AUSTRALIA’s national broadcaster, the ABC, has a science unit dominated by a fellow called Robyn Williams. Mr Williams is an advocate for the campaign against global warming and has even suggested on air that sea levels could rise by 100 metres in the next century; the United Nation’s IPCC suggested at worst just 59cms. [1] Mr Williams is also on the public record indicating something verging on contempt for meteorologist and climate change sceptic Bill Kininmonth.[2]
It may be difficult for those journalists at the ABC who want to ensure the alternative perspective is put on contentious and highly politicised scientific issues like climate change, particularly given Mr Williams standing and very definite opinions.
On January 22, 2009, ABC reporter Nick Lucchinelli interviewed Bill Kininmonth for an alternative perspective on an article in ‘Nature’ suggesting Antarctica is warming. Lead author Eric Steig and biologist Barry Brook were also interviewed. That part of the interview with Mr Kininmonth was subsequently expunged from the transcript and podcast. [3] That is, at some point after the broadcast the comment from Mr Kininmonth was edited out of the interview. At first blush this has all the signs of ABC censorship in favour of the bias of the science unit.
Following is comment from Mr Kininmonth and detail of his email exchange with Mr Lucchinelli.
From: William Kininmonth [mailto:w.kininmonth@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, 23 January 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: FW: Antarctic warming
Hi Jennifer,
Follows are an email exchange with ABC reporter, Nick Lucchinelli about an item on the ABC’s AM program broadcast on 22 January 2009. The sequence started with a phone call from Lucchinelli on 21 January 2009 seeking an interview about an item in the science journal Nature alleging evidence of global warming that was being published overnight. The first email from Lucchinelli contained the Abstract of the Nature story of interest. About 30 minutes later Lucchinelli again phoned and the interview took place.
Radio National broadcast the Antarctica story in its AM broadcast on 22 January, including extracts from interviews with the lead author Professor Steig, Professor Brook of Adelaide and myself. The re-broadcast of AM on ABC Local Radio (Melbourne 774) included only part of the Antarctica story; my comments and views were deleted.
Being aware that my views had been included in the AM version broadcast over Radio National, I went to that website and its link to AM only to discover that neither the audio nor the transcript included my comments, even though they had been broadcast. I therefore followed up with Lucchinelli to see if there was a rational explanation for this clearly odd behaviour – the deletion of part of a story and its expunging from the record of what had been broadcast. Lucchinelli was not able to say why my comments were deleted. The possible reason proposed, of time constraint, is implausible given that the earlier Radio National, starting 10 minutes after the hour at 7:10am, was shorter than the later Local Radio edition starting at 8:00am but the earlier edition was able to include my comments!
I will follow up with ABC management for an audio feed or transcript of my comments as actually broadcast in order to respond to my critics.
The saga does, however, expose weaknesses in ABC policy/management. If there are regularly differences between the versions of AM broadcast on Radio National and on Local Radio then there clearly is no authentic record of what is actually broadcast on Radio National, which is a serious shortcoming. On the other hand, if changes are rare, then an explanation of the reasons for deletion of my comments on this occasion are called for.
William Kininmonth
From: William Kininmonth [mailto:w.kininmonth@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, 23 January 2009 1:57 PM
To: ‘Nick Lucchinelli’
Subject: RE: Antarctic warming
Dear Nick,
Thank you for the explanation, to the extent that you were able to provide a response about the information I was seeking. Of course I would be pleased to assist with input to future similar news stories.
It is unfortunate that neither the transcript nor the audio feed of the Radio National program were posted on the Radio National website. I have received mildly abusive comments about my contribution to the Radio National broadcast and would like to identify which parts of our interview were broadcast and the context of editing, if any, that might have been grounds for such reaction. Abuse from the global warming alarmists is not unusual and reference to factual material is the best defence. Not having access to the specific broadcast material does put me at a disadvantage.
I will follow up with ABC management to get a copy of the broadcast audio if a transcript is not available.
Sincerely,
William Kininmonth
From: Nick Lucchinelli [mailto:Lucchinelli.Nick@abc.net.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 January 2009 12:28 PM
To: William Kininmonth
Subject: RE: Antarctic warming
Dear William,
Thanks for your email and thanks again for helping with the story by providing your input.
You are right that our interview was broadcast on the Radio National bulletin of AM, but not the later local radio edition.
I am not the show’s executive producer and don’t set the run down, but I would presume, as you have, that the interview was cut in the second edition because of time constraints.
Obviously the inauguration of Barack Obama, the continuing violence in Gaza and the news of large job cuts across the Australian economy make it difficult for other stories to gain air time at the moment.
Unfortunately, the transcript of the interview will not be posted online because we only transcribe the main local radio edition of AM.
Thanks again for your help, I’d like to be able to contact you for similar input to stories in future.
Kind regards
Nick Lucchinelli
From: William Kininmonth [mailto:w.kininmonth@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 January 2009 6:19 PM
To: Nick Lucchinelli
Subject: RE: Antarctic warming
Dear Nick,
I am hoping you can shed light on what happened with the Antarctica story on this morning’s AM program. I listened on 774 Melbourne and the interview we had yesterday was not included in the broadcast of AM at 8:00am. I presumed that time constraints on the program precluded my comments being included, notwithstanding that I provided an alternative view to those presented by Professors Steig and Brook. I was surprised to learn that comments by me had been included in the version of AM broadcast on Radio National at an earlier time. I was even more surprised to go to the Radio National web site and find that my broadcast comments were not included in the transcript of the program broadcast by Radio National.
Could you please explain why my broadcast comments are not included in the Radio National transcript and direct me to where my broadcast comments are available.
Sincerely,
William Kininmonth
From: Nick Lucchinelli [mailto:Lucchinelli.Nick@abc.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 January 2009 10:19 AM
To: w.kininmonth@bigpond.com
Subject: Antarctic warming
Dear Bill,
Good chatting to you just now. Once you have a chance to digest the following summary, we’ll do a short interview.
Kind regards,
Nick Lucchinelli
Climate change: Warming across Antarctica (pp 459-462) *PRESS BRIEFING*
Scientists address one of the hottest questions in climate research in Nature this week, showing that overall, the Antarctic continent has warmed over the past 50 years. Until now, incomplete records led researchers to believe that the continent’s entire interior may be cooling whilst the peninsula warms.
The warming of the Antarctic has been uncertain owing to the lack of continuous temperature records across the whole continent. Eric Steig and colleagues use existing weather station records combined with recent satellite measurements and statistical models to provide a fuller picture of the continent’s temperature from 1957 to 2006. The team shows that temperatures have risen by approximately half a degree in this period, with the greatest warming occurring in winter and spring, despite the autumn cooling in East Antarctica. The warming of the peninsula and West Antarctica is related to changes in atmospheric circulation and declines in sea ice in the pacific sector of the Southern polar ocean.
Accurately forecasting Antarctic temperatures will need an improved description of the interaction between sea ice and changes in the atmosphere.
*************************************
Notes
1. Andrew Bolt, “100 metres” Williams demands nuance, December 05, 2008 http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/100_metres_williams_demands_nuance/P40/
2. Gerard Henderson, Climate is the new communism and could split the ALP, July 2, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23954848-20261,00.html
“Last weekend he [Robyn Williams] was at it again, telling ABC presenter Adam Shand that the views of meteorologist William Kininmonth “haven’t stood the test”. The implication was that he did not deserve a hearing on Radio National or anywhere else. On his ABC Ockham’s Razor program, Williams has played down the views of political scientist Doug Aitkin and British economist Nigel Lawson on the basis that they are not “science trained”. This overlooks the fact that neither Ross Garnaut nor Nicholas Stern in Britain are science trained. It also overlooks that Williams’s own undergraduate science training is in biology, which is quite different from climatology. Australians do not need to be protected from the near consensus scientific view on climate change or from the small number of scientists who disagree with their colleagues.”
3. Jennifer Marohasy, Modellers remove evidence of cooling, January 23, 2009
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/modellers-remove-evidence-of-cooling-and-editor-removes-comment-by-climate-sceptic/
The photograph of William Kininmonth was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in Canberra in September 2008.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer,
Are you trying to imply by this post that Robyn Williams controlled the editing of the AM piece?????!?
How do you explain the mangling of Barry Brooke’s contribution to the same item?
Is Robyn Williams as I write this sitting at his desk at the AAAABBBBCCCC stroking a white cat on his knee and laughing manically into the camera?
She is describing a corrupted corporate culture. Williams is the informal Grande Pooh Bah of ABC science.
Not quite Jeremy ….. I think the words and concepts you are looking for is, Elitist, Elitism, Cronyism, Incestuous networking, Closed shop, Old boys club, etc.
You don’t need to be a stereotype or caricature with a cat to be a rogue. ; )
From my experience of the Mikado Grande Pooh Bah describes him perfectly.
Jeremy C,
Ernst Blofeld is an excellent metaphor for Roby Williams, but expunging Kinninmonth’s comments from the records is pure Lysenkoism – a philosophy that Williams would be extremely sympathetic to.
So explain to me the mangling of Barry brook’s contribution in the same piece.
Have you listened to Bill Kininmonth’s contribution? His contribution wasn’t simple and direct and so that would’ve made it hard for the journalist to fit it into the piece. Thats not a criticism of Bill Kininmonth as lots of people make the same mistake if they a) don’t have have the experience of doing this sort of thing everyday at short notice and b) the journalism could’ve helped him out more but perhaps was waiting to see where he was going with his answer.
Trying to link this in with Robyn Williams is pretty desperate if an ordinary person like me can see straight through it.
So…….. Barry Brook’s mangling in the same piece – any suggestions as to what the conspiracy was there? Answers as 10 second Vox Pops please
Well, what would you expect from Williams. His father was a communist so the rotten apple wouldn’t fall to far from the tree. Williams has been at this job for too long. It’s about time the ABC got rid of him and let others have a go.
Ms Marohasy,
May I respectfully ask whatever did you expect from your ABC? The bias of Robyn Williams and the science show has a long and discreditable history. The simple fact of the matter is that if you do not subscribe to the pernicious views of Al Gore, then your comments are not welcome on the national broadcaster. Dissent is stifled and contrarian views rejected out of hand. I am now an older man but was working in meteorology in my youth in a scientific capacity. The very first thing that we learned from meteorologists of international reputation (and common sense) was that climate is dynamic, never a static system. There are some extremely detailed scientific explanations of various factors that explain climate change, involving ocean currents, sunspot levels, and so on.
However, the fact remains that our planet is an oblate spheroid, which wobbles on its axis and its orbit around the sun is also subject to variation. When I was working in meteorology, the great fear was a new Ice Age and in Europe in the early 1960s, all the empirical evidence pointed to such an event. As recently as last week, I read an article in the English edition of Pravda of all things: “Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.” (11 January 2009)
However, the views of those in the astronomical societies are routinely debunked by Al Gore’s acolytes. At least half of the problem with climate modeling is that it is based on computer input and we’ll know that garbage in equals garbage out ( GiGo) and this is been proven by mistakes in global warming modeling. The whole damn thing has turned into an industry and a religion. I personally know of scientists of the highest integrity, international repute and scientific accomplishment who have been blackballed for dissenting from the rabid majority who have latched on to the nonsense spouted by former US Vice President, who has had heavy family involvement with the oil industry. The tragedy is that these gifted men and women can’t get research funding.
Those who dissent are stigmatized and equated with Holocaust deniers. I don’t like being lumped in the same category as David Irving and his ilk. It so happens that I believe that we are stewards off this planet and have a debt to those who preceded us and we in turn should ensure that our children and their children do their best to cut back on pollution. That is exactly where I take my leave of the conservationists who tend to be dogmatic; incapable of accepting contrary scientific data and find ingenuity and invention, and therefore progress, to be inimical to their goals and objectives. They would have us live in mud huts and knit our own yogurt!
When I consider my present impoverished state, I would like my 8 cents per day returned for the last 25 years, with compound interest.
Jeremy C: “So explain to me the mangling of Barry brook’s contribution in the same piece. ”
To whom is this addressed?
OK. Robyn probably is biased. He’s also cocked a few things up. Who hasn’t.
But in his own mind I betcha he thinks he’s totally correct. It’s the way the debate is being conducted by the sceptics. All invites polarisation and poor form. Suspect he regards the sceptics as the evil empire.
But fair’s fair – Duffy always has a totally balanced viewpoint too? Come on ….
I suggest we still await the “fair” climate change debate or “fair documentary”.
Note McIntyre’s site itself is heavily down on use of the term “fraud” and mindless political rants.
But yes – overall quality of the debate needs improvement? Are we are helping or just polarising it further?
Luke – it’s not for Robyn Williams to think he’s correct, he’s a damn journalist who is supposed to sus out all sides of any story. Once he shows the considerable bias he has shown over the past few years it’s time to step down and hand over to the new blood.
What do you mean Williams is probably biased.
There can be no doubt about it, he and the ABC is most certainly biased in their presentation of GW material.
But in any case, there is no real difference between Williams being biased, and that ning nong from the BOM trying to taking a slice out of Bob Carter by making a connection between Tech Central Station( for whom it is claimed Carter had written something other), and the receipt of some $95k by Tech Central from Big Oil. Not a bad long bow that one.
Now even if it were true, it pales into insignificance when put alongside the money that Gore had made ($200m at last count), when he Gore has the most fullsome support from this same Government funded alarmist brigade.
Even the tax payer funds poured into the sheltered workshops of the ABC, BOM and CMAR is a pittance when put along side the funds Tech Central, may or may not have recieved,from big oil.
The hypocrisy of some of these people,and their organisations is just stunning— they are certainly good at that.
Pity the same cannot be said about the jobs they are being paid to do.
The quality of the debate definitely needs an improvement, but that isnt going to happen when those being extensively funded out of the public purse, are so demonstrably biased and incompetent.
I’m not sure how Williams got into this post. There’s no evidence above that suggests he had anything to do with the removal of Bill’s comments. However, I can’t help pointing out that even if all the ice in the world melted it wouldn’t give a sea rise of 100 m – according to the IPCC it would be 68 m. I think that is the real killer point on Williams and sea levels – a 50 percent level of exaggeration.
On the substantive issues, I don’t think you can necessarily say local radio censored Kininmonth. It may have been a space issue there. But that doesn’t wash with respect to a podcast of the original piece. I’ve always assumed that podcasts are a full record of what was broadcast.
There’s some more moves afoot to try to convince journalists that they shouldn’t report any criticism of the IPCC “consensus”. This document from Harvard’s John F Kennedy School of Government by Eric Pooley pushes the “balance as bias” line and suggests that journalists should act as referees rather than scribes. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_papers/d49_pooley.pdf.
And it seems that the BBC has been splicing Obama’s oratory to make it seem like he was making an even stronger point about global warming than he had http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=147.
because we’ll jump at any opportunity to express our frustration at his handling of the important position of senior science reporter for our ABC. Simple as that.
“it’s not for Robyn Williams to think he’s correct, he’s a damn journalist who is supposed to sus out all sides of any story. ” – yep well tell Duffy too – where’s the post on that?
Once you cry “bias” – you have to be cleaner than clean !
Of course why should sceptics think they should get equal time. Would you give flat-earthers equal time? And that would be a value judgement? (dons hard hat)
The hard hat doesn’t suit you Lukey, may I suggest a Beret, it’s so left bank and 8th grade piano and all that jazz.
woops – sorry – jazz is too hard for the 8th graders isn’t it. It means not reading the script.
When are we going to put this sea level rise thing to bed I see it keeps rearing its ugly head in one form or another and it quite ridiculous the following is a calculation.
One of the many gross errors in Al Gore’s presentation is as follows. The assertion that the sea levels will rise 20 ft. by the end of the century due to Arctic melting. Everyone should know that only continental ice melting can increase sea levels (sea ice is floating thus has no effect when it melts) which means Greenland and sundry glaciers in this example.
Area of the world’s oceans 357 million sq Km, area of Greenland 2.17 million Sq Km. For a sea level rise of 6 meters, depth of ice including 10% shrinkage converting to water is 989 meters over the entire surface of Greenland. Now it takes 3.362 x 10^8 Joules to melt 1 m3 of ice, to melt 989 m3 of ice takes 3.325 x 10^11 Joules. There are 32.85 x 10^8 seconds in 100 years thus it would take an average of 101.2 Joules/m2sec (Watts/m2) for 100 years to melt the ice covering Greenland. Considering the total energy from the sun absorbed by the entire globe’s surface averages 168 Watts/m2 and Greenland is far north so it has a well below average heat absorption effect you begin to see how ridiculous this claim is particularly when one considers the reflective power of snow.
Even if the net energy absorbed was 1 Watt/m2 it would take 10 000 years to melt this quantity of ice. When considering the net energy absorbed, the average energy arriving at the surface would be in the region of 50 Watts/m2 with 90% reflection for snow this leaves 5 Watts/m2 actual absorption, from which we must deduct the surface radiation which even at temperatures below freezing is still considerable therefore even 1 Watts/m2 is being generous. By calculation using Stefan’s law a surface at minus 50 deg C and an emissivity of 0.1 radiates 14 W/m2
Luke….. I don’t see your point with Duffy. His show is called Counterpoint…. Counterpoint is an opinion show…. He plucks up a counter view to a topic…. Which by it’s very nature it’s biased, because it’s deliberately taking a “counterpoint” View…. Understand?
Whereas Robyn “one hundred meters” Williams is the host of science show…. To me a host of a science show should probably be a scientist, but if not, they should simply present science and scientists while keeping his views to himself.
Barry, Very nice. I say very nice job!
Luke, any comment?
Nobody has mentioned that Robyn Williams can be seen singing in the chorus of one of the recordings made in the 70’s of Monty Python’s Lumberjack song.
Luke:
“But yes – overall quality of the debate needs improvement? Are we are helping or just polarising it further?”
Who are you, and what have you done with Luke?
Counterpoint – hah – you mean – Denialist Point !
You want the Science Show to indulge any dubious science fantasy?
ah yes CoRev – well that’s why they call you pseudo-sceptics instead of sceptics. Put together sophistic bogus arguments. Moore’s entire thesis is crap. The ice sheets don’t melt – they disintegrate by some melt undermining the structures. Now there’s been lots of science on this with direction observation and measurement. Moore has confined his analysis to Greenland – well pluck ma cherry !!!! No carbon black on the snow considered. No changes in coastal albedo and SST due to ice breakup. i.e. what a complete load of utter trivial undergraduate bolsh.
And 20 feet – is the science saying 20 feet? – NO – well Gore isn’t the IPCC is he? – he didn’t say when – but there’s the implication of “soon” – sigh ! Demerit points for Gore.
Barry,
That was a very interesting set of calculations. I just wanted to ask some questions. Can you really make use of a global average figure of 168 watts/m2 for insolation on a horizontal surface as I haven’t seen that before (that could just be due to my ignorance), is it direct and does it include diffuse, etc?. I have just checked with the NASA Surface meteorology and Solar Energy website and chose a fairly southerly part of Greenland with Latitude of 71.5 and Longitude of -38 and its satellite derived data gave me over 600 watts/m2 across May, June and July at 3 pm local (averaged across a 22 year period) but then there is zilch for Nov thru Feb.
Apart from insolation what is the effect of changes in temperature at the surface of the ice; in still conditions and windy conditions and can it be quantified (i.e. is sunlight the only factor in melting ice)? Finally, I thought water expanded very slightly when it warmed.
Jeremy
One has to do a lot of approximating since the actual calculations can get very compliated. A few numbers for you.
The average radiation arriving at right angles to the sun in space i.e. TOA is 1366 W/m2
at 71.5 deg you must multiply by Cos71.5 to get the w/m2 on that plane at the equinox and at noon. i.e. 433 W/m2 at the solstice noons we get 190 and 683 W/m2 now the average cloud cover is 65% so multiply the above numbers by 0.35 to get the radiation arriving at the surface then 90% gets reflected off the snow so multiply bt 0.1 for the absorbed. Now you have the sinusoidal variation with time of day and day of the year. The 600 W/m2 at TOA at 3 pm at the summer solstice looks about right but the average 24 hrs per day 365 days a year is a lot more complicated. the 168 figure is global and takes in a lot of the above variations. Yes there are a lot of other effects for example radiative forcing a small portion of which is the greenhouse gas effect ( including water vapour) which raises the average temperature of the world by 33 deg C. Conduction (wind) convection, sublimation and evaporation are also effects. Water actually contracts to 4 deg C then expands, ice contracts when it melts.
“Even if the net energy absorbed was 1 Watt/m2 it would take 10 000 years to melt this quantity of ice. When considering the net energy absorbed, the average energy arriving at the surface would be in the region of 50 Watts/m2 with 90% reflection for snow this leaves 5 Watts/m2 actual absorption, from which we must deduct the surface radiation which even at temperatures below freezing is still considerable therefore even 1 Watts/m2 is being generous. By calculation using Stefan’s law a surface at minus 50 deg C and an emissivity of 0.1 radiates 14 W/m2”
As we are seeing, whole ice shelves are breaking off into the sea. That’s what makes the predictions so difficult. Would you like to guess at the worst case scenario for the risk assessment?
I normally do not post web refs because I doubt many people follow them but here is a picture – http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hydrosphere/latest/avhrr_sst/avhrr_ssta.html – and as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. You can see the warm upwelling around the peninsular you are referring to and the warm upwellings in the Arctic which are causing the ice errosion. The ice shelve break off is not unprecedented U.S. Navey records going back 150 years document similar events approximately every 50 years it is a combination of warm upwellings and winds which cause the break up. Unfortunately as with so many of these events they are very unpredictable so can not be forecast.
Jeremy I just did a quick and dirty calc. at the equinox the peak is 433 and the intensity varies sinusoidally so the average over that 24 hr period is 153 W/m2, using the 0.35 and 0.1 factors the absorbed radiation from the direct sunlight is 5.36 W/m2
SJT: “As we are seeing, whole ice shelves are breaking off into the sea.”
This is because there is more ice to the rear in the source areas – it’s called glacial calving and it’s a effect of an enormous ice making machine at the pole. Melting actually is noticed by ice recession towards its provenance – which is not what we observe, by the way.
If Antarctica were really “melting” we would not be seeing ANY ice bergs or shlef breakups.
The lack of basic science among the global warmers is quite worriesome but it doesn’t matter – Lysenkoism is untroubled with such fundamentals.
Barry: “warm upwelling” – this suggests the warmer waters at depth might be warmed by heat transfer from the ocean floor, so its the thermal fluctuation of the ocean floor per-se that might be a crucial factor in all this.
Alas not much, if any, data on sea floor temperatures.
Makes the GCM’s a little more than incomplete.
Very good Barry; I especially like the phrase “ice contracts when it melts”. Argue with that luke!
The term warm upwelling is of course relative but even the IPCC document the end of the last ice age to be caused by the oceans overturning and warming up the atmosphere then 800 years later the CO2 started to increase. So throughout time warming came first then CO2 came second its the old chicken and egg thing which is why correlation can never prove causation. It is only in the last 25 years that the IPCC decided to rewrite history. If you look at the 2 very warm patches in the Arctic there is quite a big temperature anomoly and during the northern summer the Arctic Ocean has a higher than normal temperature. You may also like to look up the Gakkel Ridge which runs under the north pole for 1800 km and is a very active volcanic formation, this may be causing the warm Arctic ocean.
With regard to the Antarctic melt down this would take a least 25 000 years at 1 W/m2 and since the inter glacial period is only about 20 000 years and we are already 12 000 years into it I do not think we have much to worry about.
It is NOT map of a warm upwelling – it’s a map of sea surface temperature ! sheesh
Gakkel ridge – cackle – do you guys even think for 30 seconds – it’ located where the ice isn’t melting ! Look at the pattern of melt. LOLZ !
and enjoy some more back o’ the envelope calcs
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/volcanos-in-gakkel-ridge-not-responsible-melting-the-arctic-ice/
SJT: “As we are seeing, whole ice shelves are breaking off into the sea.”
The ice is already ON the sea – that’s why it’s called an Ice Shelf!
Barry,
I think water does get less dense as it heats up, thermosyphoning makes use of this effect. Its a small effect and so not generally noticed as water expanding upon freezing is a much larger effect. However I can’t seem to find anything that sets this out so agan it could be ignorance on my part.
Stop press – bias alert. The Institute of Public Affairs seems to have a consistent approach to risk management. Their recent cartel report says let them be – some only last a few years and some dont do much damage. So no need for government intervention. As to ABC bias, if you thought news was about what is new then the sceptics on climate change are mostly just saying same ol, same ol. Which way is the bias if Jennifer M was on Counterpoint 8 times in a recent 12 month period as has been reported.
Luke,
I told you it was volcanoes! As the late Marty Feldman (spelling?) might have put it, the sea shall boil, and great monsters appear … har! har!
Back to topic. We have recently had some fierce bushfires in Western Australia, clearly due to a lack of fuel reduction burning. A few years ago, a Dr David Horton wrote a book on bushfire which claimed, if I understand it correctly (difficult), that Aborigines did not use fire much.
This was seized upon as gospel by those opposed to fuel reduction burning. The book was given a rave review by our old friend Robyn Williams, endorsing the author’s view that it was comparable to Martin Luther’s proclamation of the Protestant faith.
If Robyn’s scientific and historical insight on climate is the same as his insight on bushfire, then the ABC is in deep trouble.
P.S. You have been impressively mature (even if consistently wrong) on this thread so far. Don’t spoil it by the usual outburst of infantile abuse about Dirty Brown Gravy etc. Remember, we true Greens must stick together to save the planet.
Another nail in the Alarmists coffin;
From Marc Morano.
“Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”
SJT: “As we are seeing, whole ice shelves are breaking off into the sea.”
If anyone has seen the ice calving in Al Gore’s InCONvenient Truth, it is good to remember that this was computer generated footage for a disaster movie revealed as fake in April 08 by American ABC TV. Footage can be seen here:
http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2009/01/gore-fraud-fake-footage-in-inconvenient.html
Re “However, the views [of natural cycles] of those in the astronomical societies are routinely debunked by Al Gore’s acolytes. At least half of the problem with climate modeling is that it is based on computer input.
This is absolute nonsense, not only perverse, but contrary to any of the science included in the latest climate modelling. The only reason we got this far with the science of global warming is that the pre IPCC data models (commonly and inappropriately called computer models by the less well informed – you use a computer simulation every time you access a word processor but it not much use if there aren’t any data inputs) could not and still cannot model the continuous rising trend in global temperatures in the last 130 or so years nor the association with record CO2 concentrations; they didn’t work . Just ask Bob Carter or some other of his ACSC(including Mr Kininmonth) or Heartland fraternity, they still can’t do it fom their paleoclimate or gelogical models. This is why the science turned to exploring the deficiences in the old cyclical models, tree rings, ice cores etc are all PROXIES (viz extrapolated by models ) for data. Now we have empirical measures (with a far greater degree of accuracy), things like thermometers, anemometers, spectrometers based on land, in the sea, on satellites; we can even do it from the moon and Mars. But you thoroughly believe in these proxies but refute all the latest science. The question then begs itself: “why is it so” as one of my summer science school profs used to say.
