EVERY so often I receive emails suggesting I am morally reprehensible. Interesting, like the following email, they often follow a function at an Australian university.
Hi there,
I attended a very interesting lecture today around Climate change denialism with guest speakers Dr Andrew Glikson of the Planetry Science Institute and Professor Clive Hamilton of the ANU [Australian National University].
It seems to me there is a vast array of eminent scientists who are in agreement that increased levels of carbon due to human activity is having an undeniable impact on global warming.
You term yourself as a whistleblower and as long ago as 2005 (I guess you could call that either 3 or 4 years ago depending on which month) you embarked upon studying ‘the science of global warming’. I would like you to elaborate a little more in your personal profile on your website as to under whose employ you have been in the past 10 years or so. Maybe you could also elaborate on how the IPA receives funding and from whom it receives funding?
Our planet is at a crisis point and yet we have people like yourself pushing a public agenda that there is nothing to worry about. I can’t think of anything more morally or ethically reprehensible to be perfectly frank!!!
Cheers
[Name provided, but withheld]
September 2, 2009
************
Notes
I no longer work for the IPA, and my website also explains that my sources of income are varied. I anticipate earning a total of A$25,000 this financial year – enough to get by.
Of course my income would increase if more people made a donation to the running of this blog – click the orange button at the top right hand side of this webpage.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Nice email, it follows the script pretty well actually
1 – appeal to authority
2 – personal smear / questioning integrity
3 – moral righteousness
4 – no data
Jen,
Let’s face it, you’re a pretty soft target. Though a very brave one.
Anyone who stands up and says [and/or provides a forum for] what needs to be said is always going to be bullied by people like this. Especially when they are in “consensus” company.
Please find the pseudoscience in this post I made in WUWT:
There are 10^57 protons in the Sun. The fraction of nuclei with energies above 1 MeV to start a nuclear reaction, from the classical view, is ~1.6 x 10^-434; so there is not a single proton in the Sun which could enter into nuclear fusion reaction without the influence of an external operator. It could be electricity or quantum tunneling. To work like an external operator, the electricity must to have been produced by a body located externally with respect to the solar system, the solely and feasible existent option is quantum tunneling.
Now that we are immersed in quantum mechanics waters, let’s take into consideration the next facts taken from the real nature:
Bipolar magnetic fields disappear at energies above 10^16 GeV (energy necessary for turning on a 100 W light bulb during four hours); consequently, there are not magnetic monopoles in the Sun, yet, but bipolar magnetic fields. Magnetism in iron bars apparently disappears at T = 1041.15 K. I said ”apparently” because as a matter of fact the magnetic field and the magnetic property of the material doesn’t vanish in the emptiness, but it is conserved as paramagnetism which is fostered by stronger external magnetic fields.
For the electromagnetic field disappears in the Sun, we must concentrate E = 10^16 GeV in a single particle in every particle constituting the mass of the Sun. Nevertheless, a single particle in the Sun actually can contain only ~1 keV and the temperature at the interior of the Sun is ~1.6 x 10^7 K. So the solar electromagnetic field is present over there.
Whether you like it or not, from a QM viewpoint, the magnetic field of the Sun requires the existence of electric fields, i.e. macroscopic electric currents. The origin of those macroscopic electric currents is the dynamo effect of the inner materials of the Sun and the nuclear activity. Find the subjacent cause of sunspots and you’ll find the answer to the origin of the electric currents in the Sun which are generating the Sun’s magnetic field. 😉
Good observations DMS.
I also pick up the following:
Lecture & University – Big alarm bells start ringing about balance and objectivity – would expect neither.
Denialism – labelling & smearing of those who wish to entertain an intellectual debate.
Scientists who are in agreement – 2 possible responses: 1st Response: What about those who disagee?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d6cf993d-802a-23ad-4a07-d442fe8cdbb1&Issue_id=
2nd Response: Since when has science been about “Majority Rules”?
Questioning funding – You mean like this? http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FUNDING.jpg
Of course, the moral superiority angle. “I’m right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and should not have their views made available to the public.”
And finally, questioning your background whilst refusing to disclose their own.
The more I see of this “Moral Superiority Syndrome”, the more I worry.
These people need to understand that absolute righteousness belongs to no-one.
How have they become so prevalent in our modern world, and what is being done to give them a little bit of humility?
What an incredibly tawdry little email from the ever-so-frank.
What on earth grips a person like him to make a fool of himself, and to prostrate himself to the ilk of the two speakers mentioned?
Such blind obsequiousness betrays the very worst understanding of scientific methodology. His attitude is that of the “town scold” who has zealous deference to authority and a wish to censor all debate that does not toe the party line.
It seems that the AGW brigade has become a repository for the scientifically illiterate, the snide and insulting, and the consensus-comforted frightened and timid.
He can hang his head in utter shame. I wonder if his lower-deck form will allow him to make an apology for his insulting remarks?
Hi – may I suggest you write your rant to the SMH or the Age. Both papers regularly print opinions such as yours so you will be guaranteed being published.
Meanwhile keep your misinformed opinions to yourself and stop harassing friend Jennifer and her blog as it’s the only balance we have from the MSM!
Our planet is at a crisis point…
Of course no evidence for this apocalyptic vision is provided, but all cults seem to rely on doomsday being imminent. Ian Pilmer in Heaven and Earth actually documents a whole succession of doomsday predictions by cults that never happened.
“and yet we have people like…. I can’t think of anything more morally or ethically reprehensible”
all religions have their morality, seems the moral code of this one is offended by heretics.
Our planet is at a crisis point…
Of course no evidence for this apocalyptic vision is provided, but all cults seem to rely on doomsday being imminent. Ian Pilmer in Heaven and Earth actually documents a whole succession of doomsday predictions by cults that never happened.
“and yet we have people like…. I can’t think of anything more morally or ethically reprehensible”
all religions have their morality, seems the moral code of this one is offended by heretics.
Jennifer,
Auto-lobotomized people always feel intimidated by those who have the courage to march to the beat of their own drum, and who are outspoken in expressing their nonstandard views. What sets you apart from most other independent writers is that you’re always polite about it. The world needs more people like you!
A rude, insulting and intrusive letter. It deserves exposure. Hope this embarrasses him, plus the two above named academics, Glickson and Hamilton, who worked him up. Mr makes a fine cat’s paw.
Predictable and understandable given the issues Jen tackles. However as someone engaged in ongoing combat with blog on a numbers of issues, I’d suggest that Jen is no shill. IMO her personal views make it totally compatible with being employed by the IPA and little has changed afterwards.
She believes in her POV and is providing a pretty liberal forum by running this blog.
Jennifer,
Feast or famine! James Mayeau and I hiked to Roundtop Lake last weekend, and he took 55 photos of the Whitebark Pines and their surroundings. I’ve encouraged him to send in his report first. At the moment, I’m having writers’ block on the subject. Here’s a link to the photos. Choose whichever one you like the best, or choose them all!
http://tinyurl.com/lb465c
He is the kind of sad planet plodder who would seriously believe he could come away from a lecture by Clive Hamilton and be wiser for it. What else need be said?
A “discussion” on climate denialism that doesn’t include a single sceptic? Yep, just as the IPCC can make projections of CO2 emissions from hydrocarbons without including any oil or coal industry experts. And who could forget their “detailed consideration” of global wood carbon fluxes without consulting any expert foresters. They call it “peer review” but never include anyone who could objectively test their conclusions.
Jen…it appears the scientists are about to move the goal posts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5825EE20090903
They are now saying the industrial revolution saved us from global cooling.
The Eemian interglacial lasted around 16,000 years and the Holocene (14,500) has about reached its used by date. They are admitting to orbital forcing.
Will wonders never cease?
Jennifer,
I rarely, very, agree with you, I think you are misguided, but I think you run this blog with a great deal of politeness and that is is good and deserves praise.
As to the above letter at least you can console yourself knowing that its not like the sort of vilification people like George Monbiot and Al Gore receive on a regular basis.
Jennifer
perhaps if you could just explain in your own words why you run this blog and what you hope to achieve with it?
SJT,
In my own words…
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/about/
And also some from others.
My hobby is posting climate realism at the websites of people with the same mindset as him, and counting the minutes until the post is deleted.
Luke when are you going to get a blogger account? I want to see one of my posts stay up for once.
Are we going to do full disclosure for every nut case who sends an email?
Jen have a care.
A guy who will write, ” I can’t think of anything more morally or ethically reprehensible to be perfectly frank!!!” isn’t playing with a full deck.
This fellow has an evil intent. He’s checking your perimeter. I wouldn’t give him any ammo.
Speaking of ethically reprehensible, the Station Fire has been determined an arson case.
The perp left a spray painted calling card on the wall of the service station where he set the fire.
Here’s some disclosure for you all. I’ve looked Steve in the eye, and he is no Maxwell Smart.
Heh – just kidding ya Larry.
I have recently seen some undeniable evidence that increased levels of co2 haven’t done jack, diddly, or squat, for the temperatures on my mountain. Larry took me to the headwater of the American River and there be glaciers here feeding my river.
This inspite of the Governor declaring a drought in February,
despite something less then the snowpack of an average season,
despite the hockeystick,
despite Giss, Noaa, Hadcrut, and even UAH’s remote ocean hotspot,
despite the pigheaded atomic minded professors at UC Davis, who will line up at the trough of public largess, chanting the mantra of whatever is the latest fuzzyheaded eco fad, while somehow never bothering to make the 70 mile trip up highway 88 to verify if their mantra is correct,
despite it being the last days of summer when the Dog Star climbs high above the horizon well before the sun.
There be glaciers here. Al Gore be damned.
It is not just sad, but dangerous for humanity, that people like Mr and his friends meet to denounce scientific debate. History shows that such people have frequently been a serious impediment to progress. They’re pretty medieval, and pretty fascist.
What IS reprehensible is that the academics who are peddling this alarmist nonsense are on the public payroll, and therefore have a vested interest ensuring that this nice little earner goes on for as long as possible- as they can do.
Isnt it interesting as soon as they retire, they feel that they then have the freedom to now speak out.
Those in that category include two previous Chief Research Scientists and one head of the Austalian Climate office.
Then this AGW research community backed the infamous Hockey Stick to the hilt, and also Al Gore’s an Inconvenient Truth, which has now made him a mega millionaire despite it being a travesty of lies and exagerations–designed by him to act as a prospectus in his quest for personal wealth and glory.
These same advisers have no difficulty in seeing Australias economy being out in peril to feed their delusions, oblivious to the fact that there is nothing that we can do that will make a tot of difference in any measurable way by 2050. But no– we have to take a lead.
We are run by idiots– and the advisers are of the same quality.
In describing him and others of his ilk, MAG wrote:
“They’re pretty medieval, and pretty fascist.”
That reminds me of a bad joke that I read in Mad Magazine when I was a kid.
Q: Why is the Medieval Period also known as the Dark Ages?
A: Because there were so many knights! 😛
How smarmy and unctuous; Mr Arter is a supercilious moron; and Glikson and Hamilton are elitist, condescending puffs of vanity; “our planet is at crisis point” is a phrase which could only be uttered by a person riven in equal parts by narcissim and cognitive dissonance; it is a contemptible psychology and some perspective is needed.
71000 years ago the volcanic explosion Toba put up 2800 cubic kilometers of ash and probably reduced the world’s human population to < 10000; 28 MYA the volcano which produced the La Garita Caldera erupted 5000 CK of ash; if humanity had been around then we would have been made extinct
More topically in respect of asteroid impacts, 4 BYA the Mars sized asteroid Theia impacted Earth and formed the moon; Earth survived. The last BIG one was the K-T event 65.5 MYA; an asteroid 5-10 meters in diameter has the energy equivalent of the Little Boy atomic bomb, about 15 Ktonnes of TNT; the K-T rock was much bigger than 5-10 meters and according to the Torino scale of measuring the danger from asteroids had an energy equivalence of at least 10^6 and probably 10^7 times the total energy capacity of the entire nuclear weapon stockpile.
And the cretins say we are risking the destruction of the Earth through CO2 emissions!
Coho – thanks for that – you just made a great case for AGW.
Alright luke I’m calling your bluff; how is that a great case for AGW?
Don’t worry Luke,
From reading Cohenite’s post I bet he wishes he had been an extra in the Bruce Willis film, Armageddon…
Whereas you JC will have identified with the meteor.
So teensy weensy – and almost killed everyone. Those forcings must be powerful medicine.
Luke,
Sorry but Cohenite hasn’t made the case for AGW.
Reference to the Korean Choson Annals, an enormous collection of diligently recorded observations of all manner of phenomena while Europeas were still sword wielding barbarians, suggests your AGW theory is based on a parochial basis.
Ah SJT, Luke and Jeremy perhaps you could buy some PNG carbon credits along with Mr seeing as your belief in AGW is so strong – you know its the answer!
Yep, some carbon credits; this is going to be the biggest scam in the history of scams; at least with the financial crisis there was an asset base to it; the trade in carbon has no asset base at all; in fact it is a negative asset to begin with since it is a tax on energy but it won’t stop the spivs legally and illegally [sic] making money from joe public;
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australian-firm-linked-to-pngs-100m-carbon-trading-scandal-20090903-fa2y.html
Perhaps Glikson and Hamilton can use their freedom of speech to defend this.
At the end of the day, nearly AGW true believer shows themselves to be just what this Ater person demonstrates:
A paranoiac conspiracy and apocalyptic believer.
They depend on smearing those with whom they disagree, because as Ater shows, they have no fact, no knowledge, and no data.
Only faith in their apocalyptic cult.
Yes Coho back on teensy weensy – you see you get a teensy weensy bit of a wobble and down goes the radiation on a 2000 trend (so teensy weensy too) and along comes the extra CO2 (albeit teensy weensy) and whammo – big as mobs warming.
Abstract: The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.
Kaufman, et al., “Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling,” Science, 4 September 2009: 1236-1239, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983
OMIGAWD !
At the end of the day, ALL denialist scum shows themselves to be just what this Hunter person demonstrates:
A paranoiac conspiracy and denialist believer.
They depend on smearing those with whom they disagree, because as Hunter shows, they have no fact, no knowledge, and no data.
Only faith in their denialist cult.
Kaufman et al join the blinkered queue driving straight past the MWP;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/02/woods-hole-embraces-the-medieval-warm-period-contradict-manns-proxy-data/#more-10458
Luke: “Kaufman, et al., “Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling,” Science, 4 September 2009: 1236-1239, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983”
Another truckload of shonk from the AGW proxy munchers. So in the last month or so we’ve got: the sheep are shrinking! Its global warming! The fish are shrinking! Its global warming! Its Raupach et al: The ice sheets are melting we’re all gonna die! + Raupach et al assorted temperature lies. Now we’ve got ANOTHER hockey stick from the IPCC approved hockey stick manufacturers. So whats that you say Lukey, the whole lot of them are not scammers? Really now? Can you name just one honest climate scientist in all this pile of shit?
But sorry I forgot. You don’t want honest scientists. You want liars and frauds who sell the story you want to hear.
Hang on a minute!
So uber-moral lummox, he attends a lecture by Clive Hamilton who wrote: “Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate” and then is possessed by the cognitive somnolence to demand Jen silence her dissent from the government’s attempt to control public opinion. My God, hypocrisy doesn’t begin to describe the depth of comical intellectual zombism poor him suffers.
So, hang in there Jen! Forgive him, for he knows not whatever.
Though the science will never be settled (that’s a feature, as Karl Popper well noted) the rational debate would have swiftly ended without boldly nonconformist minds like Jen’s deftly and proactively defending our fundamental human right to think freely in the face of often libelous contempt. Denialist, indeed!
The only denialists here are those who would deny others their right to rationally think for themselves based on observational evidence rather than computer models, urban mythologies and repetitive media spin.
I should even thank lucifugous Luke, Jeremiad and Shjt for their undeviating dissent from our right to dissent. They are the useful idiots, the wannabe brownshirts, not too bright, not too dull, just right to post an impotent stream of nice fat piñatas for us to score our points upon as they champion the federal government’s and state owned media’s (ABC) attempt to Control Public Opinion and Stifle Debate. Nice union thug work, if you can get it, comrade.
I’m sure Clive would concur.
No Cohers – it’s the far left of the graph giving the trend ! I love it. Don’t worry – denialist McIntyre will make up something to save you all.
Hey Weswald Wonk is baaaaaaack. And he hasn’t got any better. Can anyone translate. ?
“comical intellectual zombism” ?? Gawd and WTF?
“who would deny others their right to rationally think for themselves based on observational evidence rather than computer models” – what – like 28,000 species studies showing changes in behaviour and biology from climate change. Nature paper.
“right to post an impotent stream of nice fat piñatas for us to score our points upon” – oh Wes – LIKE LIKE LIKE – McLean et al and Plimer’s book – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAA (Hey – how’d ya do the tilde?)
Oh Wes it hurts !!
Pls go back to writing Ian Sinclair’s campaign speeches. (SAW XI with Wessy Woo- you wouldn’t need the saw – you’d chew your own arm off to get away from him talking).
Wes – do you want to play a game MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA
“I’m sure Clive would concur.”
Clive actually does a nice line in argument-free rants in a sort of Tourettish style to support the planned mandatory government censorship of the internet these days. If his global warming rants are in the same vein as his pornography crusades, Arter probably got carried away with a rush of throbbing moral blood set pumping by Clive’s pornographic descriptions of the sins of global warming.
Errata: In my above comment I refer to Raupach et al’s lies in the plural when it should have been lie in the singular. I apologize to Raupach et al for this egregious misrepresentation of their dishonesty.
Luke: “28,000 species studies showing changes in behaviour and biology from climate change. Nature paper.”
Gosh, Nature The Magazine now quoted as scientific truth. Who would have guessed that an old media tart could rise to such heights of glory? But this is just the same old ‘all global warming is anthropogenic’ hidden subliminal message from the believers. You’ve been playing with it for so long now Lukey you just can’t stop when you’re told that you are being naughty.
Are all these papers of the ‘shrinking sheep is global warming’ variety, or do some of them actually contain scientific content?
“Lukey: “Don’t worry – denialist McIntyre will make up something to save you all.”
Well if you know so much about it, Lukey, why don’t you do us a favour, write it all up in a paper and submit your stuff to a peer-reviewed journal. Even if it is devoid of rational content I’m sure Nature will take it as gratis for your sterling services to the field of AGW trollcraft. But wait, are you going to tell us that you actually get your info from believer blogs, like Deltoid?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
or Tamino?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
or RealSucks?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
luke says;” it’s the far left of the graph giving the trend”. Far left of what graph and what trend? Are we talking Mannian hockey-sticks or devotional, birch self-abuse iimplements here? And what is a “Community Climate System Model”? And four of the five warmest decades between 1950-2000, where was the fifth one; anyway, luke I don’t want you to worry; here is a soothing, real graph;
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/gatemaster99/warmtwice.png
Luke: “what – like 28,000 species studies showing changes in behaviour and biology from climate change. Nature paper.”
Has it never occurred to you that the massive preponderance of studies showing NEGATIVE impacts from temperature rise (or climate change for that matter) is prima facie evidence systematic bias? When every story has the same ending we are dealing with groupthink, or behaviour nicely conditioned by the prevailing reward structure.
Funny how only weeds, mosquitoes, germs and slimy toads (and perhaps Luke, SJT and Jeremy) will thrive on a changed climate.
Back to young Mr – I watched a movie last night called “The Boy In The Pyjamas”. A disturbing tale about the (real) holocaust. More disturbing was the ranting by a 12-yo girl who had been infected by the Hitler Youth movement. Which in turn reminded me of the rant by a young woman on QandA the other night about blockading coal mines. Which brings me back to Mr and his Hitler-Youth type demonising of anyone (like Jen) who resists “The Programme”.
Jen,
At least he was polite enough to give you his name, he did not rant and he did not use unnecessary epithets in the body of his email. Which contrasts with what I deem to be the worst aspect of your Blog: you are too liberal.
I regularly read your blog. You attract articles that are generally based on knowledge, not necessarily perfect, but from which a reader may draw conclusions. With luck subsequent respondents may add value to the exercise.
Then come the spoilers. As soon as I see the names “Luke” or “SJT” I turn off, because I know thereafter discussion devolves into a slanging match.
Drivel, for example, from Luke, “Don’t worry – denialist McIntyre will make up something to save you all.” only shows how ignorant he is. Perhaps Luke gets his jollies this way, but why give him the opportunity? For one thing, McIntyre is not a “denialist”; read his blog. For another, I have spent some time following McIntyre’s critique of the Kaufmann et al paper and the responses mainly from other statisticians and they make (to me) many valid points. It is a civilised discussion. Most importantly, McIntyre does not allow any ad hominems or speculations about motive. His blog has now reached the point where contributors self snip if they recognise before posting that they are being too emotive. The same goes for the more generalist WUWT.
Jen, your blog has a different flavour to McIntyre’s rather cold and surgical blog, but I think you would do your readership a great favour and much enhance the reputation of your blog if you would curb the self-indulgent excesses of the spoilers. Free speech is one thing, sheer rubbish and rudeness is another.
SJT,
In my own words…
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/about/
And also some from others.
You say
“Climate change is a popular issue and some posts on this topic have been picked up by the mainstream media including in the US. For example, after Jennifer Marohasy attended the ‘2008 International Conference on Climate Change’ in New York in March 2008 she was interviewed by Michael Duffy from Australia’s ABC Radio National and discussed the last 10 years of temperature data and also output from NASA Aqua Satellite. This interview was then the focus of an opinion piece by Christopher Pearson in the national newspaper The Australian (Climate facts to warm to, Christopher Pearson, March 22, 2008) which was subsequently picked up by Fox News (Cooling Effect, Brit Hume, March 24, 2008).
Christopher Horner references this blog in his new book ‘Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed’ in particular that http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog broke the story detailing how the BBC changed the title and text of a story following pressure from activist Jo Abbess on April 7, 2008. After the leaked email exchange was posted the story was run by many UK and US bloggers and then various news outlets including CNN’s Glen Beck Show.
This blog takes an evidence-based approach to issues, provides a venue where there is freedom to question the experts and sometimes breaks news.
You only look at one side of the evidence, and you don’t appear to provide any quality control of the evidence you do provide.
SJT: “You only look at one side of the evidence, and you don’t appear to provide any quality control of the evidence you do provide”
Quality contro? You mean censoring, don’t you, like DeSmogblog does.
As for balance, the fact that you, Luke and the rest of the AGW camp post comments here guarantees a diversity of opinion – but if you are so concerned about this issue, why have you not started your own blog?
Obviously having your own blog requires you to identify yourself to the world – but living the life of a parasitic troll here allows you to vent your views under anonymity.
> Comment from: Larry Fields September 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
> That reminds me of a bad joke that I read in Mad Magazine when I was a kid.
> Q: Why is the Medieval Period also known as the Dark Ages?
> A: Because there were so many knights! 😛
For the sake of historical accuracy I should point out that the Dark Age(s) was the time preceeding the Medieval Period.
I am talking about obvious non-science such as Gerlich and Teuschner.
but if you are so concerned about this issue, why have you not started your own blog?
Obviously having your own blog requires you to identify yourself to the world – but living the life of a parasitic troll here allows you to vent your views under anonymity
exactly Louis. Why doesn’t Luke start one also?
To Mike Arter re AGW
Mike, you imply that Jen has an agenda because she previously worked for the IPA which is a conservative think tank. (Declaration of interest: I did one piece for them back in 1994 on a different topic.)
What are you going to do when someone accuses AGW advocates of having an agenda because they get more funding by plugging AGW?
I think this can happen, but I wouldn’t make too much of it, because everybody is coming from somewhere. Even if AGW supporters are on the gravy train, this does not automatically disprove AGW. By the same token, even if Jen was funded by the IPA, that does not mean she is wrong about AGW.
Conspiracy theories on this front cancel each other out. We must turn from them to the actual science. Your science consists of appeal to the authority of two scientists who are pro-AGW. But anti-AGW sceptics can appeal to counter-authorities like Plimer. You imply that such sceptics are a minority. However, figures like Prof. Garth Paltridge and Prof. Dennis Bray have shown that there is significant level of scepticism, not so much about AGW per se, but about the seriousness of the effect. Richard Lindzen, perhaps the leading sceptic, does not predict zero AGW. He predicts that it will not be serious. If you disagree, give us a post specifically refuting his arguments, and I’lll give the post a hearing on its merits. I’m sure Jen will continue to make her blog available for such debate.
No Jimmock it’s a full on smack down of UHI-philic denialist scum – read it and weep. But as paid for comment denialist scum it will be in your contract to deny it.
Nature 453, 353-357 (15 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06937; Received 28 January 2008; Accepted 19 March 2008
Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change ************
Cynthia Rosenzweig1, David Karoly2, Marta Vicarelli1, Peter Neofotis1, Qigang Wu3, Gino Casassa4, Annette Menzel5, Terry L. Root6, Nicole Estrella5, Bernard Seguin7, Piotr Tryjanowski8, Chunzhen Liu9, Samuel Rawlins10 & Anton Imeson11
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia Center for Climate Systems Research, 2800 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, USA
School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, 100 East Boyd Street, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA
Centro de Estudios Científicos, Avenida Arturo Prat 514, Casilla 1469, Valdivia, Chile
Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Am Hochanger 13, 85 354 Freising, Germany
Stanford University, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford, California 94305, USA
INRA Unité Agroclim, Site Agroparc, domaine Saint-Paul, F-84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France
Department of Behavioural Ecology, Institute of Environmental Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 89, PL-61–614 Poznan, Poland
China Water Information Center, Lane 2 Baiguang Road, Beijing 100761, China
Caribbean Epidemiology Center, 16–18 Jamaica Boulevard, Federation ParkPO Box 164, Port of Spain, Trinadad and Tobago
3D-Environmental Change, Curtiuslaan 14, 1851 AM, Heiloo, Netherlands
Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents.
Then we further dispense with the unpublished swill pretentiousness of Chow tests – so lacking in any mechanistic understanding – with the second smack down – that the warming signal is clearly centennial – is not 2nd order PDO effects – is present in 2 ocean data sets – so we summarily dispense with the tiresome UHI argument on the land series.
Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background *************
David Parker
Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, UK
Chris Folland
Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, UK
Adam Scaife
Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, UK
Jeff Knight
Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, UK
Andrew Colman
Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, UK
Peter Baines
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Buwen Dong
Walker Institute for Climate System Research, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Three prominent quasi-global patterns of variability and change are observed using the Met Office’s sea surface temperature (SST) analysis and almost independent night marine air temperature analysis. The first is a global warming signal that is very highly correlated with global mean SST. The second is a decadal to multidecadal fluctuation with some geographical similarity to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It is associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and its Pacific-wide manifestation has been termed the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). We present model investigations of the relationship between the IPO and ENSO. The third mode is an interhemispheric variation on multidecadal timescales which, in view of climate model experiments, is likely to be at least partly due to natural variations in the thermohaline circulation. Observed climatic impacts of this mode also appear in model simulations. Smaller-scale, regional atmospheric phenomena also affect climate on decadal to interdecadal timescales. We concentrate on one such mode, the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). This shows strong decadal to interdecadal variability and a correspondingly strong influence on surface climate variability which is largely additional to the effects of recent regional anthropogenic climate change. The winter NAO is likely influenced by both SST forcing and stratospheric variability. A full understanding of decadal changes in the NAO and European winter climate may require a detailed representation of the stratosphere that is hitherto missing in the major climate models used to study climate change.
Received 12 January 2007; accepted 29 June 2007; published 28 September 2007.
Citation: Parker, D., C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
Then a well predicted AGW effect – the tropics are widening – and the drought prone sub-tropics on the move – it’s gotta hurt
Nature Geoscience 1, 21 – 24 (2008)
Published online: 2 December 2007 | doi:10.1038/ngeo.2007.38
Widening of the tropical belt in a changing climate **************
Dian J. Seidel1, Qiang Fu2, William J. Randel3 & Thomas J. Reichler4
Abstract
Some of the earliest unequivocal signs of climate change have been the warming of the air and ocean, thawing of land and melting of ice in the Arctic. But recent studies are showing that the tropics are also changing. Several lines of evidence show that over the past few decades the tropical belt has expanded. This expansion has potentially important implications for subtropical societies and may lead to profound changes in the global climate system. Most importantly, poleward movement of large-scale atmospheric circulation systems, such as jet streams and storm tracks, could result in shifts in precipitation patterns affecting natural ecosystems, agriculture, and water resources. The implications of the expansion for stratospheric circulation and the distribution of ozone in the atmosphere are as yet poorly understood. The observed recent rate of expansion is greater than climate model projections of expansion over the twenty-first century, which suggests that there is still much to be learned about this aspect of global climate change.
Bolstered by Dai’s analysis of worlwide increase in drought.
A global dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870-2002: relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming.
Personal Authors: Dai, A. G., Trenberth, K. E., Qian, T. T.
Author Affiliation: National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000, USA.
Journal of Hydrometeorology
A monthly dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) from 1870 to 2002 is derived using historical precipitation and temperature data for global land areas on a 2.5° grid. Over Illinois, Mongolia, and parts of China and the former Soviet Union, where soil moisture data are available, the PDSI is significantly correlated (r=0.5 to 0.7) with observed soil moisture content within the top 1-m depth during warm-season months. The strongest correlation is in late summer and autumn, and the weakest correlation is in spring, when snowmelt plays an important role. Basin-averaged annual PDSI covary closely (r=0.6 to 0.8) with streamflow for seven of world’s largest rivers and several smaller rivers examined. The results suggest that the PDSI is a good proxy of both surface moisture conditions and streamflow. An empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of the PDSI reveals a fairly linear trend resulting from trends in precipitation and surface temperature and an El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-induced mode of mostly interannual variations as the two leading patterns. The global very dry areas, defined as PDSI+3.0) declined slightly during the 1980s. Together, the global land areas in either very dry or very wet conditions have increased from ~20% to 38% since 1972, with surface warming as the primary cause after the mid-1980s. These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures and increased drying.
And finally we get to find out why the Murray region is drying out – the above interplay manifest in a long term change in the intensity of the sub-tropical ridge –
The continuing decline in South-East Australian rainfall: Update to
May 2009 http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/researchletters/CAWCR_Research_Letters2.pdf
So the planet has unambiguously warmed against the millennial trend in a very short few decades.
Should we be alarmed – dunno – but denialist scum won’t get paid if they don’t deny all.
Janama
Luke has no blog either, (or not one any of us would know about directly) but even if they did start one up would they attract any traffic apart from the usual suspects? Who would post a comment only to then be verballed by Luke? And given SJT’s intellectual skills, he would probably be quite busy answering his soliloquys.
They also need to come up with original ideas which from experience here is big ask.
Luke’s mindless citations from the litany could almost be described as plagiarism, but that’s not so since he isn’t parading these ideas as his. He can’t because he hasn’t any to start with.
But they have been trained well.
So Victoria has an anomaly, but surely a cold PDO will see greater precipitation in the future?
Oh shit Luke – please explain exactly where CO2 increase correlates to the changes in global temperature over the past 120 years?
http://tinyurl.com/lkbt9d
I can show you clearly where the correlation exists relative to the ENSO
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temp_v_ENSO.jpg
and hey – I’m using the same data all those charcters from the Hadley Center used but I don’t hang from the government’s tit!
what really shits me is you quote all their BS without even questioning it. Aren’t you due for crutching?
