NavigationSearchRecent Commentsthe zuck and joe wrestle... in the great masturbators in silicon valley told to ease up... 47 min 20 sec ago deception in politics? nothing new... in in paradise, they don't have to prune trees... — ugs isykloen 5 hours 5 min ago milking the pre-determinated origin... in a modern odyssey with genies in bottles... 5 hours 34 min ago plagues, for being together... in a modern odyssey with genies in bottles... 6 hours 6 min ago team australia... in sometimes, our gross exaggerated dreams are so outrageous we could scream... 6 hours 56 min ago a soccer match... in of racism and culturalism... 8 hours 14 min ago sanitising history... in sometimes, our gross exaggerated dreams are so outrageous we could scream... 8 hours 28 min ago people are so cute... in "eat my shorts" — joe biden wrote the "patriot act"... 9 hours 18 min ago too many on-going wars to start a new one?... in still pushing crap... 9 hours 32 min ago move the date... in sometimes, our gross exaggerated dreams are so outrageous we could scream... 17 hours 17 min ago Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
the family is in denial... and wants the CSIRO bugger dead as soon as possible to save cash...
It isn’t easy to get the head around how science worked out that Earth’s surface in 2015 was exceptionally warm. Here’s my explanation. In past years I’ve tried to report findings as soon as possible, usually around mid-January, when the US National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration’s Climate Data Center and NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies release their analyses of records dating back to 1880. Some readers thought I was favouring these findings over the UK source, the combined dataset of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, whose analysis starts in 1850. So this year I waited until all were in. Besides that “big three”, Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology compiles its own global time-series based on the UK dataset. The Japan Meteorological Agency has its own dataset starting in 1891, and Berkeley Earth, a privately-funded US group, analyses data all the way back to 1750. All these analyses draw on millions of observations. Some come from about 1500 strategically-located land stations, but bearing in mind that over two-thirds of Earth’s surface is ocean, most are from ships at sea and ocean buoys, increasing in number every year. Some people have questioned the small number of land stations used (about one for every 100,000 square kilometres) and pointed to location (valley or mountaintop, grass or asphalt surface) affecting absolute readings. Both questions are largely resolved by the anomaly technique. Absolute temperatures in various locations are less important in studying global climate than change over time. To discern this scientists look at anomalies: how much the temperature in each given place diverges from the long-term average for that location. To establish a global mean, each agency uses its own methodology. That makes for sometimes pronounced differences in ways of processing the data and handling inevitable gaps over space and time. This independence is a good insurance against shared errors and biases. The possibility of duplicated errors was tested by the Berkeley group, set up in 2010. Its co-founder, Richard Muller, had believed global temperature analyses used corrupt data and faulty techniques. To the contrary, Berkeley Earth found that established datasets were robust, and that if the various agencies had erred about global warming, it had been on the conservative side. In late January the World Meteorological Organisation released its 2015 temperature report. WMO draws threads together from many sources, including the major US and UK datasets. It also goes to the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which uses weather forecasting systems to fill in observational gaps such as for polar regions. All sources in all countries reveal a steadily warming world, with every year since 2000 among the 20 hottest years. The only 20th century year in the top 10 is 1998, which held the record for seven years thanks to the powerful 1997-98 El Nino. And all the different sources, without exception, showed last year to be warmest of all, by the widest margin on record. WMO put it at 0.16C above 2014, 0.27C above 1998 and over 1C above the mean when warming began in the 19th century. Australia’s mean in 2015 – 0.83C above the 115-year average – made this our fifth-warmest year on record. The strong El Nino got our fire season off to an early start, with Tasmania experiencing catastrophic fire weather in October. Looking ahead, meteorologists are anticipating a warm 2016, maybe even warmer than 2015 depending on how long this El Nino continues. Longer term, the UK’s Met Office expects that if we get any relief from warming it will be short-lived. Taking Earth’s temperature is tough science, as is studying deep ocean temperature, ocean acidity, extreme weather, sea levels, ice sheet stability, species survival and so on. Australia’s BOM and CSIRO are among global leaders in this continuing challenge. Yet incredibly, CSIRO head Larry Marshall told the ABC’s 7.30 last week that CSIRO had more important things to do than investigate how climate changes. There’s nothing more important, and that statement will haunt his career from now on. But that’s a whole new discussion, for next time. http://southwind.com.au/2016/02/09/a436/
|
larry marshall is an idiot ignoramus with patents...
