- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


December 2013
« Nov   Jan »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Carbon Off-setting an Expedition to the Antarctic

CHRIS Turney is professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales. He recently set off on a 233-foot-long Russian-flagged ship with 70 or so colleagues to check-out the climate by following in the footsteps of famous explorer Douglas Mawson’s 1912 expedition to the Antarctic.

I’m assuming that the ship is running on diesel. So it would be incurring a “carbon debit”. Did Professor Turney make provisions to off-set this debit before he set off?

According to David Suzuki the first thing to consider before buying carbon offsets is:

“Know your carbon footprint and understand what your largest sources of emissions are. Ensure that you include all of your major emission sources, such as electricity consumption, fuel use, and travel.”

Since setting off, the ship has got stuck in ice. Three ice breaker ships have set-off to rescue it.

Should the fuel consumption of the three ice breakers also be included in Professor Turney’s carbon offset calculations?

None of this information about carbon offsets is being communicated by Professor Turney who is sending out lots of tweets and some blog posts. I’m also wondering what the Professor has discovered about climate change and the change in ice cover at the Antarctic since 1912 when Douglas Mawson ventured down there.


89 Responses to “Carbon Off-setting an Expedition to the Antarctic”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: Luke

    I think we’ll take Marty’s advice over a sceptic anyday. And we’re up to AR5 and with a bit more literature. Also the short term isn’t the long term. Try harder.

    Of course the “plummeting energy” levels probably help explain November’s temperatures.

    sp – of course CO2 isn’t a pollutant in the classic sense – only silly sceptics would buy into such a discussion.

  2. Comment from: sp

    Gee Luke – I didn’t know there was a non-classical definition of pollution.

    I also think you need to explain why you accept Martys advice over a sceptic …. especially when the sceptic is correct.

    Luke .. you sound like your fundamental has taken a pounding – I think the next few days of rescuing a global warming scientists from Antarctic ice is going to be fun, but maybe not so much fun for you.

  3. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    >”I think we’ll take Marty’s advice over a sceptic anyday.”

    I’m just relaying the news Luke, it’s solar specialists the world over that are reporting the weak SC 24 e.g solar physicist Dr David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre, IPCC solar physicist Dr Mike Lockwood at UK’s Reading University, or Russian Academy of Science’s Dr Khabibullo Abdusamatov. Want more? Penn, Livingston, Howe, Hill, Pesnell, De Jager, Duhau etc

    And Marty would do well to read the slew of literature consistently predicting at least Dalton Minimum conditions in the coming decades given the solar recession now underway.

    >”And we’re up to AR5 and with a bit more literature.”

    So you’re conceding the IPCC’s 2001 Antarctic projections were wrong Luke? No alarm after all? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have no warming effect (let alone “amplified” warming effect) in the Antarctic? Prof Turney will be very happy to hear this good news when he gets back I’m sure.

  4. Comment from: Neville

    WUWT has a good coverage of the stranded cruise ship.

    Richard c NZ you’ll find Lukey doesn’t give a stuff about inconvenient truths/facts and he’ll just switch to a new issue or flood the blog with a heap of links that he hasn’t bothered to read or understand AGAIN.

    His latest linked study is a good example. He told me it supported Mann’s HS nonsense, but it showed a warmer Antarctica ( 141–1250 AD) and a Med wp ( up to 1250) and a LIA as well. Ya gotta laugh.
    And his NH has a warming today that is only 0.5c above the temp of the last 500 years. But the dooozy is that the study shows 1940–1970 warming is greater than the 1970– 2000 warming. So much for increased co2 causing more warming. But it backs up my link to the Briffa, Vinther, Jones 2006 Greenland temp study.
    But failing his link flooding mode he always resorts to foul personal abuse.

  5. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    According to the AAE’s “Explorer’s Message” sea ice is “disappearing due to climate change” but “building up” where they are “here” (my bold):


    A statement from the Australasian Antarctic Expedition:

    We’re stuck in our own experiment. We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice. We followed Sir Douglas Mawson’s footsteps into Commonwealth Bay, and are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship.

    Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up. We have found this has changed the system on many levels. The increase in sea ice has freshened the seawater below, so much so that you can almost drink it. This change will have impacts on the deep ocean circulation.

    Underwater, forests of algae are dying as sea-ice blocks the light. Who can say what effects the regional circulation changes may have on the ice sheet of the Antarctic plateau, or whether the low number of seals suggests changes to their population.

    Also at Steve Goddard’s:

    The AAE might check November 2013 Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area:

    Apparently sea ice measured in millions of square kilometres is a disappearance.

    I notice too that “change” is applied to naturally occurring phenomena but attributed to “climate change” i.e. doublespeak conflating natural process with anthropogenic causation and hoping no-one will notice. The uninformed wont notice of course, to them, by now, after all the indoctrination, any climatic change has human causation.

  6. Comment from: cohenite

    Hey luke, why aren’t you down there with Prof Turney and the rest of the intrepid lunatics looking for the lost ice? Piker!

    Great stuff; it should be front-page news; Alarmist scientists looking for missing ice trapped in …something!

  7. Comment from: Debbie


    ” of course CO2 isn’t a pollutant in the classic sense ”
    SURELY you jest?

  8. Comment from: Neville

    Jo Nova has a story from today’s OZ about the NSW govt telling councils to use commonsense when advising residents about future SLR.

    Too much notice has been taken of the hysterical projections from the IPCC, CSIRO, Gore, Flannery etc and each council should now calculate their own risk.
    According to the Watson study SLR has decelerated so it’s about time these fools started to wake up.

  9. Comment from: Neville

    The Bolter provides a comprehensive link to the trapped cruise ship saga. Very good points made about the silly dummies involved.

    You can go to the govt link and watch the video taken by Mawson in 1912.

  10. Comment from: Debbie

    just in case you don’t understand my incredulous reaction to your earlier comment. . . here is a simple question for you.
    Was it ‘sceptics’ (silly or otherwise) who coined the terms ‘carbon pollution’ , ‘climate criminals’ & etc?

  11. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    >”And we’re up to AR5″

    Yes we are, and it gets awkward for the IPCC because now they’re presenting “near-term” projections for the first time in their assessment reports:

    “Twenty-year average changes for the near-term (2016–2035), for mid-term (2046–2065), and for the long-term (2081–2100) are given, relative to a reference period of 1986–2005″

    It will be easy to track whether 2016–2035 is looking like being realistic – or not, keeping in mind that the 27 year satellite Antarctic trend is -0.04°C/century (-0.004°C/decade, -0.1 C absolute over 2.7 decades) from up-thread.

    Figures AI-76 to AI-79, p.80–83 [p.82-85 pdf]: Antarctica

    Figure AI.76: Top 3 left: time series of temperature change relative to 1986–2005 averaged over land grid points 4 in Antarctica (90–50S) in December–February. Top right: same for sea grid points. Thin lines denote one 5 ensemble member per model, thick lines the CMIP5 multi-model mean.

    Figure AI.77: Top 3 left: time series of temperature change relative to 1986–2005 averaged over land grid 4 points in Antarctica (90–50S) in June–August.

    Figures AI.78 & 79: precipitation

    They’re still projecting Antarctic warming in AR5 Luke (AI.76 & 77), except this time for a term starting specifically at 2016. That observed -0.004°C/decade cooling trend has 2 years to change sign for the model projections to have any validity.

  12. Comment from: sp

    No mention of “global warming scientist trapped by antarctic ice” on Skeptical Science or Realclimate.

    Luke – get onto to them and tell them to lift their game – they will lose their “sciencey”status if they dont report the remarkable fact that:

    “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up”.

    And get onto “Ripleys Believe it or not” while you are at it.

  13. Comment from: Neville

    Here is the Royal Society graphs of all the models for SLR as used by the IPCC showing Antarctica ( negative SLR) and Greenland (positive SLR).
    This is for the next 300 years or until 2300, so where is this dangerous SLR to come from I wonder? Both Antarctic and Greenland account for about 99% of the planet’s ice with Antarctica 89% and Greenland 10%.

    The much larger Antarctica will be gaining ice for at least the next 300 years according to their own models.

  14. Comment from: Luke

    sp or Debs like a weed can be any plant out of place and analogously a pollutant can be any substance where too much of it is not wanted e.g. even water and common salt. Perhaps you’d like to define a pollutant? I assume you’d like to say that CO2 is a plant food, beer bubbles, and one exhales it, so how can it be a pollutant. Well if it’s causing unwanted climate changes as a radiative forcing agent, one might argue that it is a pollutant – however of course faux sceptics would disagree and therefore in their eyes it wouldn’t be – would it? silly argument though.

    sp as for Marty – if you look up his expertise and career I think nuff said. I’ll let you line up your expertise against his as homework.

    Richard there’s plenty of Antarctic climate change. Do try to get minimally updated with the issue. Such a trite analysis.

    As for the big cooling – well let’s see – for now very little to bedwet about but I guess E&E may run with it as they done previously with Archibald’s erudite 2006 paper. Who would know.

    Meanwhile in the real world – and given your admiration of other author experts I’m happy to have Lockwood 2012 Surv Geophys DOI 10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3 and Wang and Dickinson, PNAS, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1311433110

    Pity about the battery but the plummeting much have been very sudden like – causing all this warmth – hohoho

  15. Comment from: Luke

    Will faux sceptics bang on about the ice cracking as fast as it occurred.

  16. Comment from: Robert

    Ice cracking high summer off Commonwealth Bay? BIG cracks according to our ABC. Maybe not enough to enable our Professor of Dopey Stunts to just cruise on to Cape Denison like Mawson did, but enough to give hope of rescue.

    Golly. It’s better than we thought. I mean, the disappearance of summer polar ice is worse than we thought but the hope of rescue from excessive summer polar ice is better than we thought. I mean….

    Aw, you know what I mean.

  17. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    >”Of course the “plummeting energy” levels probably help explain November’s temperatures.”

    I assume you’re alluding to the GISS/NCDC outlier duo’s “warmest ever November” pronouncement Luke. Suggest you check UAH, RSS, and HadCRUT4 November anomalies too before you get overexcited.

    BTW (1), GISTEMP November 2013 only actually equaled October 2005, rather than being anything extraordinary.

    BTW (2), Have you forgotten already the 10+ year planetary sun-ocean-atmosphere system thermal lag I introduced up-thread?

    The significant effects are NOT instantaneous (contrary to SkS, Joanna Haigh, and other ignorati), the full effects of current lower solar input to the planetary system will not be observed until AFTER 2023 i.e. about 10+ years from now. The 21st century pause/hiatus/stasis is more a consequence of negative phase PDO/ENSO (and maybe cloudiness/aerosols), I don’t recall any solar specialists predicting even minor observable solar-driven effects to show up in temperature before at least 2014 i.e. expect minor effects from then on but more significant cold events from mid 2020s onwards.

    But note that even during the bitterly cold (in NH) Maunder Minimum (Bosphorus froze solid enough to walk on at Constantinople/Istanbul) it was not ALL cold ALL of the time, just that cold was the predominant regime. The first snowfalls this year in over century at Jerusalem and Cairo (no fun for 2 million Syrian refugees either) are merely a harbinger of what can happen if that type of regime does actually set in for some time.

    BTW (3), Not for no reason did the UKMO revise its decadal forecast (now only 5 years out to 2017) downwards in 2012 (surreptitiously published on Christmas Eve 2012).

  18. Comment from: Luke

    No wasn’t just GISTEMP/NCDC actually. Satellites of course don’t exactly measure the same thing as those living on the ground.

    But at least we do agree on PDO/ENSO with some aerosols /clouds for now.

    And so now it’s “going to be a while” eh – mid 2020s onwards …. hmmmm OK – we’ll see

    The recent cold air outbreaks really means nothing. Could even be an AGW induced circulation change. Who would know – you’d need one of them thar models. When it happens regularly write it up.

    As Lockwood says on solar research – so very much has been written. However there are enough quasi-periodic cycles in the climate system to be able to find pseudo cycles where there are none. So statistically having one’s self on with advanced curve fitting is an ever present danger. Lockwood is well aware.

    I actually don’t expect the IPCC to make 100% correct predictions. They’re only supposed to be reviewing the literature as best that can be done. It’s a question of whether you think the broad outcomes are correct and the level of risk is high enough. I do and I’m pro new-generation nuclear as the preferred solution pathway, of course not without many issues.

  19. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    sp as for Marty – if you look up his expertise and career I think nuff said. I’ll let you line up your expertise against his as homework.

    I think Marty’s expertise was put up against other experts’ expertise not sp’s
    There is a slight difference!

  20. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    >”Pity about the battery but the plummeting much have been very sudden like – causing all this warmth – hohoho [link to SORCE 2003 - 2013]”

    You are a jolly Santa Luke, but you obviously still don’t understand that “all this warmth” of SC 24 maximum is less than the preceding SC 23, 22, and 21 maximums (and the minimum at 2008/9 is less than the preceding minimums too – see bicentennial component below). If you had been paying attention you would have seen that I had already linked to that SORCE plot up-thread here:

    In which I made a comparison of the 2003 – 2013 period (your link period) to 1975 – 2010. Repeated here again for your benefit Luke (hopefully this time):

    August 2013 SC 24 TSI 1361.35 W.m2 (close to max):

    Compare that to the SC 23, 22, and 21 maximums all at at least 1362.1 (about 0.75 W.m2 higher):

    But the bicentennial component is a line tracing the SC minimums (not the maximums). The following Abdussamatov (2012) graph (different scale than above) illustrates the planetary energy “deficit” now developing in the bicentennial TSI component since the Grand Maximum around 1986:

    That energy “deficit” (~ 0.75 W.m2 and widening rapidly) is energy not now available to maintain planetary temperature levels that were observed up to the mid 2000s. Consequently, in combination with negative PDO/ENSO consistent with Leudecke et al (2013), globally averaged temperature in the 2nd decade of the 21st century is already tracking cooler than the 1st decade (search “Climate Bet For Charity” for update).

    But now that you’ve got a handle on planetary thermal lag and bicentennial TSI component (you do understand those now don’t you Luke?), you wont be foolish enough to impute 2013 TSI to 2013 GAT will you?

  21. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    Don’t want to crowd in on your turf Neville but this is worth a read, it explains a lot about someone here.

    Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll

  22. Comment from: sp

    The Luke Approved Book of Definitions for Sceptics and Deniers Vol 1:

    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted water
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted salt
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted C02
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted Cane Toads
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted rabbits
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted flies
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted crown of thorn starfish
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted rain
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted wind
    Sceptic = anybody who does not agree that excessive and unwanted anything is pollution
    Denier = anybody who does not agree that excessive and unwanted anything is pollution

    As for Marty – its not about lining up his expertise against mine, its whether he is talking sense about solar issues – I think enough evidence has been presented to demonstrate he is talking rubbish.

    You are losing badly Luke, your BS has been called and you have no real response – must be that your fundamental is getting a bit sensitive?

  23. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    >”I’m happy to have Lockwood 2012″

    Are you happy to have Lockwood 2013?

    ‘Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist’

    Paul Hudson, BBC, 28 October 2013,

    It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.

    The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.

    Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.

    I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.

    According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

    Since then the sun has been getting quieter.

    By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.

    Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

    He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

    Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.

    And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

    He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate – witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years – and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

    It’s worth stressing that not every winter would be severe; nor would every summer be poor. But harsh winters and unsettled summers would become more frequent.

    Professor Lockwood doesn’t hold back in his description of the potential impacts such a scenario would have in the UK.

    He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.

    Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too.


    Pretty much in agreement what I’ve been on about up-thread. Science progresses Luke, even that of CO2-centric solar physicists like Mike Lockwood.

  24. Comment from: Debbie

    Surely you are jesting?

    “sp or Debs like a weed can be any plant out of place and analogously a pollutant can be any substance where too much of it is not wanted e.g. even water and common salt. ”

    Go back to the recent thread re the GM Maize Rat studies and look at how many people (whom you consider silly sceptics and deniers) have already pointed that particular fact out! . . . and it wasn’t just about the rats BTW.

    I will also note that after sooking that I didn’t answer a question at an earlier thread (as general as they come) you decided not to answer my very specific and very simple question here:

    “Was it ‘sceptics’ (silly or otherwise) who coined the terms ‘carbon pollution’ , ‘climate criminals’ & etc?”

    Was that too difficult for you Luke?
    maybe try this way:
    Who started using terms like ‘carbon pollution’ ,’climate criminals’ & etc in the media?
    a) deniers
    b) sceptics
    c) AGW celebs

  25. Comment from: Luke

    PAGES2K says there was no globally synchronous multi-decadal Little Ice Age. There is no current alarming trend. And Lockwood says in his conclusion (2012):

    “Thus, these predictions show that continued solar decline will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming. However, the decline should do much to end the debate about the fraction of
    global warming that can be attributed to solar change. For the first time since about 1900,
    long-term solar and anthropogenic trends are now in opposite directions. Non-robust fits
    will fail sooner rather than later because of the change in solar behaviour. Thus, the next
    few years will give us much better estimates of the solar contribution to both global and
    regional climate change. For global temperature rise, there is every indication that these
    new estimates will, if anything, be smaller that previous estimates. On the other hand, there
    are indications that some regional climates will be more susceptible to solar changes
    (Lockwood et al. 2011a, b).”

    Backing up my previous cite on weak TSI influence

    Tom Wigley 2010 concludes…

    “The climate response to TSI forcing is only weakly dependent on the climate

    Model simulations suggest that the effect of the Maunder Minimum on global mean
    temperatures must be very small – perhaps negligible.

    Results of model simulations depend on assumptions regarding the
    “secular” TSI trend (i.e., low-frequency changes that are not directly
    associated with the solar cycle). They are, however, only weakly dependent
    on these assumptions.

    Over the 20th century, the total TSI-induced temperature trend is either near
    zero (no secular term), 0.06 degC (Wang et al. trend), or 0.12 degC (Lean et al.
    trend). In all cases the contribution to the observed warming trend is small.

    For the early 20th century (1910 to 1940) warming trend, the TSI influence is
    also very small. The most likely cause of this warming is a change in NADW
    formation rate.”

    But in any case in terms of risk Gerry Meehl warns us that while a full blown Grand Solar Minimum is enough to slow down and delay AGW – it is merely forestalling the inevitable.

    So Richard much speculation – nothing is cut and dried.

  26. Comment from: Luke

    Oh Debs take a powder – when you complain about alarmists, water melons and bedwetters equally I’ll take you seriously.

    And dear sp – trying so hard ….

    “Pollution = Excessive and unwanted water – possibly – see CSG dewatering or mine dewatering
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted salt – yep ask irrigation systems affected by salinity
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted C02 – possibly in context
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted Cane Toads – no that’s a pest species
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted rabbits – ditto
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted flies – maybe not – could be natural
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted crown of thorn starfish – - no a natural pest BUT YES caused by N fertiliser pollution
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted rain – no that’s just too much rain
    Pollution = Excessive and unwanted wind – no that’s a storm

  27. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    >”Richard there’s plenty of Antarctic climate change”

    Yes I know there is Luke, And Chris Turney will learn a bit too by his predicament, hopefully, when he compares it to Mawson’s three season ease of passage in 1910, 11, and 12.

    But it’s natural process rather than human causation.

    Even the IPCC’s global anthro attribution is not what it seems, the AR5 attribution period for their 95% confidence is the 6 decade period 1951 – 2010. But only 2 of those decades (1980 – 2000) exhibited any warming whatsoever, see AR5 SPM Figure 1(a):

    And curiously, the further their models have diverged from observations the more the IPCC’s confidence has grown:

    Now that the CO2-forced models have reached a point in time where any continued temperature flatlining means observations will break out of the 95% model confidence bounds, there has to be a re-assessment of human attribution to climate change (a link which is actually the UN FCCC/IPCC mandate) – also the IPCC’s climate sensitivity and radiative forcing methodologies.

    LULUC – precipitation yes (maybe temperature), aGHGs – temperature/precipitation no.

  28. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    >”So Richard much speculation – nothing is cut and dried.”

    I agree. But you CANNOT support a weak TSI influence case by citing papers that deploy CO2-forced models that are a) proving to be invalid, b) don’t realistically parameterize solar e.g. 100% UV variation within the spectrum, and up to 6 W.m2 change over 400 yrs, and c) neglect natural variation e.g. oceanic oscillations.

    The IPCC, in Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing, cites Jones (Gareth not Phil), Lockwood, and Stott (2012) to support their weak TSI influence case but it’s a CO2-forced modeling study with woeful solar scenarios. They discount (throw out) Shapiro et al (2011) because they don’t think there’s a possibility that their results and conclusions could be anywhere near realistic. Instead they opt for least-case scenarios that don’t rock the boat.

    Re Mike Lockwood, co-author of JL&S12, see my previous comment that clearly demonstrates he’s radically changed his ideas in 2013 since 2011/12. Now he’s on-side with what he discounted previously – including Shapiro. I note the Shapiro et al title is enough to have it quietly removed from public consciousness by the IPCC:

    ‘A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing’

    “Large historical solar forcing” is anathema to the IPCC – they can’t allow it.

  29. Comment from: Luke

    ““Large historical solar forcing” is anathema to the IPCC – they can’t allow it.” nope that’s just sledging –

    “neglect natural variation e.g. oceanic oscillations.” nope they don’t – you argue about the adequacy but they don’t neglect these factors !

    e.g. including an interaction between the IPO and AGW

  30. Comment from: Luke

    On Antarctic climate change – it doesn’t have to be all tropospheric GHGs – there’s also stratospheric ozone depletion in its own right. This goes back to Thompson and Solomon 2002; Shindell and Schmidt 2004 and forwards from there. A couple of features – major changes in the south annular mode and the circumpolar vortex. Antarctica walled off essentially. But as GHGs increase ove rtime and the ozone hole recovers counter intuitively these effects may swap around. Interestingly these features currrently have impacts on rainfall decline in southern Australia.

    On investigation of sunspots formally in GCMs

    So to pretend these things have no interest to the mainstream modelling community is simply untrue.

  31. Comment from: Ian Thomson

    Me dumb redneck environment destroyer, me see expedition go to Antarctica ( pronounced correctly Anortica ) , proving Global Warming. Me see their ship stuck in ice. Me know AGW has to cause that.
    It never snow in ANORTICA.Must be an iceberg. What ? Warm and iceberg ?
    So glad ” Climate Professor ” there to explain.
    Can we get him home to UNSW ? Why ? He want Mawson experience . 2014 summer, we get him, he be happy.

  32. Comment from: Beth Cooper

    Do u remember when
    a silk-shirted coterie
    from th U-N
    created the I-P-C-C,
    with a mission,
    guv-uh-mint funded
    ter discuvuh
    the scientific risk
    uv human-induced
    Say if yer don’t
    find it does
    this mean yer
    funding goes away?

  33. Comment from: Ian Thomson

    Yes Beth, it does mean that. Why find any other thing ?

  34. Comment from: cohenite

    TSI was shown in TAR at Figure 6.5:

    Lean et al’s conclusions match what Glassman calculated and matches temperature closely:

    Courtillot sums up the solar influence and where IPCC modelling goes wrong:

  35. Comment from: Mack

    Looks as if it could be that the lunatics might even eventually have to abandon ship Cohers !
    Wow, what a waste, what a disgrace, what a mess in what we all regard as a pristine environment. I’d leave them all down there to eat penguins for a while.

  36. Comment from: Neville

    Jo Nova has a good coverage of this farce as well. Funny coverage by some bloggers.

  37. Comment from: Neville

    Their ABC focus has shifted to cat 3 cyclone Christine that hit the Pilbara coast last night. Not a mention of their heroes stuck in the ice on ABC radio at noon.

    But thay did manage to get someone to say that it was worst cyclone he had seen in the last 25 years.
    So job well done I suppose.

  38. Comment from: richardcfromnz

    >“Large historical solar forcing” is anathema to the IPCC – they can’t allow it.” nope that’s just sledging – [link to figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004) that only goes back to 1900]

    “Large historical solar forcing” refers to millennial scale. Meehl et al is century scale. The IPCC’s radiative forcing methodology starts at 1750. The last solar Grand Minimum was 1645 – 1715 prior to 1750 (refer Coher’s TAR TSI plot).

    No CO2-forced climate model, including Meehl et al at NCAR, parameterizes a “Large historical solar forcing” of the magnitude found by Shapiro et al (2011) or anywhere near it. Neither does any start solar forcing parameterization when solar output was at 1645 – 1715 levels.