Still no runnaway warming!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_091.jpg
Janama
Luke is better suited for a gully job.
southern hemisphere cooled by .4C – so much for the hot august night!
Luke is better suited for a gully job
nah Louis – he’s too slow for the gully – fine leg or 12th man is more his style 🙂
The R2 for ENSO and temperature over the 20thC is 85%; for CO2 and Temperature it is 42%.
Luke, this is for you since you hate the Break paper so much;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
On the topic of freedom of speech and academics.
It’s far too crude to say that there is little freedom of speech left in our university system. Although I suspect that’s the reason Jen has placed the two nouns in such provocative proximity.
It’s false that academics don’t value freedom of speech. The right to free thought is the central trope of academia, much like the concept of factually unbiased reportage is to the profession of journalism. Freedom of speech/thought is enshrined as the premise of higher education.
However, in everyday practice there is a powerfully opaque sociocultural ratiocination process monitoring the halls of our universities, which frames all dissent outside of the conventional narratives as too ludicrous to even enter the cognitive awareness of academic thought. No structural limitations on the freedom of speech is necessary among academics; they simply unconsciously self-sort their meme-creation process through the filter of the accepted dialectical discourse long before any demurring thought blemishes their consciousness, must less reputation among their peers. Those unable to master the subtle art of thinking inside the box soon find themselves employed well outside the public sector where their selfish innovations are often obscenely rewarded.
If one accepts the dominate academic dialectical discourse on politics (largely post-modern neo-Marxism) and on climate change (AGW catastrophism) then freedom of speech is paradoxically absurdly robust – almost any level of irrational, slanderous or bullying speech is well within bounds – while at the same time completely irrelevant and morally suspect.
As M. Arter points out, Jen has brutally wielded her freedom of speech in ways that have egregiously violated his cognitive immersion in a gratifyingly dissent-free groupthink bubble. In Arter’s child-like grasp of reality, Jen must be part of a well financed conspiracy to destroy the Earth for big business profit margins. Just how destroying the planet will benefit greedy global capitalists is never revealed, but Arter’s logic fits snugly inside the conventional academic (and state-owned media’s) narrative and therefore is protected, highly moral, if irrational and slanderous, speech.
Obviously, since one of the fundamental ethical premises of (neo-Marxist) collectivism is that the ends justifies the means, fidelity to rational empiricism above ideological pureness is heresy, particular when combined with the absolute relativity of truth and therefore “the meaning” of observational measurements (post-mod deconstruction.) As results, the whole concept of freedom of speech or thought is not only utterly irrelevant to the process of controlling the narration, but also implies a lack of moral responsibility to society.
Any freedom of speech hurled from outside the accepted narrative is morally and aesthetically reprehensible, a Deus ex machina bomb, because it explodes narration’s suspension of disbelief and opens conscious awareness to that most subversive element of humanity—our ability to thinking creatively and innovatively as individuals.
“southern hemisphere cooled by .4C – so much for the hot august night!”
janama,
Don’t tell Luke that or he will post the phone book next.
He thinks credibility is proportional to shite quantity.
I love the way the gory bleeders totally repudiate any sceptics data that may be marginal yet they will go on promoting “hockey team” garbage forever.
Journalists are no better: What really annoys me is stories such as this in the Age this morning by Warwick McFadyen – an Age senior writer
opening para
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/armed-forces-may-be-the-agents-of-climate-change-20090904-fbdp.html?page=-1
a story about how Diego Garcia will go under due to rising sea levels and force the US Military to evacuate. <>
I suggest he call a rational scientist.
So why won’t Ian Plimer answer George Monbiot’s questions?
Janama
Actually he is flagging the possibility of using the military to force people to accept the climate bills etc. If the military are of the same political persuasion as the politicians, asn the police now are in the UK, then it would be a simple step to force us to accept these draconian measures.
The game in play isn’t climate – it’s the collectivists finally marshalling their resources to make us all socialists from fear. The communists did it by the barrel of a gun, the Fabians do it by the white ant process, and the current crop from instilling a quasi-scientifically based environmental fear.
The incessant measures of vilifying us in the media, etc, is simply to condition the mob into accepting we are sub humans and need to be dealt with appropriately in the future.
This was, and is the game plan.
So Luke and SJT etc are principally diversions- no they are the useful idiots in this game.
Jeremy C
“So why won’t Ian Plimer answer George Monbiot’s questions?”
Why should he? The questions are not based on science but on Monbiot’s political adversarial approach.
Jeremy C September 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
So why won’t Ian Plimer answer George Monbiot’s questions?
I don’t know he asked any, but I’m sure there is more to it than just saying “I’m not going to talk to you!”
Can you give us the full info on the circumstances regarding this, surely IP must have said something!
Having read your highly partisan posts, I’m sorry, but can’t just take your word for it.
Luke wrote:
No need for him (or anyone else) to make anything up in this case, and he’s already posted on this paper here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932 where he shows, with citations, that one of the proxies used in this study was used inverted compared to the original publication. Magic stuff, this math they used – even when you plug in a truncated, outdated and inverted “proxy”, it still gives you a “hockey stick”. And as SM points out, this can hardly be considered as a mistake, because several of the co-authors had already been contacted by SM about the inverted state of this proxy as used in another paper in 2008! If that wasn’t bad enough, they continue to use methods that have been shown by several people to be capable of producing whatever shape you like – use 20thC temperature data, and you’ll get a “hockey stick” even when you feed it trendless red noise!
