trump all else.

So, when the science doesn’t support The Cause, the faithful turn toward discussions of how to craft a story which minimizes doubt about the IPCC’s findings. After considerable reflection, I’m going to avoid using the term ‘conspiracy’ to describe this activity, and discuss it in terms of scientific bias.