Saturday 20th of July 2024

the family is in denial... and wants the CSIRO bugger dead as soon as possible to save cash...

the family


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.


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.

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:
  • The CSIRO boss apologises for referencing religion in climate debate
  • He said he was referring to the 'passionate zeal around the issue'
  • Dr Marshall defended this CSIRO shake-up, despite international backlash


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:


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.


That's if an open letter signed by scientists from about 60 nations and sent on Thursday to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other Australian politicians is any guide.

Marshall, as head of Australia's premier scientific body, has managed to trigger the disdain of scientists at home and abroad by his abrupt decision to axe 350 positions over two years.

Sparking particular ire is his move to cull 100 full-time positions (110 people in total) of the 140 scientists employed by CSIRO's climate monitoring and modelling units of the Oceans and Atmosphere division.

Read more:
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

And Gus does not trust any of Larry's patents...


turdball turnbull is an ignoramus idioticus


Almost 3000 scientists from more than 60 countries have condemned Australia’s key government science agency over plans that would “decimate” its climate change research capabilities.

open letter, delivered to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his ministers on Thursday evening, warns the cuts would leave the Southern Hemisphere “with no sustainable, world-class climate modelling capability.”

Since news of the cuts at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (
CSIRO) emerged last week, leading scientists and institutions from across the world have attacked the plans.

CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall told staff in an email that the agency wanted to shift the focus of its Oceans and Atmosphere division away from climate change monitoring and modelling because the science of climate change was now “proved.”

His claimed justification for the cuts have been roundly criticised by 
current and former staff CSIRO staff members

On Thursday, Marshall joined senior 
CSIRO bosses in a scheduled appearance before an Australian Senate Committee, where he was grilled over the plans. Climate scientists attending a major conference in Melbourne broke off from proceedings to crowd around a televsion to watch Marshall give evidence.

During the hearing, CSIRO clarified that as well as a shift in focus the oceans division would see a net loss of 65 jobs, although the plans and the cuts had not been finalized.

Australian Dr Paul Durack, a leading climate scientist who works at the 
US government-funded Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and who helped co-ordinate the open letter, said:

The response by the global climate community has been a very prompt and very consistent condemnation of the proposed CSIRO/Australian actions to slash the climate research capability. It has been an overwhelming, but on reflection unsurprising international response.
The climate community deeply cares about the future, and knows better than most what we need to do as a global community to get there in good shape.

The proposed cuts undermine Australia's primary climate capability that is required more now than ever to best frame the climate change problem. You can't plan for and adapt to what you don't know and understand, and turning the lights out is really not a step in a forward-thinking direction.

The letter, also sent to other key Australian ministers, politicians and members of the CSIRO board, says:

The decision to decimate a vibrant and world-leading research program shows a lack of insight, and a misunderstanding of the importance of the depth and significance of Australian contributions to global and regional climate research.

The capacity of Australia to assess future risks and plan for climate change adaptation crucially depends on maintaining and augmenting this research capacity.


At Thursday’s Senate hearing, Marshall said he had been “very surprised” by the international reaction to the plans. Marshall, who spent 25 years working on tech start-up companies and as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, also apologised for an earlier comment he made comparing climate science to religion.

“I think there's a lot of emotion in this debate,” 
Marshall told the ABC. “In fact, it almost sounds more like religion than science to me.”

The open letter also questions whether the moves break promises made at the Paris climate change talks, where Australia joined more than 190 other countries in agreeing that global warming should be kept “well below 2C”.

As part of that agreement, nations promised to continue to strengthen scientific knowledge on climate change “in a manner that informs climate services and supports decision-making.” The letter says the planned 
CSIRO cuts would “severely curtail” Australia's ability to meet its Paris promises.

The World Meteorological Association (
WMO) said earlier this week the CSIRO cuts had sent “shockwaves” through the global climate science community.


read more;


Meanwhile we have not heard a peep from our other glorious ignoramus, namely Christopher Pyne, who may not even know the difference between the pointy end of a suppository and his right-hand index-finger. meanwhile I do not hesitate to state that Larry Marshall is an imbecile.

time to throw turnbullshit out of government...

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has moved to thwart plans to challenge a sitting MP in Sydney's south-west with a glowing letter of endorsement to NSW party bosses.