As a Climate Councillor I’ve had the privilege of working with CSIRO scientists for many years, and can say that this is a devastating blow. We are sad and angry that we are losing some of our best and brightest scientific minds, particularly from the Marine and Atmospheric Research divisions - the heart of CSIRO climate science. CSIRO has built an international reputation for world-class research through decades of hard work.
These job losses are just the latest in a series of harmful cuts to science. Just over two years ago, the Climate Commission was abolished by the Australian Government, and thanks to your overwhelming support, we were able to create the Climate Council. However it's impossible to replace such a large part of Australia's climate research capability and 175 CSIRO staff.
The loss of this scientific expertise deals a body-blow to Australia's capacity to understand climate change. Our firefighters, our emergency services, and our community will be less prepared for climate risks including bushfires, heatwaves, and extreme weather. It’s that simple. Cuts like these make our work harder. Our reports and media work are based on the world-class science produced here in Australia, especially by experts like those losing their jobs at CSIRO.
It is so important that the wider community understands the seriousness of these ongoing attacks on science - and we must put pressure on our leaders so that they know we strongly oppose these decisions. I've been doing many media interviews since the news broke yesterday, and will continue to speak strongly on behalf of the Climate Council community against these continuing attacks on science.
Our aim when we launched the Climate Council: to ensure that climate science couldn’t be silenced by Government cuts. Together, we’ve done just that, creating a team of scientists and communicators who are reaching tens of millions of people a year. Our work helps farmers, firefighters, doctors and defence forces tackle climate impacts — and pushes forward the national discussion on climate solutions. Thanks for being part of it, and for helping us to keep going on days like this.
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/climate-science-to-be-gutted
apologies not accepted...
CSIRO chief Larry Marshall has apologised for describing the emotion of the climate debate as almost "more religion than science".
Key points:Dr Marshall had told the ABC the backlash from his decision to restructure the organisation made him feel like an "early climate scientist in the '70s fighting against the oil lobby" and that there was so much emotion in the debate it almost "sounded more like religion than science".
He also said he would not be backing down on his controversial shakeup of the organisation's climate divisions, telling the ABC he was yet to be persuaded.
At Senate estimates this afternoon he backed away from those comments.
read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/csiro-boss-apologises-for-climate-religion-comments/7160288
As I say in another comment:
Larry Marshall is an idiot bringing in the emotion that "it sounds more like religion than science"... Yes HIS VIEWS ON THE CSIRO are more about the religion of dollars than about sciences... And as far as "feeling like an early climate scientist in the '70s fighting against the oil lobby", I FEEL as if he represents the fucking oil lobby fighting the climate scientists...
there are patents and patents...
I have been told by some people that about 50 per cent of "patents"
a) do not work
b) are about perpetual motion
c) are not worth the ink of the registration
d) the only moneys from the patents are made by the patent office, because these patents are useless on the open market — meaning that NO-ONE NEEDS THEM.
Now, have the employers of Larry Marshall as the CEO of the CSIRO checked out the true value of his 20 or so patents? With the good man's bad behaviour, I am starting to wonder about his credentials. Was he appointed, recommended by a friend of a friend of the dog of Tony Abbott? Was he employed to specifically decimate the climate department of the CSIRO and whip up a fictitious vision of technological discoveries by the said organisation?
I would not pass the Liberals (CONservatives) to pull such a stunt with someone who could OUTRAGEOUSLY SAY: ""feeling like an early climate scientist in the '70s fighting against the oil lobby" while obviously doing the opposite. One can smell a rat. With him also saying that the opposition to his cuts are "emotions that sounds more like religion than science" is also a tell tale of a non-scientist. He appears like a great con man.
update Friday after along night: some bad mouth suggested that should Larry's 22 patents be modestly successful, he would rake in about 5 millions a year. He would not need the job at the CSIRO, so his employ would be just for the lurv of being there. He could forego his own salary and give it to someone in research on climate change. This won't happen because these bad mouths around a bottle (I mean about four) of shiraz suggested that Larry's battle fgainst climate research was "ideological", not really about the cash. Some idiot under the influence and under the table said that Larry could be trying to "adopt a few new ideas for humself" as the CSIRO develops some "technobogicul putentod richenss"... the shiraz can have this effuct on yoo... in vinolus vertusistas as thee shay...
a idiot in charge...
When CSIRO chief Larry Marshall agreed to lead a 16-member delegation of his senior executives to California next week, he would have had no inkling of the scientific storm brewing.
Instead of a triumphant homecoming for the physics-trained, long-time Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Marshall will instead find a lukewarm welcome at best.