Posted by: graemebird | July 6, 2008

Lies, Droughts, Hypothetical CO2-Warming, AND THE DISGRACEFUL FRAUD JOHN QUIGGIN.

i’ll get back to the disgraceful fraud John Quiggin in a minute. But first we have to go through the basics to see where these lies equating greenhouse warming and droughts are coming from.

CO2-warming is so insignificant as to be unprovable, insofar as the global temperature averages are concerned. This does not mean that there is necessarily no warming at all. Nor does it mean there might never be any possibility of showing that there is some sort of CO2-based-warming on a local level.

Standard explanations as to why the warming isn’t nearly as powerful as the (naieve watts-per-square-metre) models predict, usually rest upon the idea of negative feedbacks. And the main negative feeback would be extra precipitation.

Supposing that the extra CO2 leaves us with an increase in the ambient heat in the early mornings of  .2 degrees Celsius. It doesn’t seem like a great deal in this example. But with the wind whipping along the oceans over hundreds of miles, the combination of the extra warmth (remembering that this is an hypothetical) and the wind would increase precipitation. That water vapour would find its way into the clouds and when the water-gas became water-solid latent heat would be sent out into space. The extra cloud cover also would reflect energy out into space before it was lodged in the ocean.

Hence we see there are negative feedbacks. Negative feedbacks. Some of which the alternative warming method of extra solar activity would not apply to. Since the extra energy from extra solar activity is punched deep into the ocean. Rather than manifesting itself only as a slight increase in ambient heat of the air at sea level.

Now from the above we see that IF ANYTHING any extra CO2-warming is to be associated with EXTRA RAIN. Not with drought. Extra CO2-warming means more rain and not drought. Currently Australians are being subjected to an outrageous lying campaign being leveraged out of the Garnaut report.

In the real world outside of this pandemic of lying… In the real world the warm time periods are the wet time periods, and the glacial and colder periods are the dry periods.


So where are these lies coming from?

Well they are coming from unscientific outfits like the CSIRO. A shadow of its former self and further evidence that “Socialism never works. But sometimes it takes a little while to fail.”

Well these guys are lying sure. But usually they need some sort of plausible deniability. We see that what these assclowns, not just the CSIRO, have been doing all along is substituting SOLAR-ACTIVITY-WARMING for CO2-GREENHOUSE-WARMING and using inappropriate time-scales in order to get to this tendentious and plainly dishonest conclusion of WARMING-MEANS-DROUGHT. We will get more droughts for sure. But it will be because of cooling and less precipitation as a result of cooling. If you think that industrial-CO2 will provide warming then obviously you would want more of it to avoid drought.

 Wind patterns and the way they can change and affect the weather in any given areas…. well these are complex matters. The generalisations we are about to make here can only be made for rain and drought overall; the planet taken as a whole. And cannnot be made for all areas simultaneously. For example during those times where the world had good rainfalls overall the American West seems to have been drier than usual. We must specify what time scales we are looking at in any of this.


Here there is no doubt about it. Cold centuries are dry centuries. Warm centuries are wet centuries. But this generalisation falls away when it comes to the decadal level.


We would expect that during one-off weak solar cycles, in the midst of stronger solar cycles, we would expect this to lead to heavy rains somewhere along the line.  If the solar winds are weak then we would expect more cosmic rays, ergo more cloud cover and so more rain. At least at first.  We would likely expect more rain during that time BETWEEN solar cycles where there is less solar activity. Particularly if there hasn’t been any sunspots for a few months. Like in late 2007 and early 2008 for example. If you wanted to test this its probably going to be best to look at the East Coast of various countries and continents. Where prevailing winds coming off the ocean makes the local conditions a reasonable facsimile for the global averages.

Now here’s where I think the (NON)-“plausible deniability” comes in. If you get a forbush event. Or a strong solar cycle. Then you would expect there to be less rain. At least initially. The forbush event would warm things up by blowing away cosmic rays from the atmosphere. This means less clouds and more energy punched into the oceans. Which means higher air temperatures some time later. But it also means droughts.

Its only in this short-run sense that extra-warmth and drought are going to be correlated. And most importantly ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO SOLAR ACTIVITY WARMING. NEVER EVER EVER WHEN IT COMES TO EXTRA-GREENHOUSE WARMING COULD WE MAKE THAT LINK.

Never miss out on the chance to call someone a liar if they attempt to make that link. And also if you have any memories that confirm or contradict the above reasoning let me know.  Like for example if there were months of heavy rains where you were in 1998 that may be relevant to what we are saying here.

Its pretty pathetic when things get so bad you are having to second-guess outfits like the CSIRO to try and figure out what semi-plausible bait they are using for their lying campaign.

Make no mistake about it. When any of these ass-clowns, independent of the organisation they affect to be representing, are claiming that CO2-warming means less rainfall they are lying. They have no explanation for their lies whatsoever. And no excuse.

So in light of all the above lets check out what the disgraceful fraud John Quiggin has been up to.

Now back to Quiggin. Here he his passing on the Garnaut reports bullshit findings uncritically:

There’s a lot of discussion of the Murray Darling Basin where the worst-case projections are about as grim as they can possibly be. My UQ research group (Risk and Sustainable Management Group) did the economic modelling that translated the climatic projections into predicted changes in land and water use. There are big adverse impacts under most of the ‘business as usual’ scenarios. On the other hand, in the projections where CO2 concentrations are held to 450 ppm things aren’t bad, and even 550 ppm would still allow irrigation to continue.”

So they are assuming that 450ppm and 550ppm have substantial greenhouse effects. Yet this coterie of bullshit-artists, including Garnaut, reckon that this will mean less and not more rainfall. Where are these liars getting such ridiculous idiocy from?

It doesn’t matter where they get it from. Nothing gives them the excuse to pass this stuff on. Its the same moral mistake that Jason and Trinifir are making on the other thread. Just because its someone elses lie doesn’t give you the right to bolster it and pass it on.

Only mass-sackings can do the job here.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: