“IN a new e-book ‘Global Warming—Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found’, meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley utilizes nearly a half million years of data linking long term gravitational cycles of the moon explain the recent global warming, rises in carbon dioxide levels, and for 2200 global warming cycles during the past half million years.
“The gravitational cycles are called the Primary Forcing Mechanism for Climate (PFM), and act like a magnet by pulling the atmosphere’s high pressure systems northward or southward by as much as 3 or 4 degrees of latitude from their normal seasonal positions, and thus causing long-term shifts in the location of atmospheric high pressure systems.
“Research by Mr. Dilley shows a near 100 percent correlation between the PFM gravitational cycles to the beginning and ending of global warming cycles. Global warming cycles began right on time with each PFM cycle during the past half million years, as did the current warming which began 100 years ago, and it will end right on time as the current gravitational cycle begins its cyclical decline.
“Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months. During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world’s temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s.
“Mr. Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations has found seven different types of recurring gravitational cycles ranging from the very warm 460,000 year cycle down to a 230year recurring global warming cycle. All of the gravitational cycles coincide nearly 100 percent with 2200 global warming events during the past half million years. This includes the earth’s current warming cycle which began around the year 1900, and the first stage of global cooling that will begin during 2008 and 2009.
“The release of the book culminates 19 years of research clearly linking gravitational cycles as the cause for fluctuations within the earth’s climate. The book is available as an electronic e-Book on this website. The author David Dilley is a meteorologist and climate researcher with Global Weather Oscillations Inc.” [end of quote]
Information from David Dilley via the ICECAP blog
—————–
This blog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in politics and the environment. We strive for tolerance and respect. We don’t always agree with what we publish, but we believe in giving people an opportunity to be heard.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If his gear is spot on than it could tell us a great deal more about the universe than merely matters to do with climate. Its too much of a coincidence that this fellows leading indicator works in perfectly with what the solar people are telling us. Our theories of gravity are in serious dissaray as well. Though they do “work” after a fashion in stark contrast to alarmist climate theories.
Before the delays of the peak of solar cycle 24 I could have imagined being unwilling to commit to a prediction of freezing conditions until the 2030’s. Now it just looks like we will be heading on down to the pits from here on in. This fellows work ought to be taken seriously. If not as a causal factor at the very least as a leading indicator. But truly its more than that as it co-incides with other leading indicators or causal factors. So there is something very strange afoot here.
The moons gravitational pull could easily work to impede or assist some critical part of the great ocean conveyer. So its very easy to see how changes to its orbit could have an effect on climate.
I hope the subtropical ridge moves north over the next decade or so…with respect to rainfall in south eastern australia, this would be very nice.
Would also improve OLR near the equator, and I guess cause a reverse in the cooling trend in southern hemisphere. There’s plenty of scientific journals on the 18.6 moon cycle and climate.
More related to moon’s influence on tides (Bond cycles). Strong /weak mixing of oceans etc..
good news. where does the moon place the CO2, that we have been releasing lately?
Hmmm…he reckons he knows all about the 2200 global warming events during the past half million years?
That’s a far bigger call than a Mann with a piddling little hockeystick!
Please bring the “global warming” back cause I HATE cold weather. Go and rev your SUVs a bit more today…
This is clearly something that needs to be checked with considerable rigour, and with the open mind of true sceptics. The fact that it appears so supportive of the sceptic case is all the more reason for us to exercise due dilligence and check it thoroughly before making further comment.
This guy is highly sus – check this website out:
http://www.globalweatheroscillations.com/GlobalWarming.html
he sounds like the New Zealander – Ken Ring – who predicts the weather from moon cycles.
https://www.predictweather.co.nz/#/home/
But as I implied. There is any number of ways that moon cycles must MUST affect weather. If the moon is passing over contrary to a critical part of the ocean currents it will affect average global temperatures directly. If its orbit changes so that the moon is impeding this current less or actually assisting this current it ought to assist global warming more or less directly.
Weather, like it or not, is about cycles. This is why Quiggin and others pooh-poohing climate rationalists as “cycle-cranks” is just so moronic.
There is some sort of incorrect mental association going on here. Because astrologers have dealt in cycles there is this mental association making that link between the study of natural cycles and pseudo-science.
But people, you just have to get over it. Since the weather is ABOUT cycles, and many scores of them, what we are talking about with weather is sorting out the REALLY IMPORTANT cycles from the marginally important cycles. Thats just the nature of weather and climate. Sorry you had to hear it from me.
The question is not whether the moon affects climate. It cannot fail to do so. The question is whether and when this is the important effect that we pull the faders up on or relegate to background music.
Use zen thought control techniques to ethnically cleans any association you have between the study of cycles and pseudo-science since it is just not appropriate here with weather and climate. Since weather and climate is about cycles and not a great deal else.
The world champion predictor of El Ninos and many other recurring weather events was most likely Theodor Landsheidt who unfortunately died in 2004 before he could teach people his full methodology. But contrary to the science-fraud side of the argument he was a true scientist. Every time I read his stuff on the net it becomes a little bit more understandeable and plausible as my own understanding of this business is improving.
But the methodology is to study cycles and to sort them out as to their importance. Not to be smug and bigoted against cycles when cycles are the real deal.
You have to appreciate the fearlessness of the Doctor, willing to air all promising views regardless of the bully-boy ridicule from the stupid set that goes on all the time. I shall be checking the usual culprits to see what these dummies say about this post.
Smugness as a cognitive tool, the driving force behind their epistemological outlook. Just makes you wonder what the dumb left is going to come up with next.
In the PR material and website he predicts 2008-09 will begin a pronounced cooling phase of global climate yet he also predicts a strong El Nino event beginning later this year. I wrote him yesterday for an explanation of this seeming contradiction but no reply thus far.
At least it will only be a few months to see if his El Nino prediction is any good.
With all these dudes just ask for their hindcast statistics. If they are any good they should have to show you. His web site looks “pretty”.
Graeme Bird,
Why are you restricting yourself to the blogosphere? We need people like you putting out proper ideas and analysis out in the maintream- where more people can have access to it.
I don’t pretend to understand all you have written, but it amazes me that the so called scientists have neglected to look at the role of the moon on climate. Can this be true? What a strange world we live in- people are like open vessels- just ready to believe anything that is poured into their hulls.
The precedent for predictions of the future based on the moon is well established- for example Revelations 8:12.
If we look at some astronomical facts:
Moon radius = 1080 miles = 216×5 = 360×3=6x6x6x5
Isn’t it interesting the 6X6X6 is a factor in the moons radius?? Now, some people assume this as the number of Satan. However note the other factor 21:6-
“And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is a thirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.”
Changing currents anyone?
Graeme you are dead right about their epistemological outlook. I would rather worship the good book then an ETS scheme anyday!
The reasoning from faceatiousness is not valid cognition.
Once again. If the moons orbit is variable its influence cannot fail to affect the resistance-to-circulation of the oceans currents in a variable way. This MUST affect the average heat imbedded in the worlds oceans via Stefan-Boltzmanns law. Which then must affect troposphere temperatures via the total amount of water vapour the oceans release. Hence there is no question that there must be an influence. None at all. And this quite apart from any transmission mechanisms David himself has hypothesised.
The science of weather and climate is a science of cycles. There are pseudo-sciences involving cycles. And there are investment markets which use both value investing and cycles-watching as a guide where the cutoff between pseudo-science, science and a sort of artists skillfullness is hard to ascertain. Perhaps the momentum traders are seeing patterns that aren’t there or aren’t all that relevant.
We will just have to go over it again and again until the smug stupid people get it.
Weather patterns are PATTERNS. Meaning its about cycles and phases. The PDO, the NAO. These go into one phase or another in cycles. The continents fuse together and spread out in cycles affecting the climate.
The earth goes into glacial periods and interglacials in cycles. The night and day and the seasons go in cycles. Other sciences may not deal much with cycles. But weather and climate is all about cycles.
Now have you got that yet Renzo you dim bulb?
Or do we have to go over it again.
We can say with absolute certainty that variations to the moons orbit will affect weather and climate. We can say this before even looking at the evidence. But we need the evidence to tell us whether these are important influences to be put in the foreground or unimportant influences to be seen as marginal.
We know from the evidence that CO2 is to be seen as marginal but that aerosols are not. This we know for a fact. If you don’t believe this than you are either stupid or haven’t investigated this closely enough.
After reading Davids book I will know whether this is an important matter. Or important some of the time and marginal the rest of the time. Or not important at all but a minor background influence.
We know that the suns activity is critical. We know that the resistance to circulation is critical because we have the evidence from Heinrich events and from what happened when Lake Agassiz broke and stopped the gulfstream cold. We know that the Malinkovitch cycles are critical. We know that volcanic reactions have a profound effect and so can infer the effect of aerosols.
All this we know from the evidence and the evidence tells us that CO2 just doesn’t matter in any material way. And probably won’t matter unless there is so much of it that it affects air pressure.
There are perhaps outside things we might consider with regards to CO2. Some regional effects. Some sort of possibility for an effect when teamed up with methane release. Personally I find all that speculative and of probably third-rate importance on account of the evidence for it being absent. But you don’t rule these things out entirely.
We want to be scientific about things Renzo you dumb jerk. So what we are after is evidence and reason. And smugness has no role to play in cognition. Quite the contrary.
I apologize for my nasty tone if in fact you are a religious believer.
Since the Deltoid crows are also religious believers it can be hard to ascertain peoples attitudes.
O good grief – now it’s not only rusty old cycles but the dreaded 666 as well.
I’m going back to my block to plant more dodgy carbon credits for my retirement, walk the foxy and keep experimenting with those gourmet bush tucker species.
Send me a carrier pigeon when it’s all over (if ever).
You will know it is all over when the fat man swings.
You aint going anywhere. I look to your posts with fascination and great interest. We need authentic scientists to be out there talking on account of the fact that good scientists among the kids are so damn thin on the ground.
And don’t be getting into that carbon credits scam. Thats dirty business.
GMB (666).
Apology accepted GMB- nastiness of tone not withstanding. I was actually agreeing with you.
However I note a word of caution for you as well-
“We want to be scientific about things Renzo…”
There are some answers that stare us in the face- such as the role of the moon’s gravity on the weather. but, why all these cycles, and why do humans feel the need to mimick and fit in with these cycles? It may surprise (some) of you that these things have been documented since the beginning of time. You should not mock the things you only half attempt to understand.
We humans are but small players, fitting in with these larger cycles that have been created for us.
Modern science is like a good story- except that the main characters are missing and so is some of the script. Its very clear that the AGW disciples have their own story to tell- and that the official version will be imposed on us all.
How can any one dismiss the effects of gravity, we see it in the tides which are of course caused by the sun and moon. Now a fellow countryman of mine ( although I left the old sod a long time ago) Sir Isacc Newton postulated that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. Thus although simplistically people think of the solar system as being the sun at the center and the planets orbiting smoothly around it, this is far from the case. In actual fact the sun keeps the planets in orbit but the planets pull the sun off the center of mass of the solar system, in addition the planets all exert a force on each other, including the moons. So in actual fact the paths and the relative positions of all the planets, moons and the sun are an incredibly intrincate series of wobbles and eccentric orbits which of course is further complicated by the fact that the planets have different periods of orbit. So going back to the tides I think it is very logical to propose that all the gravitational forces at work in the solar system will have an effect on our oceans which have been proven to have the most immediate and direct effect on our climate.
If the Moon is making things cooler can we consider ways to blow it up and look for something that will achieve warming. If CO2 does not make the planet warmer we will need something that will effectively warm the planet soon!!!
This is quite an impressive collection of bizarre theories that Jennifer is amassing.
There’s no AGW – it’s the internal heat of the earth, it’s the moon, the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, etc etc.
I’m looking forward to when they are all on display in the one zoo.
What next – it’s not AGW, it’s a natural cycle related to the passage of comets??
Attempt not to be an idiot Michael. You are bringing disrepute to all Michaels out there because we don’t know which one you are. Try your full name so we can blame you accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
barry moore. A person of good sense from the old country tells us the following:
“…Thus although simplistically people think of the solar system as being the sun at the center and the planets orbiting smoothly around it, this is far from the case. In actual fact the sun keeps the planets in orbit but the planets pull the sun off the center of mass of the solar system…..”
Now people. Just think of the suns temperature at its centre, versus its various layers, versus its core.
The differential is just enourmous with the surface a piddling 5000 degrees celsius or so (from memory). Now obviously the energy must be having a very hard time making its way out.
There is possibly some sort of plasma or energy transmission that can make its way out to the corona more readily or something like that. Since the corona is oddly hot. And there seems to be no standard explanation for the corona being so hot. Its a mystery to the mainstream. One which they acknowledge.
But the fact is the heat differential tells us that the various strata are very good at blocking the thermal energy from making its way out from where it is generated and from various strata in between.
Hence barry’s implication that the force of gravity of the planets and the position of the sun with respect to its barycentre has to be important is a fine speculation.
Because if this causes disruption to these various strata it almost cannot be the case that this wouldn’t allow some of the energy to be released more readily and so affect the timing of when the sun is more active at its surface.
This almost HAS to be the case. Heat differentials of this magnitude are not normal and must be held in by the integrity of various strata.
Hence we come to the very reasonable idea of relating Gleissberg cycles to the timing of peaks and troughs in solar activity.
Now notice also that we are talking about the complicated effects of not just Jupiter. But other planets as well. Particularly if Jupiter and another planet were pulling against eachother at some deep level within the sun. Disrupting not so much the surface but a strata deeper within.
And on top of that we are talking about the suns position with regards to its barycentre. So we don’t expect the length of these cycles to be entirely regular.
Furthermore, since we expect that this effect will primarily RELEASE thermal energy rather than create it, that such powerful solar activity as experienced in the 20th century must result in weak solar activity to balance it. To allow for a commensurate buildup in the thermal energy of the strata that was disproportionately released.
So the following is not crankery and astrology. Its an almost unavoidable conclusion backed up by both reason and empirical research:
QUOTE 1
“Abstract: Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.
It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system.
As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth.
This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.”
QUOTE 2
“If Dr. Landscheidt is correct about this, we are about to enter an extended period of much reduced solar activity and therefore an extended period of global cooling, which will offer the first real world test of the IPCC’s CO2 forced global warming claims.
On the downside of this, a return to climate conditions not experienced since about 1670 by the year 2030 will bring much hardship to millions, as many of the world’s foodbowls fail due to extreme cold, while demand for fossil fuels will increase just so people can survive the extreme cold in higher latitudes.”
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/24
This is what science is: Theory and empirical verification together. This is sound science and the conclusion is next to unavoidable.
I’ll level the same criticism at this as I do at bogus anthropogenic global warming theories: it attempts to predict the future.
At least he is arguing that what we have is a simple, relatively predictable situation based on the pretty reliable gravitational influences of planetary bodies. If that were the case, he’d have an argument.
However, the Earth’s atmosphere is patently a complex, chaotic moving feast, with more variables than we even know about, let alone understand.
So, if I’m skeptical of the AGW’ers when they admit climate is complex, I’m even more skeptical of someone who comes along and says that it’s relatively simple.
Yes but WORD. Out of the chaos we sort the important from the less important to build up a body of knowledge. Rightful certitude is not the same as mathematical exactitude.
As I tried to explain to Luke. This climate science is easy. Its not easy for any one individual. But for a civilisation with uncorrupted scientific norms, the sorting of the important from the unimportant ought to be a breeze and the only thing stopping it is the corruption of the basic scientific method.
Think of the billions of people all making different economic decisions every day. Thats chaos also. A chaos by its nature more complex and impenetrable than the workings of the natural world. Yet by sorting out the important from the less important we can build up a body of knowledge called economic science.
The truly great economists that I’ve seen…. George Reisman being the greatest living example…. go through the collection of various economic doctrines and its substantially a culling exercise.
Economic science is to some extent a collection of rules of thumb and valid doctrines but this is science nonetheless. We mustn’t fall into the mistaken notion that science always is about exactitude in mathematical calculations and top-heaviness in statistical minutae, negating all inductive thought. It might be in some isolated examples. But in a situation which appears so chaotic we can bring enough order and understanding out of it to get the job done if we apply those tools appropriate to the job.
And those tools aren’t always supercomputers but they are often just the human mind working hard to distinguish the more important cyclical influences from the less.
Graeme,
I don’t denigrate the effort – it’s a noble thing to try and figure out what’s going on.
However, going from saying, “I think this is part of what’s happening,” to asserting that, “I know what’s happening and I can tell you what will happen in the future,” are two, wildly different notions.
Both catastrophic warmers and catastrophic coolers would want to try and change the way we live our lives and impose additional costs and burdens on society, in the belief that it is absolutely necessary to save the planet.
Of course, there would be loads of grant money, publicity, overseas conferences and general scare-mongering, regardless of whether we’re going to burn or freeze!
While we are introducing relatively new theories, here’s one destroying older theories.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
Jaworowski is an expert on ice cores. He claims the ice core work that lead to the 270 ppmv for pre Industrial CO2 is about as botched as the hockey stick proxy data. His reasoning sounds good to me.
According to Jaworowski, the IPCC arrived at their 270 ppm by cherry picking in a big way and by Mann-like splicing of data. They arbitrarily decided the age of the gas trapped in the cores in some cases.
He concludes, “The CO2 ice core data are artifacts caused by processes in the ice sheets and in the ice cores, and have concentration values about 30 to 50% lower than in the original atmosphere. Ice is an improper matrix for such chemical studies, and even the most excellent analytical methods cannot be of help when the matrix and samples are wrong”.
I was deeply bothered by revelations made by Jaworowski about the IPCC process and interference by environmental lobbies. Apparently they put out the Summary for Policymakers several months before the scientific report to allow themselves time to ‘alter the scientific report’ to fit the Summary.
Jaworowski interprets that practice as politicians rewriting a scientific report.
Gordon: “Jaworowski interprets that practice as politicians rewriting a scientific report.”
If it happened the way he describes it’s not just interpretation but fact that politics is driving the science.
Gordon: “Jaworowski interprets that practice as politicians rewriting a scientific report.”
If it happened the way he describes it’s not just interpretation but fact that politics is driving the science.
The funniest thing about that link Gordon, other than the use of Beck, is Figure 4… This has been floating around as if it’s some part of the global conspiracy. It’s actually the temp reconstruction for Central England, not the world. It was mislabeled in the IPCC document (in the figure caption) but the text where it was discussed clearly indicated it was for Central England.
Gordon why hasn’t the CO2 level fluctuated wildly, like Beck says it did in the past, since 1958. Why did it suddenly ‘calm down’ and just slowly increase?
I think you should consider the fact that perhaps Beck is just wrong.
Why would it be the case that he is wrong? I think you should reconsider your obsessive disregard for evidence.
“However, going from saying, “I think this is part of what’s happening,” to asserting that, “I know what’s happening and I can tell you what will happen in the future,” are two, wildly different notions”
No thats completely wrong. If you know what is going on you ought to be able to roughly predict the future. Its about understanding whats important about climate.
His predictions of the future were very good. And they ought to turn out really well in the future since they are based on reason and empirical evidence.
NT said “Gordon why hasn’t the CO2 level fluctuated wildly, like Beck says it did in the past, since 1958”.
Hey NT…I’m specializing in satellites right now (i.e. my head’s in the clouds) and I don’t have a lot of experience in CO2 fluctuations. 🙂 Besides, I prefer helium, for that Donald Duck sound.
I just started reading on this. I have been aware of Jaworowski for a while but I have never read as comprehensive an article by him as this. I don’t know anything about Beck. It’s a bit late here, and yesterday, for you, so I’ll read it a bit tomorrow and see if I can respond to you with some degree of intelligence.
Don’t debate it with me, Gordon.
The Beck thing is pretty well done and dusted.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/
Graeme,
Check out the links above.
I am not going to debate this with you. The Beck CO2 reconstruction was pretty dumb. He has it whizzing up and down like a yo-yo until measuring started at Mauna Loa… Weird that it would stop fluctuating at that very moment. If you were actually skeptical you would look at it and say “that is bollocks”.
Are the links going to prove that Beck is wrong or is it another wild goose chase?
How about you link Becks reconstruction so I can check that you are right that it whizzes up and down and suddenly evens out.
Sheesh … every time I pop over to Jen’s blog now I am exposed to Socratic irony (sic).
Is this the only excuse the non-greenhousers have of publishing pathetic puerile piffle?
They’re real Graeme.
But this may be the link you really want:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm
That shows the graphs Beck made.
Right. All Beck ought to have done is to extrapolate his same methodology and compare his results from the proxies against the Hawaii measurements. Perhaps he’s done this. I cannot get at all his documents until I fix my other computer. And realclimate wouldn’t have been interested in giving his work fair consideration.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/CO2tp/CO2%202008.htm
But in any case check out the widest most comprehensive graph that includes his projections in the link above. The 1958 to the present time where we seem to see a pretty steady upswing are not all that out of kilter in that context.
Compare what he’s saying with deforestation and reforestation.
After the Europeans started coming to the Americas we might expect a burst of reforestation as disease killed off local populatioins drastically. And a possible soaking up of CO2.
Than a subsequent desforestation as the Americas were repopulated. Then in the twentieth century a general deforestation globally with the population explosioin. Than more recently, reforestation overmatched by fossil fuels and the delayed effects of warming perhaps.
If his proxy analysis is sound it ought to be respected. I don’t think it can be dismissed outright because of some pretty short-lived seemingly steady upward march. Eli and realclimate are hardly reliable sites for refutation on this matter. They’ll grab at any alleged refutation no matter how implausible.
And thats only one argument that you’ve come up with as a refutation. We need convergent and not one-shot falsification before we can dismiss this fellows work.
“The Beck CO2 reconstruction was pretty dumb.”
Even McIntyre wants nothing to do with it any more. Get with the program, people. McIntyre says that Beck is junk.
The link to Beck’s paper is as follows
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
To be fair the paper only shows 2 major peaks, at 1820 and 1940 with a minor peak at 1860 the rest is fairly flat from 1867 to 1930 at around 310 ppm. Even with the very accurate cryogenic method used today there is a considerable annual variation in Europe. Beck has compiled this work from 380 papers over the 150 year period and has attempted to honestly evaluate the discontinuities.
Another very interesting paper is “Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8 200 years B.P. cooling event” by F.Wagner; B.Aaby; and H.Visscher. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A > v.99(19); Sep 17, 2002
This paper introduces a completely new type of proxy measurement for CO2 ( leaf stomata ) and shows the wide variation in CO2 concentration in a relatively short period of time then compares it with the ice core data from the same period which is shown to be totally inaccurate.
What do you mean “even” McIntyre? These are serious people. And not tendentious like you. The even-McIntyre-line won’t cut it. Stick with the evidence. I went to realclimate and their putdowns were entirely TONE-OF-VOICE arguments or circular in nature relying on their own bigotry and pre-conceived ideas.
No fellas. You just have to get used to serious convergent falsification. Not this mindless ragging.
If McIntyre has a valid argument to the contrary lets have it.
Remember that the strongest temperature to CO2 signal is 800 years. Cooling will lead to and immediate effect. But the sum totality of the effect is a lot longer than that.
There has been a lot of changes in the last few hundred years that could lead to a great deal of variability.
Look I’m not seeing your argument fellas. The Hawaii measurements obviously tie up pretty well with the rest of the world. But there is room for some doubt as to their appropriateness. You have a volcano right there. And all these planes flying overhead. More every year. Which is not to say the upward trend isn’t there. Only to mention that it might not be as smooth as the Hawaii stats show.
Surely there must be more serious critiques out there.
Why are we doing the Beck thing again?
Where was Bird scratching when I said Beck had CO2 doing snakes and ladders? A handfull of wild readings dont make a reliable series
All this hindsight MWP and LIA stuff wont stand up either for the same reason, poor instruments.
Right. Do you know if the stomata study ties up well with Becks gear? They certainly seem to do so in principle. I think you have the gospel truth when you get three or more convergent proxies. So stomata alone might be an OK indication. But you really want to tie it up with other gear.
So far so good for Beck. His pdf looks like he went into it pretty thouroughly. Perhaps the issue requires more work. It would be very strange indeed if you had this pre-industrial level just sitting there, waiting for industrial civilisation to throw it all into an eternal upward spiral.
One reason we are doing it again gavin is because you idiots this time around haven’t come up with a valid reason against his work.
So just dredge out what you got. I’m sure it will be your usual content-free stupidity. But give it a shot.
Right so far let us summarise the alleged falsifications of Beck…
1. The assertion but not the demonstration that McIntyre has gone against Beck.
2. The “we’ve done and dusted it before” assertion.
3. The idea that the graph bounces around and then goes straight for the post 1958 readings. Actually only the smoothed line is like that. There is considerable variation that the data is hiding. And in context the upward march isn’t all that out of kilter with Becks longer estimates.
4. The “I’m not arguing with you” poopy pants argument.
5. The “don’t argue with me Gordon” poopy-pants argument.
Hardly convergent falsification is it children. So lets see the reasoning and convergent falsification.
Somtimes you dig up the evidence and you get surprising results. Thats something you people would have to get used to if you were serious scientists.
“the rest is fairly flat from 1867 to 1930 at around 310 ppm. ”
Right. There you have it. 63 years and fairly flat. Then you have 1958-2008 which is 50 years and fairly straight-line increase. So even by Becks own estimation the 1958 to the present is not to be thought of as totally alien to what he’s found prior.
Graeme,
Did you read the Real Climate and Rabbet posts about Beck, they go into detail about what is wrong with it.
Poor old Beck; NT has paraded RC and eli’s criticism, and between these 2 most of AGW’s patronising, supercilious and personal disparagment of different views and evidence is manifest. RC predicates their critique on the spurious concept of uniform mixing of CO2; CO2 is not uniformly mixed;
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Products/CarbonDioxide/
There is a pronounced divergence between the Nthn and Sthn hemisphere CO2 atmospheric concentrations; Steve Short’s work has confirmed this and offers one reason for this; a reason that Beck’s work correlates with;
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/CO2-cycle-e2.pdf
The difference between the hemispheres may be only 5-10 ppm, but over the whole hemisphere this is an enormous disparity. Beck’s original paper makes it plain that the CO2 maxima are in the Nthm hemisphere, so he cannot be faulted there. The 2nd way that RC misunderstand Beck is through regionalism; it is beyond dispute that CO2 concentrations vary enormously between regionalities; there are obvious reasons for this; industry, forestation, large herds of animals and natural sinks;
http://www.ecostudies.org/press/Schlesinger_Science_13_June_2008.pdf
RC may also be wrong about the feasibility of Beck’s CO2 oscillations over larger areas of the globe;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11832936
The McPhaden and Zhang paper estimates that the GPCC event in 1976 involved the reduction in upwelling in 1976 to the late 90’s from 47 sverdrups to 35 sverdrups; that would have put a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere via the increased SST.
Eli’s criticism is typically nasty and really amounts to no more than ad hom of the instrumentality; they got it wrong says eli; nevermore quoth the raven.
I said:-
“However, going from saying, “I think this is part of what’s happening,” to asserting that, “I know what’s happening and I can tell you what will happen in the future,” are two, wildly different notions”
GraemeBird said:-
No thats completely wrong. If you know what is going on you ought to be able to roughly predict the future. Its about understanding whats important about climate.
Oh, Graeme, please don’t tell me you believe you can “roughly predict the future”, if you have an “understanding about what’s important about climate”. Don’t you realize that you’ve just described precisely what meteorology is all about?
His predictions of the future were very good. And they ought to turn out really well in the future since they are based on reason and empirical evidence.
In what sense are his predictions of the future “very good”? Surely, that’s something we won’t know, until the future is the past, res ipsa loquitur.
Regarding his theories: well, I have some first order problems with them. He assumes much. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that he assumes gravitational effects trump (or, at least are pivotal in) gas and liquid dynamics, when it comes to longer-term climate. His “proof” for that proposition is his incredible claim to know the past 2200 global warming cycles.
Well, when someone tells me they know about the past 2200 global warming cycles, whether they’re predicting further warming, cooling, or purple elephants falling from the sky…you’ll forgive me for being skeptical.
His predictions made when he was alive and fulfilled before 2004 were extraordinarily good. They caught the attention of people in Australia because of our obsession with El Nino. This is why people were so interested in him even though they didn’t necessarily understand how he was pulling these things off.
Its no problem predicting what will happen. Since climate science is easy. Why would it be difficult? We have so much past data to work with. Or more correctly it is easy to make some predictions. And the idea is to not make the predictions that aren’t easy. Its very easy to know that the 2030’s will be much colder than the 1990’s. Now its pretty clear to me that the cooling will be much earlier than that. Up until a few months ago I didn’t know that. So the 2030’s prediction was the only prediction I made. But someone who understood things much better could make many more predictions.
He didn’t take into account CO2. Because it has no non-neglible effect in the context he was talking about. So why take it into account if your methodology is to try and seperate the important from the less important? Since there was no evidence for CO2-warming its not going to be material for making these near-decades predictions.
“Graeme,
Did you read the Real Climate and Rabbet posts about Beck, they go into detail about what is wrong with it.”
Yes I read the realclimate and Eli stuff and they had nothing. Just a lot of jive-ass tone of voice nonsense. Eli just talked about himself in the third person and mused on the benefits and pitfalls of amateur scientists.
What has happened cohenite? The kids just don’t seem to know what evidence is anymore?
Becks work looks conscientious and valid. And it looks like we need more follow up work to see how close he is.
We have that new stomata proxy. If we can find another proxy we could have a worthy study that would likely resolve the matter.
The bad news is that it looks like its all we can do to keep the CO2 levels at their current inadequate level. We really need to maintain and improve these levels.
“Poor old Beck; NT has paraded RC and eli’s criticism, and between these 2 most of AGW’s patronising, supercilious and personal disparagment of different views and evidence is manifest. RC predicates their critique on the spurious concept of uniform mixing of CO2; CO2 is not uniformly mixed;”
Coheite – I agree!
I have read all the RA and Rabett stuff over and over again and even to an ageing, unabashed Americophile geochemist like myself who has spent many thousands of hows in chem. labs and large chunks of his life in the US and knows and love the culture right down deep into his bones, I tell you straight – it all just boils down to a whole lot of seductive ‘feel good’ BS, designed to seduce an immature audience – especially anyone comes from an American collegial cultural background.
Here we can read links to all the ‘warm and fuzzy’ stuff about how Keeling ‘FOUND THE TRUTH’; and how his ol’ limey buddy Callendar had also previously ‘SENSED THE TRUTH’.
But in all this warm BS there lies unspoken just one key issue and it is this:
Where are the published calibrations and quantitative tests of interlaboratory sealed flask samples etc which ended up putting the lie to all the previous 1000s of Pettenkoffer method chemical measurements of absorbed CO2? That chemical method was based on the careful weighing of things like roasted barium carbonate (giving barium oxide). dissolved in water and then titrated after absorption of CO2 from a fixed volume of air. Why should we to accept RA and pretentious prof. rabbett’s word that all those weighings and all those titrations were dead wrong without damned good, published quantitative evidence they were? Isn’t that the standard that they always demand (and rightly so to the true dyed in the wool geek) of the sceptical camp?
So what about the early IR measurements by Keeling. Where are the proofs that the calibrations of those instruments were spot on from day one? Even Keeling himself in his own words relied heavily on a naive belief that commercial instruments, just because they were produced in the good old US of A, were accurately calibrated from the day the first unit of the first model rolled out of the factory.
Yet even Gavin and Jan know that early models of such instruments were inevitably bedevilled by alignment problems, path length accuracy and grating problems and so on.
Who is pulling whose leg here?
I note that Eli Rabett’s assertion that almost all the chemical measurements were made in Europe is also a gross inaccuracy. Many thousands of such measurements were particularly made in the US itself by chemists whose good work has also been sleight-of-hand consigned to the dustbin of Eli’s history. He has absolutely nothing to say about them I notice! Many measurements were also made in strange places like (shock horror) Eastern Greenland by good, well trained Danish chemists. Again not a word about them from the supposed genius Eli Rabett.
To use the absolutely right word – it’s BALONEY.
Steve,
I think it’s time you made a promise to yourself to never return here, it’s make you go decidedly loopy. Your reputation as a serious engineer could be ruined permanently.
Cape Grim records the same CO2 levels as Mauna Loa. Unless there is some dastardly conspiracy going on, Beck is wrong.
SJT; check the AIRS map.
No I’m afraid you are just being an idiot SJT. What did Steve Short say that you didn’t understand? You are such a fraud. You are a moron. A blockhead.
And besides Steve is needed here.
“Cape Grim records the same CO2 levels as Mauna Loa. Unless there is some dastardly conspiracy going on, Beck is wrong.”
Oh, so, so wrong. Naughty, naughty boy. You haven’t been reading a thing I’ve been saying for months at a time.
Official NOAA data. Even, since 1982 when NOAA started the global mean CO2 service (Chris Crawford might get a global average going back to 1970 but nobody knows from where), Mauna Loa station (MLO) has tracked on average +0.18±0.06% above the offial NOAA global average.
Cape Grim Station (CGO) has tracked -0.55±0.05% below the global average.
And this is all just since anthropogenic emissions really got under way big time (recalling yet again I’m a ‘lukewarmer’).
Let me know if you’d like me to post an Excel spreadsheet of NOAA data for you to upload.
Good boys do their homework.
“Cape Grim records the same CO2 levels as Mauna Loa. Unless there is some dastardly conspiracy going on, Beck is wrong.”
What a stupid thing to say. What a moron you are. You are such a damned idiot.
“Cape Grim records the same CO2 levels as Mauna Loa. Unless there is some dastardly conspiracy going on, Beck is wrong.”
So, you’re saying that CO2 levels will be the same, regardless of where they are measured (ie. mixing is either static and close to perfect, or perfusion is close to instantaneous, or changes are slow enough and low enough to be meaningless).
I do not think that this is a smoking gun. It may be a contributor, but the sun is the largest contributor.
NT said…”Don’t debate it with me, Gordon.
The Beck thing is pretty well done and dusted”.
Debate it with you…you brought it up. I want to know why you cherry-picked Beck out of the whole paper. That’s what your crowd specializes in.
You link to realclimate as proof?? I visualize them as a load of guys with cherry-red, bulbous noses, exaggerated boots and colourful one-piece suits with red wigs, like Ronald MacDonald. Get serious NT…give me a ‘real’ source.
Who is realclimate?
1)Gavin Schmidt….boy wonder to Batman, James Hansen, an astrophysicist/computer modeler/activist, passing himself off as a serious atmospheric physicist. Schmidt…a mathematician who calls himself a climate scientist. A pretender who refers to Richard Lindzen as ‘old school’, while his computer model rhetoric, in his mind, is ‘ready for textbooks’, yet he bypasses a chance to debate Lindzen on TV because he knows he’ll get wasted.
Jeffrey Glassman revealed Schmidt’s lack of basic physics in this rebuttal:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
here’s Glassman’s original article:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#I_
Here’s an article questioning Schmidt’s integrity:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=419
2)William Connolly…an editor at Wikipedia who makes sure their global warming articles reflect the bizarre world of realclimate. A computer programmer who doesn’t mind ridiculing an accomplished atmospheric expert like Fred Singer.
3)Michael Mann…an IPCC boy-wonder who got published in TAR, 2001, even though he’d just received his Ph.D in 1998. A geologist who misplaced the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, even though they were prominently published in an IPCC 1990 paper.
4)Stefan Rahmstorf…a boy-wonder who impolitely made the mistake of critiquing a Richard Lindzen submission to a conference. Lindzen’s submission, Rahmstorf’s reply and Lindzen’s rebuttal here:
http://junkscience.com/mar08/Lindzen-Rahmstorf-Exchange.pdf
Here’s a commentary on the exchange:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html
The reviewer agrees with my assessment that Rahmstorf is out of his league, as are the rest of his buddies at realclimate, since he is by far the most qualified of the lot of them.
There is not one contributor to realclimate who actually has an idea of what he’s on about. Not one of them has a degree in meteorology or atmospheric physics, yet they are willing to spout off as if they are experts.
Don’t waste my time with that garbage, NT.
David is answering questions in this forum: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=48436
Well we have to emphasise here, and remind everyone, that Beck is looking very good. Now was there any good critique out there?
The alarmists are so very useless that their failure to find anything wrong with Becks work ought not make us too overconfident. Looks like Becks thinking will have to become the default position for the time being. Unless this goonshow can actually find something wrong with it.
Is Sarah luke’s latest incarnation? If so his graphs show some large climatic features moving in.
Gordon, thankyou for those excellent links to lindzen and realclimate “exposed”.
There are some very telling comments!……..
Not the least of which is that Lindzen is a “lukewarmer”, but appears to be unconcerned about co2 capacity to cause the damage so many would have us believe…..
Cohenite, Graeme, Bird, Gordon Robertson, Louis Hissink et al – if you are all so convinced of your correctnes, and of the scientists’ incorrectness at Deltoid and RealClimate, you should all be actively contributing to these blogs and explaining to these left-wing conspirators why they are wrong.
No guff about how they won’t listen to you – as long as you keep your potty-mouths under control they won’t censor you, and if you truly believe your own posts you owe it to the rest of the world to strike at the nonsense where it occurs.
And if you believe that you will be censored, why, you can copy your posts to this blog, to show the world the pernicious smothering of your wisdom.
I’d suggest though that you are too cowardly to move out of your secret squirrel club here, and into the larger world, because you all know that on any forum other than this non-discerning one you’ll be creamed.
Come on boys, try your science with the real scientists whom you so disparage! After all, that’s what real scientists would do…
“So, you’re saying that CO2 levels will be the same, regardless of where they are measured (ie. mixing is either static and close to perfect, or perfusion is close to instantaneous, or changes are slow enough and low enough to be meaningless).”
I am saying that if you pick a spot where there are no local influences so you are just recording the well mixed gases, (as much as that is possible), you will get very similar readings around the earth. “well mixed” being the key. The scientists who took the readings Beck refers to did an excellent job, of recording CO2 levels where they were.
Rabett had an topic where some people went around taking local readings in various parts of a city. They were jumping all over the place. Very precise readings, of that point in time in that particular place.
” if you are all so convinced of your correctnes, and of the scientists’…”
Stop right there. They are not scientists. They are frauds. As are you. As soon as you put science-worker sentiment ahead of scientific evidence THATS FRAUD. Its not fraud for the laity. But THATS FRAUD for a practicing scientist. To put sentiment over evidence means you ought not be in the business and you take your paycheck under false pretenses.
Now where the hell is your evidence? Both of you. Stop this jive-talk and end the evidence-filibuster once and for all.
“To put sentiment ”
The irony, it burns.
“I am saying that if you pick a spot where there are no local influences so you are just recording the well mixed gases, (as much as that is possible), you will get very similar readings around the earth. “well mixed” being the key. The scientists who took the readings Beck refers to did an excellent job, of recording CO2 levels where they were.”
No you are just lying again mate. You are just making it up. I read the pdf. On the face of it Beck was scrupulous in selecting his studies. Thorough in explaining his methodology.
No there is no irony mate. You are just lying again. If you go with nutjob sentiment we are headed for drastic warming by end of century. If you do the right thing and go with scientific evidence we are headed for punishing cooling, already started, likely to continue with a handful of reversals, through to at least mid-century with probably the nastiest decade the 30’s.
Since you are not a scientist but a joke you went with nutjob sentiment and turned your back on scientific evidence.
Bernard J. “Come on boys, try your science with the real scientists whom you so disparage! After all, that’s what real scientists would do…”
Let us analyze scientifically Chapter 7 of the 4th assessment report by the IPCC page 514 Fig 7.3. This is a representation of the global carbon cycle in terms of anthropogenic and natural carbon fluxes between the air, land and ocean. I would say therefore that it is at the very heart of this subject so please do not accuse me of nit picking some trivial side issue. This figure by the way has been around for at least 10 years to my knowledge having seen it first in an earlier form on the NOAA-PMEL web site.
Now as an engineer the first thing I look at is the mass balance to see if it is valid.
But first some basic rules: I will abbreviate A= anthropogenic carbon N= natural carbon.
1. The N/A ratios must be the same for the content and the flux from either air, land or ocean ( surface )
2. Assume the total carbon content of land and ocean is reasonably close per Fig 7.3
3. The Air has about 840 GT of carbon. This model was from the 90’s so a little difference.
4. Total anthropogenic carbon since the Industrial Revolution is 244 GT as per Fig 7.3 and 100GT has been sequestered in the deep ocean.
Now try to do a mass balance.
The N/A ratio for the air is 597 / 165 , but the air to ocean flux is 70 / 22.2 and the air to land flux is 120 / 2.6.
The ocean N/A ratio is 900 / 18 but the ocean to air flux is 70.6 / 20
The land N/A ratio is, believe it or not, 2300 /(-39) totally ridiculous!!! The flux is 119.6 / 1.6.
This is the very heart of the IPCC’s case which has appeared in all reports and has been peer reviewed by the best of the best.
I formulated a simplistic model in excel and got all the fluxes and content ratios to agree and the result was the atmosphere contains 29.22 ppm of anthropogenic CO2 out of 385 ppm which if you take the quite conservative number of 1.2 deg C for a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives you .004 deg C per ppm thus the total impact of anthropogenic CO2 is .05 deg C.
Now that is science.
Bernard…did you read gordon’s links to Lindzen thoughts on teh impact of additional co2 and the innacuracies of the models?
can you refute that?
Do you believe models can be used to make predictions, if so how do you factor in teh unknowns and the little knowns ( ie aerosols that according to Lindzen could be -ve or +ve, and water that very significant greenhouse gas!)
Lindzen is a luke warmer…so are many here. What pisses us off is teh outlandish predictions made and the certainty attached to these claims.
The IPCC clearly states the areas that are not understood, but still proceeds to make forecasts.
There is much to be sceptical about in relation to AGW and teh outcomes predicted and the “evidence” provided. It is clearly being driven by political agendas and whilst many no doubt have honorouble intentions and believe vehemently in teh science, the politics attached is distorting things.
So are lindzen and singer wrong to suggest that a doubling of co2 will have only a small effect from 280ppm?
Are they wrong to say that teh forecast increases from models have been significantly wrong? If they can t make hindsight predictions accuratley, how can we possibly believe in there predictive capacity for 50-100 yrs from now?
“So are lindzen and singer wrong to suggest that a doubling of co2 will have only a small effect from 280ppm? ”
If Becks work is any indication we will not make it up to 560ppm…… damn it all. We will be scraping the bottom of the oil well just to get up and maintain things above 400ppm. He would probably have it that we will go into a CO2 dive.
This is a serious blow. Because it would have been neat to go through this new little ice age with constantly rising CO2 to be able to cope with the cold, the frost and the drought.
Well we see that the oceans have only just begun to cool. I haven’t seen a recent graph but I don’t think the cooling has gone very far yet. But one would imagine that its only a few years and the CO2 may flatten out.
Its just dangerous what these idiots do. Why dismiss Beck by mindless ragging? When we need to find the truth of the thing as a pretty important matter. If these guys weren’t used to wasting money on inconclusive and sloppily designed studies, that don’t decisively verify or falsify an important thesis, they would see immediately that the matter had to be resolved through convergent proxies and not just these stupid putdowns.
I hadn’t read anything on Beck before and I tend to remain somewhat skeptical about new revelations. Beck is trained as a biologist. However, I came across an explanation on climateaudit by a guy who helped Beck put his work together and he claims Beck wasn’t trying to make any claims about CO2. He was merely trying to collate and publish information that questioned the IPCC stance with regard to ignoring that information.
From that perspective, here are some points I’d like to make:
1)there are too many legitimate scientists cited, including Nobelists, to dismiss Beck’s work out of hand. Otherwise, I would brand it merely interesting till other studies corroborated it. We need to take a long hard look at the work done by the IPCC.
2)The fact that modern scientists dismissed the work of earlier scientists because they fell outside certain limits makes me extremely suspicious. The IPCC studies are primarily about Antarctic ice cores and Beck’s references encompass a wide variaty of studies.
With respect to McIntyre refuting Beck, all I can see on climateaudit is his lack of interest in the study. He does claim the study was refuted elsewhere but how can you refute a study that was set up as a collation of data? Whereas I appreciate what McIntyre did with the Mann studies, he is after all a statistician, not an expert on CO2 studies.
This quote from McIntyre on climateaudit sums it up, “I don’t have the time or energy to get into it…”
barrie moore….go back to Figure 7.3 on page 515 and add up all the up arrows, including the red fossil fuel arrow (6.4). You should get about 218.2. Now divide that into 6.4 and you’ll get 0.293 = 2.93%. That is the anthropogenic contribution to the 385 ppmv, or whatever your figure was. I use 380 ppmv.
On the previous page, you’ll see this as corroboration:
“Although the anthropogenic fluxes of CO2 between the atmosphere and both the land and ocean are just a few percent of the gross natural fluxes….”
So, you have 380 ppmv, with 380 units of CO2 to one million units of air, or 38 molecules of CO2 to 100,000 molecules of air. But, hold it, those 38 molecules are ‘all’ the CO2, including that from natural sources. Anthropogenic CO2 is 3% of that, or about 1 molecule per 100,000 of air.
I ran this past Beowulff and he flipped out, mumbling something about Chris Crawford trying to teach us math and us being too dumb to get it. BTW…I had told Anton to put his calculator away, that’s what set him off. He claimed there was not just 1 molecule but several bazzilion.
I don’t care how many bazzillion there are, I’m having trouble visualizing 1 molecule per 100,000. It serves the purpose, however: 1 in 100,000 is damned rare. The big numbers are extremely misleading since they are still less than 3% of all CO2 emitted and CO2 accounts for about 3/100ths of a percent of the atmosphere.
Never mind the calculators, how is such a sparse density of gas going to create any more than a minimal warming problem? Water vapour is only about 1% of the atmosphere but it serves as a heat transport agent that is constantly replenished. It also serves the purpose of cooling the atmosphere when the vapour condenses to water or snow.
You also said the IPCC scientists were the best of the best. Where did you get that information? Do you know any of them; have you checked their credentials? They are all ‘appointed’, mainly by government agencies that are converts to the CO2/warming paradigm. The selection process is not based on merit but on political interference. What’s the chance that an appointed scientist is not already a confirmed believer before he has his first meeting?
Want proof? Here’s the resignation letter from AR4 from the hurricane expert Chris Landsea:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html
He was recruited by lead author Kevin Trenberth for AR4 but resigned because Trenberth was preaching that global warming was causing severe storms. This is the same Trenberth who disagrees with satellite experts Roy Spencer and John Christy. Their satellite data is ignored in AR4 and Trenberth is the lead author. Go figure!
Anybody who thinks the IPCC is not political in nature needs to do some reading. Its not a difficult conclusion to reach…..
Bernard J…I saw your invitation on another thread to visit RC and Deltoid. I had heard about Deltoid and went for a look. My first problem with the site was finding my way around. It made no sense. The second problem was a long-winded spiel of the owner, which I found to be incoherent.
The thing that turned me off, however, was the high percentage of flaming. There’s a fair amount of flaming here, but I find most of it harmless, if not humourous. I’m not out to prove anything and I certainly don’t have the opinion that I’m right and everyone else is wrong. I’m not a blogger, per se, and I find my comfort level here.
The two sites I dislike the most on global warming issues are RC and desmogblog. My dislike of RC started with seeing Gavin Schmidt on a debate with Richard Lindzen, Philip Stott and Michael Crichton. Schmidt was condescending to Stott, who I thought was a decent guy, and he avoided debating Lindzen.
I have a Scottish background and have spent a significant amount of time in England. I get along well with most Englishmen, but there are a few like Schmidt that wrankle me. I don’t know exactly what it is but there’s a certain arrogance with them, a certain self-importance.
I looked up his credentials and all I could find was a degree in math. I began wondering why he was so self-assured that he felt he could take on people like Richard Lindzen on the atmosphere. Then I came across an article on climateaudit by Steve McIntyre, wondering if Schmidt was honest. Apparently McIntyre and McKitrick were prevented from rebutting Mann on RC, and certain post were removed, not because they were vulgar, but due to the content.
When I look closely at the explanations given by RC for global warming issues, I’m sensing a politization of the science. Unlike a Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Michaels or Singer, who are all experts in their fields, despite what the AGW crowd thinks, and who are easy-going in their expertise, the RC crowd come across as hostile to those who disagree with them. That’s a sign to me of people who are not confident in their expertise.
I have no desire to be around there. I’m not in this to win an arguement or to argue with people per se. All I’d end up doing is quoting people I see as experts and I’ve already seen the hostility with which RC deals with Singer, Lindzen, Spencer et al. It’s unprofessional and not in my interest.
“With respect to McIntyre refuting Beck, all I can see on climateaudit is his lack of interest in the study. He does claim the study was refuted elsewhere but how can you refute a study that was set up as a collation of data? Whereas I appreciate what McIntyre did with the Mann studies, he is after all a statistician, not an expert on CO2 studies.
This quote from McIntyre on climateaudit sums it up, “I don’t have the time or energy to get into it…””
He wouln’t want to upset anyone, now, would he? Plenty of stats in Beck to get to work on, yet suddenly he has no time or energy. yeah, right. Pull the other one. Hasn’t stopped him hounding Hanson for years.
“2)The fact that modern scientists dismissed the work of earlier scientists because they fell outside certain limits makes me extremely suspicious.”
No one dismissed the measurements, they were probably all quite accurate. They weren’t well mixed, though.
“Now that is science.”
Ow, the irony, it burns.
“No one dismissed the measurements, they were probably all quite accurate. They weren’t well mixed, though.”
Oh yeah? Eastern Greenland? Finland? Scotland?
Middle of the Atlantic????
MORE BALONEY
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/083/mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
Gordon; as I read your typically thoughtful and reasonable comments and SJT’s typically splenetic remarks I’m reminded of Chris Crawford to whom I will return. I share your attitude towards Deltoid and Real Climate; my experience at these sites was of unrelenting hostility and anger that anyone should seek to question the pov of AGW; I was actually banned at Tamino’s for pressing McLean and Quirk’s thesis of the GPCS, and it is pleasing to see Bob Tisdale’s work, amongst others, adding substance to GPCS. The ubiquitous flavour of these pro-AGW sites is of hubris and ego; a simple psychology operates; an ego-sustaining self-appraisal in conjunction with a value laden vindication of that ego in an ideology or theology makes any contradiction of the ideological context a grave personal insult and threat. I deliberately did not include a scientific hypothesis as an alternative to the ideology or theology because, as we know, a scientific hypothesis can only be maintained through testable validation or the absence of scientific disproof; AGW does not satisfy either of these essential conditions. That being the case, it is plain why there is so much vicious and malicious assault on anyone demonstrating this failure; egos have been invested and notions of superiority have been claimed; this is magnified when we appreciate that the scientific/ego nexus is amplified through the prism of moral justification; that is, the salvation of humanity (against its worst predilections) and the preservation of nature, a ludicrous idea really. Anti-AGW commentators are continually relegated to the periphery via their lack of qualifications like Beck or other disqualifying characteristics mainly, paradoxically, their not being including in the consensus; this is why this debate has featured so much vitriolic and personal denigration from the AGW side.
So, with Crawford; his reasonable demeanour and claims that this site was too combative is ironic when one thinks of the hostile circumstances of RC, Deltoid, Tamino and, perhaps the nastiest of the lot, eli’s. But most of all, it is ironic because Crawford’s pentultimate effort was to compare the use of the precautionary principle to justify action against the real threat of AGW with the use of the same principle to justify action against the less real threat of terrorism. This was a reasonant indication that this issue of AGW has ferocious undercurrents, and is not so much a battle between mankind and nature but another front in the potentially internecine struggle that occurs within mankind.
Stop right there. They are not scientists. They are frauds. As are you. As soon as you put science-worker sentiment ahead of scientific evidence THATS FRAUD. Its not fraud for the laity. But THATS FRAUD for a practicing scientist. To put sentiment over evidence means you ought not be in the business and you take your paycheck under false pretenses.
Now where the hell is your evidence? Both of you. Stop this jive-talk and end the evidence-filibuster once and for all.
Graeme Bird, as a professional scientist who happens to NOT be ‘sucking on a government tit’ I can tell you categorically that you wouldn’t know fraud if it stared at you in the face, as it surely does every time you raise a razor to shave.
I take it that you are and the others here are too afraid to engage the real scientists, as you know full-well that you’ll be humiliated with a deluge of real evidence and proof demonstrating your incapacity for genuine scientific understanding.
It’s simple: if you’re correct, it is your duty to confront the ‘fraudsters’ and show the world, on these fraudsters’ turf, where they are wrong.
If you and your cronies cannot do this, you are merely bleating sheep hunkering down in a wormy paddock. It matters not whether you like the milieux at deltoid or RealClimate or Rabbet Run or wherever else – if you’re going to criticise these people you should, and you need, to do it to their faces. Not to do so is cowardice and an abrogation of your assumed duties of counterpoint to the orthodoxy.
Go on, get out there and prove me and the consensus of the world’s scientists wrong.
Deltoid, eh? That would mean fraternising with Gould, Harvey and O’Neill, mighty, yet humble destroyer of Lomborg; well, been there, done that, and, consistent with Gould’s pernicious comparison between sceptics and those against innoculation, I’m not immunised for that sort of garbage; now, Bernard “looney-tunes” J: ibbitty, ibbitty, that’s all folks!
Having had the opportunity to sit in on a presentation by a lead Hadley Centre scientist last week (saw the light on …) one had to somewhat stunned by the sheer complexity of the next generation modelling effort – biosphere feedbacks – carbon, ocean, vegetation – El Nino, MJO, decadal processes – one model from weather to seasonal through to climate change. Huge amount of work on clouds, chaos, uncertainty and parameterisation processes. Incredible levels of resolution required for generating microscale systems. Massive scale of the supercomputing – necessitating overflow onto Japanese systems – the sheer size of the exercise.
Does it make it right – well who knows; but one thing is for sure – you guys have no clue whatsoever to the motivations or abilities and are not engaged.
So all this philosophy stuff about Popper and so forth is just so much shit really. Filler.
Bernard,
You bandy the term “scientist” around far too selectively, I think.
As far as I can tell, you’re criteria for a “scientist” is someone with a science degree (computer or otherwise), who agrees with you and who proclaims knowledge of the “climate”.
Let me put it another way: are there any “scientists” you know of, who disagree with your view that AGW’ing is happening and is of great concern? Or are all those with points of view different to yours being “unscientific”?
Following on from my comment a day or so ago about military attitudes to climate change:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/current/audioonly/lnl_20080826_2218.mp3
Knock yourselves out lads; I am sure that once again you will all know better…
Bernard, I am on a very slow dial up where i live and after 20 minutes it has still not loaded.
But if it relates to the interview on LNL on the new book “climate wars” I heard that today, it was interesting and if AGW does play out the way the IPCC and AGW believers forecast he makes some telling points. BIG emphasis on the if. He lost me when he said by the time we hit 420ppm of CO2 the ice caps will melt and the sea level will rise 70 metres. Then Phillip Adams ( “ive been pushing this for 20 years”)mentioned that “co2 was only 1 part in 100, oops I mean 1 part in 1000″….and was not corrected for his ignorance (only wrong by a factor of 100!), I started to think that here was yet another person pushing his ideology with scant regard for facts.
Once again it was an example of scary “what if” scenarios being spoken of as though they were “fait a complis”.
He then went on to mention that we could if we had to, pump sulpur particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight….isnt that what flannery has also suggested? and been shot down for his stupidity?…nothing better than red skies and sulphuric acid falling from the sky!
In his defence he did advocate the use of nuclear energy as a short term solution…..now why will so few govts and green groups advocate this as a solution? Rudd won t even let it be discussed! and we are supposed to believe he has the “faith”!?
Cohenite , interesting posts as usual.
“So all this philosophy stuff about Popper and so forth is just so much shit really. Filler.”
But it’s pure comedy gold, though, Luke. Especially the Birdbot with his mad theories about everything and belief that he’s knocked off Einstein.
Really, you couldn’t pay to see this sort of stuff. Somebody should do “Marohasy – The Musical.”
Well, come on luke, don’t leave us hanging; the facts man; have they programmed the damn thing to pick the winners at Randwick next week?!
when i say “believers” i do not mean “luke warmers” but those who seem so certain that a doubling of co2 will have catastrophic outcomes.
Cohenite – at some point you realise that we’re just not in this – there is a very large science program rolling out there which is getting round to many of our little worries – we’re just gnats in our own little blog microcosm. Bernard is right though – no publications means it’s all just lost to the big bit bucket in the long run.
well 1 hour later i still have not managed to download Bernard’s podcast….but am i right in saying it relates to the LNL interview on “climate wars”?
Did you notice the errors/ exagerations bernard? or did your bias blind you?
Yeah, well luke, lets hope we don’t have to explore space in spacecraft powered by windmills and solar panels on the roof; bloody escape velocity will be a killer.
One of the ironies of this entire AGW movement is that its proponents firmly believe that it’s their “science” which wins the day for them with the media and the public.
In fact, it’s nothing more than being flavour of the moment. AGW’ing is the media’s thrilling, terrifying big money item – it’s celebrity!
I don’t like predictions of the future, but I can readily look at current temperatures and tell that the graph says it either has not warmed, or it’s cooled slightly since the late 1990’s.
However, the celebrity warmers move the feast continually: temperature isn’t climate; a season doesn’t make a trend; a year isn’t relevant; you have to adjust the data to get a realistic picture; natural elements, like the solar minimum, could delay future temperatures rises by 10 to 20 years; and so on.
I see signs that the media is starting to lose its passion for AGW’ing, as the facts refuse to stack up in line with the apocalyptic theory. After all, every news bulletin ends with a weather broadcast (pin that on your wall, Bernard, Luke, Chris, Ben, etc.).
What happened to all those property shows, when the housing market started to cool down? Our fickle media dropped them lickety-split. Think, “Location, Location”, or “Burke’s Backyard”. The AGW’ers just don’t realize how tabloid they’ve become.
They’re like the dot.com geniuses, just before March 2000. Eventually, people started asking why Amazon was trading at 300 times earnings and Exxon was trading at 3 times. Now, the media is starting to wonder when (if) it might actually get hot!
Normally, a TV station moves pretty quickly to cut a program which has “jumped the shark”. I think that, during the past 12 months, Anthropogenic Global Warming has jumped the shark.
[What do you think, Jen? Good topic, I think.]
Gordon Robertson; The entire post ( 2.04 PM) was proving the Fig 7.3 was totally wrong by using the mass balance as a check sum. Now you start adding up numbers which are incorrect to prove something ; guess what you are going to get the wrong answer, “ best of the best” pure sarcasm, sorry you missed it. You had a lot of strange ratio numbers but oddly enough they were not that far out your conclusion is correct, how can 3/100ths of 1% cause 10% of the greenhouse gas warming.
Bernard J. I note that with all your pompous garbage you have failed to respond to my post of (2,04 PM) You requested science I gave you science I guess it was too scientific for your poor demented little brain to understand, Sorry mate YOU are the FRAUD.
Luke ; Sounds like you finally realize how complex these models have to be before they can be of any use. Bottom line is old chap that they have not got there yet by a country mile but now they are admitting the models will have to be vastly more complex to come anywhere close to being useful. This now leads us to the inescapable conclusion that everything produced to date is simplistic nonsense, but this nonsense is being offered as solid “proof” for the IPCC case.
Are you really so brainwashed that you can not see the contradiction here. Isn’t this what we have been saying all along. When real useful models come along we will accept them as proof but there is no guarantee they will produce the same results as today’s models. The promise that they are going to get it right eventually does not mean we have to accept the garbage they produce today, especially when their results do not even come close to the observations of the last 10 years.
“I see signs that the media is starting to lose its passion for AGW’ing,” – so – the global atmosphere doesn’t read the papers …
Barry – “Bottom line is old chap that they have not got there yet by a country mile” – wow – that’s a really thorough evaluation of a large field.
You won’t get solid 100% proof till it’s all over – it’s a risk assessment. Models might be wrong. Might be much worse than we think.
Luke you do not have the intellect to evaluate a large field because you can not grasp even the big picture.
Barry Moore.
I love your science, and the absence of your ‘simplistic model’ in your post is no problem. In fact, I think that you should take it to RealClimate and show them that they have it all wrong.
Really. After all, if I am a fraud my opinion is not going to change the world, and you should seek out those who actually have their fingers on the buttons. The ‘real scientists’ whom I spoke of before, and whom you can challenge with your impressive display.
They might spout off about logarithmic responses and other nonsense, and they might also disagree with your ‘29.22 ppm of anthropogenic CO2 out of 385 ppm’ value, but if you believe your own calculations you will put it to them. After all, how can they come back in the face of real science?
Or, if you’re too shy, would you like me to do it on your behalf?
Bernard, I will investigate sending some of my work to RealClimate. Over the past 10 years I have built up quite a dossier on a variety of aspects of climate change. I recently attended a 2 1/2 day course at our university on the IPCC 4th assessment, the lecturer was of course very pro IPCC, he stonewalled me during the lectures but recieved my literature and back up papers in the breaks. In my one on one discussions with him he was totally unable to provide any explanations or answers to my questions leaving me somewhat frustrated but even more convinced that the IPCC case is pure political smoke and mirrors, so yes I have tried very hard to have meaningful dialog with IPCC supporters but it has been very difficult I suspect RealClimate will give me the stonewall treatment too but I will try.
thx for replying to me yet again bernard! NOT.
Thx to Graeme on another link you do not need to reply about your podcast link…it was LNL and “climate wars”.
I take it from your lack of response that you thought his evident bias was ok?
what if scenarios are wonderful, but unless you believe in th eprecutionary principle, that is all they are, an interesting novel could come from it though!!!
Graeme, I realize that but I feel as if I have been banging my head against a brick wall for the last 10 years and finally over the last 6 months I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, of course the other alternative is that I have bashed my brains out and that light is an express train comming to flatten me. But seriously by the most optomistic scenario I can see the IPCC house of cards collapsing in 6 months, I would be suprised if it lasts longer than 3 years because as I said before the 2012 Kyoto renegotiation is definitely going to kill it.
“In fact, it’s nothing more than being flavour of the moment. ”
The basic theories have been around for over a century now. They have just become more refined as the science becomes understood better.
“The basic theories have been around for over a century now. They have just become more refined as the science becomes understood better.”
You mean, when the post-WWII cooling trend reversed course, nobody had any idea why. So, the so-called “scientists” dredged around and turned up some century-old, forgotten theory about CO2.
Assuming that it stubbornly refuses to warm up any more over the next few years and the media starts asking difficult questions, what’s the bet the charlatans masquerading as “climate scientists” return to nasty old particulate pollution from fossil fuels as the cause (global dimming, anyone)?
The same villian gets the blame and the gullible media and public gets bait-and-switched.
Graeme, somewhere you say (can’t find the quote I want) that we know from the historical record that CO2’s warming effect is weak. What are you referring to – paleoclimate? Something more recent? Those studies which claim to derive high climate sensitivity from paleoclimate are coming up somewhere in my personal study queue.
mitchell porter said…”we know from the historical record that CO2’s warming effect is weak”.
Excuse me for butting in here, Graeme, but I have been saying the same thing and I’d like to offer my take on it.
Mitchell…if you look at the history of the recent global warming movement going back to Hansen in 1988, his main opponent was Pat Michaels. He was the scientist who seems to have come up with that concept first.
You might try finding his recent books, ‘The Satanic Gases (2000)’ and ‘Meltdown (2004)’in the library. He explains a lot of little odds and ends like that. Anyway, he is a prof at the University of Virginia, and he explains that a few universities have a different way of looking at CO2/warming. They don’t use models but look at the recent history of CO2 versus the warming it has produced.
Michaels refers specifically to the warming from the end of WWII till 1988. During that period, there was about 4/10ths C warming, about 1/3 of what Hansen was predicting using a model in 1988. Based on that, Michaels predicted modest (as opposed to weak) warming in the future and he was right. He continues to emphasize that to this day.
He’s one of the authors on this site:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
Before any of the AGW crowd set in on me, I need to explain that the site is funded by Western Fuels. Although oil companies are no friends of mine, I don’t see the issue here. Michaels was on his own back in the 1980’s to oppose Hansen, perhaps making the former the world’s first major CO2/warming skeptic. Hansen was funded by the US government through NASA, and the former took no steps to prevent Hansen sermonizing on their time and money. He even had Al Gore in his corner.
The point is that Michaels had no oil company support in the beginning and Western Fuels approached him. I can’t blame them for that: he’s saying what they want to hear, he needs funding to counter Hansen, and they offered it. I have read both his books, and if I had detected one bit of bs relating to oil company dogma, I would have put the books down. Michaels achnowledges warming and even a human contribution, he just doesn’t see what everybody is getting excited about.
If you read the articles on this site, I’m sure you’ll find them objective and humourous. Also, I find them surprisingly balanced. Then again, those guys are real scientists and that’s what I’d expect from the same.
Toby.
The trouble with having twenty tabs open at once is that sometimes one posts to the wrong thread.
Try
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003363.html
Gordon and Graeme, thanks for your replies.
I know I have mentioned this one before but any attempt to evaluae the effect of CO2 by empirical means leads to endless quibbling about the relative contribution of the many forcing components in the atmosphere. Example, you measure the backradiation at 4 micro meters, now how much came from CO2, how much from H2O and how much came from aerosols it is absolutely impossible to quantify each amount.
To understand the process one must start by breaking each component down and analyze its function in isolation, the interactive forcing effects can come later. By far the best paper dealing with this subject from a position of fundamental physics is as follows,
Climate Change
(A Fundamental Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect)
By
John Nicol
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
jonicol@netspace.net.au
1/6/2008
Some of the mathematical segments may look a bit intimidating but the text is very understandable so if you just assume the mathmatical part is valid, which it is, the rest is quite easy. This paper proves with absolute mathematical precision based on the classical laws of physics with no smoke and mirrors empirical equations based on vague corellations only, that above a relatively low level of CO2 the concentration of CO2 has no significant effect on global temperatures.
Reiterating my point about the military concern over AGW:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/events/details.cfm?q=82
Graeme Bird.
According to your assessment then, governments, military brass, universities, insurance companies – heck, even most fossil fuel businesses – must be ‘ill-advised’.
The world over.
There are very few who dispute AGW these days. Are all of these institutions to foolish to think for themselves, or are they all a part of the Conspiracy?
Why is it that so many of the Denialist cadre are intimately associated with vested interests who are disadvantaged by admitting to and responding to AGW?
And Bird, I don’t give a rat’s arse about providing you with evidence. I really don’t care what a wingnut like you thinks, but I do care what obfuscation you add to the pool in which people who don’t know better swim.
As I have been rabbitting on here with no hint of success, if you are going to convince the world of your correctness why won’t you and your mates confront the consensus on their own turf? Prove to the AGW proponents as well as to the folk in the middle that you are correct.
Is this too hard?
Are you afraid of something?
Bernard.I posted a very good physics paper above, please read it. There are a great deal more but they get a little complicated and difficult for the layman to follow. With regard to your illusion that the natural cycle proponents are a small minority you are very mistaken, the IPCC report has 22 authors and coauthors, about 630 contributors the rest of the 2500 members of the IPCC are political hacks who are just in it to get money. The political mainstream started off down the AGW road because they were conned by the news media that this was a save the world environmental issue and the people generally were sympathetic to the cause. So in order to cover themselves they have spent some $50 Billion in R&D worldwide so far. Scientists are pragmatic people and a lot work for government agencies so to get a piece of the pie and sometimes keep their jobs they have had to please their political masters. There have been some real horror stories regarding the intimidation of scientists who disagreed with the IPCC mantra so most tended to keep their heads down and not agree but not disagree so the myth that there was a consensus was built. In actual fact authoratative surveys taken in 2007 indicated that approximately 20% of people in the climate discipline agreed with IPCC, 20% disagreed and 60% were sitting on the fence for whatever reason.
The Oregon petition which was started last year and oposes the IPCC’s position has over 32 000 signatures from degreed professionals over 9 000 of which are Ph D’s. This is not a small minority so do not believe all the propaganda you hear especially from the news media.
I have just reread you post Bernard and you seem overly impressed with the large number of organizations which appear to be siding with the AGW position. I think you are misreading what is happening. Since AGW is a highly political issue which I think we all agree it should not be since it is a highly complicated scientific issue, and the news media are about 95% on the AGW side because it provides a wealth of alarmist copy thus it is good for business. It follows therefore that you do not try to push water uphill and right or wrong you go with the flow, it is kind of like buying an insurance policy you really do not want to cash it but it there if you need it. It is called being pragmatic.
For pity’s sake Graeme Birdbrain, I have been asking you (ad nauseum) to put YOUR evidence forward and have it tested – I am actually not interested in trying to change your recalcitrant mind. YOU claim to have the iron-clad evidence yourself: I am asking YOU and your supporters here to confirm it on the world stage.
Barry Moore at least has the wherewithall to engage me, and hopefully others outside of this blog, with his assessible material (hat-tip, Barry, and I will chase that paper up to read Nichol’s take), but you keep on with an irrevelant harangue to make me attempt to change you mind with ‘evidence’.
You see, Graeme, you have form in fillibustering yourself, infinitely more than I can be accused of, and I waste enough time here now to not want to be drawn further into the morass that is your discussion technique. I am not so foolish as to wish to dredge up every study and paper that has been published over the last half-century and have you arbitrarily assign each to a Bird-idea of conspiracy or to tit-sucking flim-flam.
Out of morbid curiosity though, I wonder what evidence it would take to actually make you seriously stop and think about whether it really is warming, and whether greenhouse gases are responsible?
By the way, I’d like to see how you incorporate this into your ‘cooling world’ notion:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gU8J3xEhFmRPw87tPfwb-oXa5h9gD92QNA480
And don’t bother with the ‘it’s not evidence’ line – I am already assuming that you will spit it out regardless of the fact that I was asking for a comment on cooling.
I’m looking forward to your eventual appearance in the real world to dismantle the scientific institutions that you are so critical of.
Barry: on a first examination, Nicol’s central objection is to the “log law” which relates forcing to increases in CO2 concentration. Apriori, this is one of the parts of climate orthodoxy which is *least* likely to be wrong, as its derivation is extremely simple. I guess I will have to dig through Nicol’s paper to see what his argument is, but meanwhile see the discussion in comments here, starting with comment #3:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2560
Link to Nicol’s paper:
http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc
Mitchell; The log law is 100% empirical and is not derived by a strict mathematical procedure using the established laws of science. I note even the constant has been changed in the reference you gave me it is 6.3 recently I note it is 5.35. Where is the independent assessment which established *least* likely to be wrong. How can a body like the IPCC assess itself, it has to be done by an independent auditor, isn’t that what peer review is all about. IPCC pretend to have a review process but the results are kept secret and many of the edits are never incorporated. Take a look at Dr, Vincent Grey’s comments as an IPCC peer reviewer for all 4 reports. The IPCC is one of the most incestuous organizations around that is why I do not trust them.
Reference; nzclimatescience_net – IPCC REVIEWER REBUTS HUMAN CAUSATION – Dr V_ Gray.htm
This one has a lot of reading material by Dr. Vincent Grey take your pick.
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/index.php?searchword=vincent+grey&option=com_search&Itemid=
Bernard; Re your sea ice comment I will give you another web site which I really like
http://www.woodfortrees.org/
Your article was written by AP they and Reuters are in the business of selling eye catching articles that is how they make their money. My preference, which I have said before, is go back to the raw data and make your own mind up. The above web site is one of the best sources of raw data I have found it is interactive so you can get plots of a number of data bases, Arctic ice being one of them. Yes last year was a record low this year is coming close but will probably not get there. At the other end the maximum extent has been increasing for the past 3 years. Overall the trend for the maximum and minimum over the last 30 years is down but we have been in a warming cycle for a number of reasons and the drop is not that great over 30 years. On the other hand the Antarctic, despite the obsession the news wires have about chunks breaking off which they have done for 200 years, is increasing in sea ice both maximum and minimum. Plus the ice build up on the continent is the highest since sattellite readings started 30 years ago. Another project which was started over 40 years ago was a temperature survey from some 460 manned and unmanned weather stations covering the Antarctic, no tampering by GISS and no urban heat islands here. The result is that for 37 years the average temperature of the Antarctic has not risen by a fraction of a tenth of a degree in fact a case could be made for a miniscule decrease. But the CO2 level has gone up considerably so where is the AGW effect. Surely the Antarctic is the perfect testing ground because of the lack of all the other forcing agents and ocean current influencies. Also no underwater volcanos as there is under the north pole which have been very active along the 1800 km depression recently.
“Surely the Antarctic is the perfect testing ground because of the lack of all the other forcing agents and ocean current influencies. ”
Look at a map of antarctica. Look at what it’s surrounded by. Look at how much less land there is in the SH than in the NH. Then think about your absurd claim that it is free of “ocean current influences”.
Climate scientists have been PREDICTING a much reduced warming in antarctica vs. the arctic for ages.
Yet you think that the fact that the data matches predictions is a blow against climate science????
dhogaza; My first reaction was that your superficial post was not worth responding to. Then I realize that I had made some generalizations which one does for brevity so I checked it out. Refer to IPCC-4AR Chapter 4 is about 95% NH so not much help. Ch 11 Page 904 Fig 11.18 They back tracked with their model to about 1940 and forcast to 2100. The forcast for 160 years shows a steady increasing temperatute with a total rise of 3 deg C. Interestingly they plotted the known temperatures to date and they fall OUTSIDE the models backcast range. These bozos cant even get their model right when they have the actual data in front of them. Page 907 is the narrative prediction and they show an increase of up to 3 deg C in 100 years. So 0 in 40 verses 3 in 100 hardly right on target.
Reference ocean current effect yes the ocean currents will effect the perimiter but look at the air circulation pattern. In North America the prevailing wind is west to east so temperature changes in the pacific have a major influence. In the Antarctic there is a permenant high pressure center over the pole the air decends from altitude and spirals out thus there is no prevailing air circulation off any ocean which greatly diminishes the ocean effect.
“Look at a map of antarctica. Look at what it’s surrounded by. Look at how much less land there is in the SH than in the NH. Then think about your absurd claim that it is free of “ocean current influences”.”
Dude. Its the well-known thing that the Antarctic mainland is cut off by the circumpolar current. Hence the difference between what has been going on in the Peninsula versus the mainland.
“Climate scientists have been PREDICTING a much reduced warming in antarctica vs. the arctic for ages.”
No thats total lies. Backdating predictions is not the same as making the prediction and locking it in.
“Yet you think that the fact that the data matches predictions is a blow against climate science????”
Now you are just being silly. You meant to say SCIENCE FRAUD. And you didn’t have any predictions in the first place.
So this is a good question. Antarctica has to be a good testing ground for CO2-warming. At least during the many weeks of extra light.
Could the excuse be made that the ice is simply too cold there?
Barry Moore seems to suffer from the same cohenite virus that’s helping endless references from other blogs go multiplying up the chain.
I am honoured to be included in the company of cohenite. Is the truth worth repeating yes I think so.