"I […] strongly recommend Craig Kelly MP to be re-endorsed," Mr Turnbull writes to the party's acting NSW boss, Simon McInnes dated last Sunday. Mr Turnbull also addressed the letter to "fellow Liberals".

"He has developed a fine reputation for standing up for his local constituents. I ask that you give Craig your full support."

Mr Kelly said that the issue would be the end of talk that he would face a challenge for the seat of Hughes, which party sources had believed was all but a certainty.

"I would not expect anyone to openly defy the PM given his emphatic endorsement," Mr Kelly said.

Mr Kelly is an outspoken climate sceptic on the party's right. He was also one of the first MPs to declare he would support then Prime Minister Tony Abbott in the leadership ballot against Mr Turnbull. 

Mr Turnbull has earlier moved to protect two other MPs seen as vulnerable to challenges, Hume's Angus Taylor and Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, with ministerial promotions.

Mr Kelly holds the seat by a two-party preferred margin of about 10 per cent.

But other party sources said the endorsement was unlikely to deter potential rivals of Mr Kelly and had not been accompanied by active canvassing from the Prime Minister's office.

"There will be more than one challenger," a source said.

Kent Johns, a powerbroker in the party's left, has been seen as the most likely challenger to Mr Kelly.

Talkback radio host Alan Jones has previously indicated he will use his program to attack Mr Johns with "one hell of a story", if Mr Johns decided to run.

Read more: 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

What is Turnbullshit doing? PLAYING POLITICS WITH THE FUTURE OF THIS PLANET? Time to throw him out...

the irrationality of larry's rationale or plain lies....


CSIRO executives are likely to face another grilling over their plans to lop 350 jobs, including many climate scientists, with a Senate committee planning a fresh inquiry next month.

Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson will use the scrutiny of budget measures committee that he heads to dig deeper into the strategy behind the cuts – announced on February 4 – at a special hearing "as soon as possible" in Hobart.

"This will give the scientific community and other stakeholders a chance to make submissions," the Tasmanian senator told Fairfax Media.

"Evidence to date suggests the decision was made with little insight or understanding of its consequences."

The Senate also turned the heat up further on CSIRO management on Wednesday by passing an order for the production of documents proposed by deputy Greens leader Larissa Waters.

CSIRO executives will have to provide a series of documents by no later than March 3, including internal communications that saw a proposed cut of about 35 staff to two key climate units doing monitoring and model work swell to almost triple that figure within about a month over Christmas.

The race may be tight, though, with staff in Ocean and Atmosphere and the Land and Water divisions told in separate meetings this week that staff to be made redundant will be informed by March 14, a senior scientist told Fairfax Media.

Fairfax Media sought comment on the Senate moves from CSIRO.

At Senate estimates earlier this month, chief executive Larry Marshall said the two units within the Oceans and Atmosphere division would eventually halve the current levels of 140.

The cuts were necessary to divert more resources to climate change mitigation and adaptation, Dr Marshall said.

Other cuts in the 350 tally, though, are likely to fall heavily on climate change adaptation programs within the Land and Water division.

Read more:
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook


larry marshall should be sacked....


Doubts over the rationale and planning of the cuts flared on Tuesday in another CSIRO section facing deep job losses, with many Land & Water staff walking out of a meeting with chief executive Larry Marshall.

"People got fed up of having their questions marginalised, trivialised, and with being lied to," one senior researcher told Fairfax media. He added that about half those attending walked out, with division's head, Paul Hardisty, among them.

"We understand CSIRO scientists are passionate about their science and also about some of the changes to the structure of their organisation," a CSIRO spokesman said, declining to elaborate on the meeting. "CSIRO is committed to continuing to have open and transparent dialogue with staff and hearing staff views and concerns."


read more:



Larry Marshall should be sacked. He is killing sciences. He is insane.

missing in action...

Leaked emails from 2015 reveal a bitter dispute within CSIRO, Australia's leading science body, as management tried to prevent top scientists from breaking ranks before the Paris climate summit.

The disagreement took place after CSIRO declined to make a formal submission to a government consultation about Australia's new emissions target.

The emails detail internal concerns that, at key moments dating back to 2009, the organisation had been "missing in action" in providing advice on climate change, and that it should not be trying to "operate behind closed doors" with government.

read more:


See toon at top...