a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment
(14) (1) (2) (6) (116) (10) (3) (1) (15) (2) (1970) (1) (2) (5) (7) (4) (9) (104) (9) (483) (1) (4) (15) (3) (1) (8) (1) (1)Methane Leak
Scientists have discovered the Arctic ocean seabed is leaking huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. The research published in the journal Science shows the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic shelf, which was thought to be a barrier sealing methane, is perforated. Read more here. (1)
NYT: Pachauri Faces Credibility Siege
The New York Times is reporting that: Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. More here. (1)
Phil Jones Guilty, But
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. B ut… Read more here. (0)
Banks Leave Carbon Market
Banks and investors are pulling out of the carbon market after the failure to make progress at Copenhagen on reaching new emissions targets after 2012. Read more here. (0)
UK Met Office Can't Forecast Weather
The UK Met Office is debating what to do with its long-term and seasonal forecasting after criticism for failing to predict extreme weather. It was predicted that this winter would be warmer than average – yet it has been unusually cold. Read more here. (2)
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.
Posted by Bob Carter, June 30th, 2009 - under Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Assessment of Minister Wong’s “Written Reply to Senator Fielding’s Three Questions on Climate Change” by Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and William Kininmonth. Read all here.
“In essence, to now acknowledge that there is significant internal variability to the climate system is to destroy the plausibility of anthropogenic global warming alarmism.”
Blatant lie. Natural variability has always been studied and ‘acknowledged’.
“So even if the models do simulate some variability in global temperatures, they cannot be doing it for the correct reason, and any short-term variability that they happen to predict “right” must be either by chance or for the wrong reasons. And that individual GCMs may project periods of cooling as long as 10 years has no necessary bearing on the cause of the current cooling trend.”
Another blatant lie. The models have never claimed to predict short term variability, but do exhibit it. There has been no ‘ten year cooling’, only ten year cherry picking.
So, let me see if I understand your position, SJT: you are 90% sure that all the warming from 1979 to 1998 was due to increases in CO2 but the cooling from 1998 to the present has nothing to do with CO2 and is all due to natural variability. Have I got that right?
That seems to be a new proposition.
The warming to 1998 includes the 1998 El Nino, so, no, I don’t think all the warming was due to CO2. To take the years between a spike up and a spike down is cherry picking at it’s worst. Any reasonable person looking at the temperature record will be able to see the overall upward trend.
So, when you look at the temperature record, you don’t see a long-term 60 year cycle?
“So, when you look at the temperature record, you don’t see a long-term 60 year cycle?”
No. Various natural and anthropogenic forcings affect the climate. No one has identified any physical basis for a 60 year cycle.
It’s a wonder these faux sceptic guys can sleep nights. One can only hope for a Royal Commission where CSIRO and BoM are let off the leash.
Rick you really do have to be joking. What you see is an integration of all forcings – e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
If you analyse the two longest ocean temperature data sets using a PC analysis – you get an upwards centennial signal, then the PDO fingerprint and then the AMO. You don’t get anything else !
One can only hope for a Royal Commission where CSIRO and BoM are let off the leash.
what – you mean they can actually speak the truth without having to adhere to the “consensus”?
yes that would be interesting.
you should listen to what Ian Plimer has to say about CSIRO and BoM here Luke
http://tinyurl.com/l74fo7
janama,
Thanks, that was excellent. SJT? Luke?
Load of rubbish. He spends a tedious amount of time talking around the point, and never directly discussing it. I’d like to see him try to publish that as a paper. He knows they would never accept such an argument. Climate changes continually on a geolgical scale, it ALWAYS changes for a reason. Analysis has found that CO2 is the current reason for warming. We are not ‘twiddling’ dials, the effect is entirely an unintended consequence. He should be ashamed of himself for spending so much effort on misrepresenting the science, while not comitting himself to the scientific method himself.
“Blatant lie. Natural variability has always been studied and ‘acknowledged’.”
SJT,
Sorry, it’s you that is the blatant liar. Mann’s “hockey stick” destroyed any acceptance of true variability the IPCC once had on historical data and that was done with deliberate intent to distort the record so ACO2 could be blamed.
Slowly, thanks to a few people like Plimer, the public are waking up to the GGWS.
Another [the best?] reason for natural variability…….
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/new-paper-evidence-for-solar-forcing-in-variability-of-temperatures-and-pressures-in-europe/
“SJT,
Sorry, it’s you that is the blatant liar. Mann’s “hockey stick” destroyed any acceptance of true variability the IPCC once had on historical data and that was done with deliberate intent to distort the record so ACO2 could be blamed.
Slowly, thanks to a few people like Plimer, the public are waking up to the GGWS.”
Even the “Skeptic” Loehle has come up with a similar record to the ‘hockey stick’. The MWP was only 0.3 warmer, the projection is 3C or more. The hockey stick is not the case for AGW anyway, it is only a part of it. The IPCC knows that no one piece of evidence stands by itself, hence the broad range of evidence presented.
Plimer just stands there, waves his hands so much he is danger of taking off, and presents no scientific papers on the subject. As a scientist, he knows how science works.
“The MWP was only 0.3 warmer, the projection is 3C or more. The hockey stick is not the case for AGW”
Do you reckon it will only take another 0.3 degrees to melt that permafrost in the Hvalsey graveyard?
And who said to Deming “we’ve got to get rid of the MWP if we want to prove AGW”?
““we’ve got to get rid of the MWP if we want to prove AGW”?”
That statement makes no sense. The MWP does not disprove AGW. Loehle thinks it was only slightly warmer, anyway. The projected rise is much larger than 0.3C.
“The MWP does not disprove AGW.”
The MWP was warmer than today on all sorts of evidence. And no ACO2.
This is plain and simple natural variability and it has happened several times during this interglacial to even greater degrees as Plimer points out so well.
These warm periods destroy the credibility and probability of any AGW.
“The MWP was warmer than today on all sorts of evidence. And no ACO2.
This is plain and simple natural variability and it has happened several times during this interglacial to even greater degrees as Plimer points out so well.”
It was about as it is today, according to the official skeptic figures from Climateaudit. We have a long way to go before the warming stops.
“It was about as it is today, according to the official skeptic figures from Climateaudit. We have a long way to go before the warming stops.”
McIntyre was trying to be as nice as possible to Mann so he might archive his dodgy data and methods. McIntyre accepts the possibility of AGW but can’t cop the corrupt way you true believers promote it.
As I just pointed out there is permafrost now where there wasn’t in the MWP and there were even warmer periods prior to the MWP in this interglacial.
As Plimer said, when the aboriginals couldn’t walk back from Tasmania because the oceans had risen 120 meters in so short a time, THAT was global warming, yet it was still natural variability.
What we have today is an absolute pussycat!
Plimer spends a good deal of time dealing out vitriol and attacks on the the people in the IPCC, then lies that the only criticism of his book is vitriol and personal attacks. He has no shame.
“As I just pointed out there is permafrost now where there wasn’t in the MWP and there were even warmer periods prior to the MWP in this interglacial.
As Plimer said, when the aboriginals couldn’t walk back from Tasmania because the oceans had risen 120 meters in so short a time, THAT was global warming, yet it was still natural variability.”
There is permafrost that is melting that has been there thousands of years.
He gives several examples of natural climate change causing absolute chaos to humans in the past. There is apparently some logical conclusion that I don’t understand that since nature can cause us greater harm than we can cause to ourselves, any harm we cause ourselves is not worth bothering about.
Plimer is against pollution, but much of the pollution is natural substances. An excess of a natural substance can be a pollutant.
Janama: “you should listen to what Ian Plimer has to say about CSIRO and BoM here Luke” and (in another thread)- “hope you’ve written to Professor Plimer and vented your dissatisfaction with his interpretation of climate science SJT. I’m sure the ideas of a government computer hack will sway him from his opinion”.
Janama, your suggestions must be a joke. Why would anyone listen to anything Plimer has to say? And why would anyone bother trying to have a rational discussion with him? The man is incapable of responding to reasonable questions. And he certainly does not accept the views of Experts in the fields in which he writes. Nothing wrong per so with disgareeing with an Expert. The problem is that he does not give reasons for his positions. I posed my own questions to him, politely, addressing him as “Professor”, not long after the TGGW Swindle “doco” hit our screens, when he was on about submarine volcanoes. He pointedly refused to provide documented evidence that submarine volcano CO2 emissions outweighed human ones. He could not. He is rude, and arrogant. In this kind of behaviour, he contrasts most unfavourably with Bob Carter, who is polite, whatever one may think of his positions. (But then, hey, maybe that’s the difference between Aussies and Kiwis.) Plimer should be careful that the same bully-boy tactics that he’s said to have brought to bear on the creationists, interrupting their meetings to shout and heckle, etc., are not used against him at some stage.
I listened to a short chunk of the Plimer talk, and I had to chuckle at this (about 42′ in): “Science doesn’t work by consensus, it works by evidence and if you’ve got a HUGE body of evidence to say that humans are changing climate you’ve only gotta have one piece of evidence that’s contrary to that and that’s validated and you must throw out that idea”. No, Prof., science doesn’t work like that. When you’ve got a huge body of evidence in support of a theory, one piece of evidence against it does not necessarily overthrow the paradigm. The cop-out here appears to be his use of “validated”. But how is evidence, contrary or supporting, validated? This line of argument is question-begging, through and through.
” He gives several examples of natural climate change causing absolute chaos to humans in the past. There is apparently some logical conclusion that I don’t understand that since nature can cause us greater harm than we can cause to ourselves, any harm we cause ourselves is not worth bothering about.”
The clear and incredibly simple point he is making is that climate change is natural, has happened often and more violently in the past and our current change is mainly natural and almost certainly unavoidable.
You have to be very obtuse not to see that.
Even the religious warmers [or the intelligent ones anyway] accept the fact that even with the utmost pain the western economies can make almost no difference this century but they need to show the rest of the world how to die with honour.
They will be so impressed that they will then do likewise. [pardon my cynicism]
peterd,
” But how is evidence, contrary or supporting, validated?”
Maybe he was refering to something like this?
“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4304290.stm”
I’ll see if I can enrich it a little.
http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/health/4304290.stm