    It was increasing solar activity that got GAT up to 1900s levels in the first place. It wasn’t CO2 forcing (there was no CO2 uptick prior to 1900). Since the 1950s solar activity has been sustained at the highest level for well over 1000 years i.e. it was still forcing even though the level did not increase above the already ultra high level (a thermodynamic concept – see next).

    Alec Rawls was trying to get this thermodynamic concept through to about a dozen solar specialist climate scientists, because they don’t understand how heat input to a system raises temperature, by using a water-pot-on-stove-element/TSI-GAT analogy (got through to one or two I think). Basically, you just put the pot on the element, turn the element up, leave at the same setting, and the temperature of the water gradually rises. Same with TSI-GAT:

    Cold sun (stove element Low), cold climate (pot water cool), 1645-1715 Maunder Minimum
    Warm sun (stove element Med), warm climate (pot water warm) 1715-1790
    Cold sun (stove element Low), cold climate (pot water cool), 1795–1825 Dalton Minimum
    Warm sun (stove element Med), warm climate (pot water warm) 1825-1930
    Hot sun (stove element High), very warm climate (pot water hot) 1950-2009 Modern Grand Max.

    The main consequence of the consistently ultra high TSI from 1950-2009 was that ocean heat content (OHC) gradually increased i.e. by analogy, stove element set to “High”, pot water temperature gradually increasing and pot water heat accumulating. This is the thermodynamic concept what Alec Rawls was trying to get through to the solar people in climate science but I don’t think he succeeded.

    But OHC in the upper Pacific (the earth’s largest ocean) is no longer accumulating heat (actually cooling this century) i.e. without the sustained ultra high level of solar input that peaked around 1986 and although still high (relative to 1930) through to 2009, solar input has not been sufficient to maintain Pacific OHC (PDO just moves the heat around). Much of that Pacific ocean heat has been lost by current transport to the Indian Ocean which has been the only ocean accumulating heat this century, so much so that it has skewed the global OHC metrics. Idiots like Balmaseda et al (2012) that didn’t do a basin-by-basin analysis don’t know this of course (Bob Tisdale has done the analysis for them fortunately, but easy to see in the data). In other words, ocean heat accumulation is beginning to unwind starting with the upper Pacific.

    Coher’s link to Glassman holds the key to all this in his conclusion:

    “And what is significant depends not on the source – the Sun — but on the receiver – Earth. Moreover, because the problem is thermodynamic, and the medium, heat, has capacity but not inertia, temperature will not contain natural frequencies to resonate with a source.”

    Heat only manifests when radiation from the sun strikes an absorbing material like land or ocean where the absorption depends on radiation-material “tuning”. Solar radiation has a heating effect on the ocean because it penetrates effectively to about 100m depth laying down energy over the entire tracklength (100m). LWIR from GHGs and clouds (DLR) only effectively penetrates the ocean surface about 10 microns, therefore DLR is not an ocean heating agent. All it does is aid evaporation at the surface (ocean cooling).

    >“neglect natural variation e.g. oceanic oscillations.” nope they don’t – you argue about the adequacy but they don’t neglect these factors !

    They do neglect those factors in the Assessment Report ensembles e.g. CMIP3/AR4 and CMIP5/AR5. Granted there are isolated modeling exercises that attempt to integrate oceanic variation but that is not the prevailing paradigm in CMIP ensembles. It has only really been Kosaka and Xie (2013) that has been able to mimic the 21st century PDO change of phase to negative and resulting temperature flatlining. No-one else has done that. Begs the question though (asked by Judith Curry among others): if the negative PDO phase post-2000 explains the flatlining, doesn’t the positive PDO phase explain 1980-2000 warming that has been attributed to AGW?

  39. Comment from: Larry Fields

    Obviously, there are some big bucks tied up in that ship. And the owners want to protect their investment. The last time I checked, the tentative plan was to leave the crew in place, so that they could steer the ship out when the sea ice has cleared sufficiently — whenever that is. Everyone else would be helicoptered out to a rescue ship.

    The crew will probably have periodic food drops. But it would be more sporting for them to be at least partially self-sufficient.

    I’m optimistic that a Best-Seller may come from this misadventure. The title? “The World’s 500 Best Penguin Recipes.”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All