For some reason, this line of Williams’ is always left out in any discussion of his apparent ‘100m sea level rise is possible’ remark:
Robin Williams: “Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.”
which precedes:
“Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1867444.htm#transcript
Surely it is obvious that the ‘nuance’ that Williams’ has referred to is that when he said 100m he was talking about the surge (ie if sea level rises by 1m, you lose many more metres of beach, maybe 100m on a flat beach?).
In the interview, Andrew obviously didn’t make the distinction, but Williams did.
Perhaps it is still alarmism to be even talking about a 100m surge, i’m not trying to argue that. But to just ignore that he said this and assume he was talking about a 100m sea level rise (compared to the <1m IPCC predictions) is just being a willfully ignorant point scorer.
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’
((http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320))
((http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/#more-5352))
Icecap covers it also.
Luke, M’boy, kettle meet pot. You claimed I/Barry/Sceptics do this: “Put together sophistic bogus arguments.” And then just two sentences later go into your own version of bogus arguments: ” The ice sheets don’t melt – they disintegrate by some melt undermining the structures. … – well pluck ma cherry !!!! No carbon black on the snow considered. No changes in coastal albedo and SST due to ice breakup.”
Refute his math or stop the carping. Diversion after diversion, but little REAL point by point discussion. Oh, and the name calling. I can’t forget the name calling. Ever wonder why folks here wonder if you’re a GURL or maybe just an immature teen?
C’mon now lad. Get with the real discussion. Or is it all about the attention?
Luke if the sea surface temperature anomoly does not identify the areas of warm and cold upwelling what the hell does.
I hope you check your underpants every time you pass wind in case you just blew your brains out.
You really are the most pathetic idiot that posts on this blog.
Jeremy I think you went to the same school of reading comprehension that Luke did sorry to get a little testy but what I said was that when ice melts the volume decreases thats why icebergs float the volume continues to decrease until it reaches 4 deg C then it expands as normal. So the water at the bottom of the ocean is generally at 4 deg C that is not a hard and fast rule because salinity also effects density.
Barry Moore,
?????????
Doens’t ice float because it has a lower density than the water- hence when it gets to 4 deg. Celsius it’s volume expands, everything else being equal. If it contracts (volume is reduced) it’s density increases and thus more dense ice must sink.
Louis
I must be expressing myself badly. I will try again . When the ice melts i.e. it becomes water at 0 deg C the volume decreases ( ice to water) for the same weight therefore the density inreases ( water density is greater than ice density at 0 deg C) the density continues to increase i.e. volume decreases until 4 deg C then the water starts to expand as it heats up i.e. density decreases just like everything else.
The ABC is tax payer funded. Therefore, they have a mandate to present all news, science or otherwise, without favourism towards their own peculiar sub-cultural biases. As long as the ABC accepts public funding their charter is to be scrupulously objective.
If the ABC should like to become a private corporation, then it is welcome to practice journalism however their shareholders wish, but while the ABC is the national broadcaster it must objectively and fairly for for ALL Australians.
Yet, the ABC has arrogantly failed to follow even basic standards of ethical journalism in their reporting of the AGW debate. As, Ian pointed out, the culture is so deeply incestuous they imagine that the Australian people are too dimwitted to notice their national broadcaster has a conspicuous agenda.
I dare anyone here to claim that the ABC has presented both side of the climate debate with anything resembling accuracy or fairness. In fact, I routinely encounter otherwise educated people, who imagine they are properly informed by the ABC, completely unaware that AGW isn’t a forgone fact of nature akin to gravity.
Debate? What debate? That’s the message our national broadcaster has consistently delivered to our the Australian public…
The only reason to have a national, tax-payer funded, news organization is to insure the public is well-inform and thus can participate competently in our democracy.
If the ABC subverts its obligation to objectively present current affairs into agitation for its favored prejudices then not only is tax payer money wasted and the public left ignorant, the ABC is in violation of its license with the Australian people. Perhaps an inquiry should be convened and better oversight regulation of the ABC proposed.
Steve
“Surely it is obvious that the ‘nuance’ that Williams’ has referred to is that when he said 100m he was talking about the surge (ie if sea level rises by 1m, you lose many more metres of beach, maybe 100m on a flat beach?).”
———————————————–
I don’t think even you believe this spin, but lets say you do, if we have a piece of low lying land stretching 20 miles inland only 30 cm above sea level, and we have a rise of sea level of 35 cm, than according to you the sea had risen 20 miles?
We are clearly talking about sea “LEVEL” not land coverage, both Andrew Bolt and Mr Williams knew that perfectly well.
Your attempt at explaining “nuance” is just laughable
Of course not marcus. If you want to nail down the meanings, then, in your fictitious example, i would say that sea level rose by 35cm, but perhaps 20 miles of land might be inundated, and it seems most sensible to me to say 35cm when talking about sea level rise.
But Williams and Bolt didn’t nail down the meanings, they were sparring, and Williams obviously introduced the second meaning.
What do you think Williams meant when he preceded his comments on Andrew Bolt’s question re 100m with:
“Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.”
Was that just a superfluous comment with no meaning? Wanna just pretend he didn’t say it?
“Was that just a superfluous comment with no meaning?”
Yes Steve, it was; here is another example of William’s vast intellect;
http://newmatilda.com/node/1585?ArticleID=1585&HomepageID=142
He is a classic case of secretary syndrone; with hubris in inverse proportion to ability all wrapped up in a Uriah Heep unctousness; anyone who lists Monbiot as both a friend and an authoritative source about anything could only work for the ABC.
An SST map doesn’t necessarily indicate an upwelling – the sub-surface may be different – is El Nino an “upwelling” Lordy me you lot are thick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling
As for CoRev – don’t be sophistic. Re-read what I wrote – a linear melt is not the issue. So his calculations are an utter irrelevance. There’s a whole literature on ice sheet dynamics. Wonder what this is a picture of?
http://www.gnomesoflasallestreet.com/icemelt.jpg Down the gurgler !
Steve
Forget it!
You are talking rubbish. I believe both man are intelligent enough to know what they were talking about.
If you really want to “nuance” then maybe Mr Williams meant a 100 rise of sea level WHEN and including a surge, but still a lot of rise, unless he meant a 1 m rise and a 99 m surge.
You didn’t answer the question marcus, what do you reckon williams meant with that line?
luke; El Nino and the SOI are closely correlated; the -ve SOI which heralds the El Nino is a result of an increase of SST in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean; upwelling variation is responsible for SST variation in this region as has been shown by Meyers Wijffels and Pigot, Guilderson and Schrag and McPhaden and Zhang; the 1976 upwelling variation probably caused the next 30 years warming and El Nino dominance. Upwelling resumed post 1998 as McPhaden and Zhang show; interesting that there was only one small -ve SOI in May for all of 2008; I recall you assert that the SOI pattern has changed significantly in the latter 1/2 of the 20thC from what it was at the beginning; the next few monthly results for SOI show be instructive.
Barry Moore
“Louis : I must be expressing myself badly”
Phew, had me worried for a second.
Bitter experience here demands precision in posting comments – though I am a bit puzzled that the useful idiots here didn’t pick up on it. Must mean I was in one of my more less lucid moments.
Too much Alzheimer’s red, perchance? Nooooo, 🙂
Cohers – is that so? I never knew all that. zzzzzz But are warm SSTs “upwellings” …. is the surface a total indication of what lies beneath?
“is the surface a total indication of what lies beneath?” With a gravatar like that one can only hope not. In respect of warm SSTs what else could produce them but upwelling cessation; in turn the SSTs cause the warm atmospheric temperatures as Compo and Sardeshmukh and White and Cayon have shown and they do so quickly as Barry’s lag graph shows;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/the-physics-of-global-warming-is-complicated-barry-moore/#comments
Steve January 28th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
“You didn’t answer the question marcus, what do you reckon williams meant with that line?”
Why should I bother guessing what he had in mind?
But I think I did.
If I were to guess and be charitable to him I would say, he included any surge into the rise of sea level.
Shall we leave it there? I have very little time for the man, as it is.
Ken Day: “is the surface a total indication of what lies beneath?”
Otherwise known as unrepresentative sampling. AKA biassed sampling, or cherry picking.
Come on Cohenite – look up how the El Nino warm water pool behaves and evolves – it’s much more than a local change in the cold upwelling off Peru. You have winds, planetary waves, shoaling, thermoclines, subsurface structure.
I’m looking for this mysterious “warm upwelling”. And you tell me – every SST change is a result of an upwelling underneath it?
Regarding the comment by Taluka Byvalnian 28 January 2009, 10:53am, and to use Jennifer’s phrasing, “just filing this here…”
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php
Robyn Williams is a blind, extreme green storm-trooper, not a “scientist” as his comrades-in-propaganda like to position him.
Williams finds damning evidence in my lawn-mower, but acts like a blind man, when someone points out the Sun.
Does anyone know the story with “scienceblogs”? They appear to be all Gramscian anti-science lunatics like Bernhard. And when an anti-science leftist lunatic (eg Lambert, Connelly, Coby Beck, Some dumbass called Blake) poses as a scientist for long enough it appears that scienceblogs comes knocking and asks them to join with the coterie.
fascinating and communicative, but would be suffering with something more on this topic?