Bored coz Coho isn’t here. He’s probably out some hot babe or beating up warmers.
Banana PJs 1:19 – mate !! maaaaetteeeee. Come over here sunshine.
“Oh shit Luke – please explain exactly where CO2 increase correlates to the changes in global temperature over the past 120 years?”
WAKE UP PJS – how many times now …
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution_png BECAUSE IT’S A COMBINATION OF FACTORS – REMEMBER NOW
“I can show you clearly where the correlation exists relative to the ENSO”
No that’s statistical bunk – Parker et al (above) show why ENSO is only a 2nd level effect by a mile.
“what really shits me is you quote all their BS without even questioning it.” – what really shits me is that you never read anything I tell you
Luke wrote:
Interesting to note that the only evidence cited here in support of the anthropogenic nature of the increase in temperatures is an appeal to the authority of the IPCC. Hmm…
So they are saying that there is significant natural variation that currently doesn’t appear in the models, yet they use those very models to “investigate” the effects? Hmmm…
More “poorly understood” and “still much to be learned” – seems they want more $$$ to investigate this hot topic (pun intended) .Hmmm…
So wet areas are getting wetter, and this increases the risk of drought. I see….
Jesus – we have how much instrumental data, Luke? 150 years or so? With 1C (or maybe as much as 1F) resolution. Yet we can find a trend in a century of noisy data that is less than this? Do you see a problem with that? You haven’t forgotten EM Smith’s information on false resolution, have you? Does it concern you that there are cycles in the data we do have that suggest what we are seeing is within the bounds of normal variation? That those cycles produce similar changes to what we are now seeing? (and if you think they don’t, then you clearly haven’t bothered to look at the data, because the warming in the early decades of the 20thC is stronger than the one in the late decades of the 20thC!)
Well, progress at any rate – you no longer seem to think it’s alarming, so perhaps you are thinking about it a little.
And of course the Malarkey Bill is going to raise the freeboard of Diego Garcia.
Doncha luv the way people like McFadyen spin their stories.
Imagine if the indigenous Ilois were still there. Britain would have to do what they have already done. Relocate them.
Anyhow, the facts are the Indian Ocean MSL in this region has not only not risen but has gone down but if it should rise in the future, DG, being a coral atoll, will do likewise.
Jeremy…it seems clear that Plimer had trouble ‘defending the indefensible’. His critics have been merciless, it doesn’t pay to be slack about you peer reviews.
His questions to Monbiot were long winded and technical, but one of his ideas had resonance. Why not use a model to take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere, then we can all sit back and ponder the results. May the better man win.
Luke wrote:
* Ask them for the validation study on their model Luke – I bet they don’t have one!
* Ask why the sulfate aerosol levels appear to keep rising (apparent from the fact that their affects keep increasing) , when this http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php
for example, shows a significant decrease in aerosols from the 1980s on.
* Ask for the model output from these runs for the years after they stop on the graph, and compare them to your prefered GMST metric up until now – then let us know how well they match up. That’s called testing your model with out-of-sample data, and it gives you a better idea of how well the model performs than any back-casting.
* Ask why we should expect anything other than what they report – after all, their model was designed and built on a radiative-transfer-is-everything basis, and they only introduced aerosols in order to “explain” the dip in temperatures between 1940 and 1970, did they not?
It’s all a very nice academic exercise Luke, and I’m sure there is some value in it from that perspective – even if it’s only that it may be used in future to show people how not to do science! – but it hardly rises to the level required for public policy decisions, does it? You know, where peoples lives and livelyhoods are in the balance. Put it this way: will you bet your life and everything you own on it being right?
ooooo – a collection of little snipes from denialist Fischer.
“So wet areas are getting wetter, and this increases the risk of drought. I see….” well hucky do Neil – duh dat’s a hard-un – err maybe coz it might be right in the middle of one of you pro-duck-tive regions i.e. a breadbasket
Mate r u really that thick?
“More “poorly understood” and “still much to be learned” – seems they want more $$$ to investigate this hot topic (pun intended) .Hmmm…” UNREAL – the considerable implications of this issue again discussed here.
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20090607-19385.html Yes indeed there is a lot to be learned. The review found that of particular concern were regions which border the subtropics and currently experience a temperate Mediterranean climate.
“Such areas include heavily populated regions of southern Australia, southern Africa, the southern Europe-Mediterranean-Middle East region, the south-western United States, northern Mexico, and southern South America – all of which are predicted to experience severe drying.” hmmmm – which is what seems to be happening actually.
“So they are saying that there is significant natural variation that currently doesn’t appear in the models, yet they use those very models to “investigate” the effects? Hmmm…”
No the point being that EOF1 is the centennial signal and dwarfs and EOFs associated with ENSO or PDO. It addresses your denialist land series data issues by an alternative analysis on alternative data – 2 sets.
“Interesting to note that the only evidence cited here in support of the anthropogenic nature of the increase in temperatures is an appeal to the authority of the IPCC.
Yep didn’t say that did it – simply for denialist arseholes who don’t like the land series temperature record – have a stack of biology instead.
“You haven’t forgotten EM Smith’s information on false resolution, have you? Does it concern you that there are cycles in the data we do have that suggest what we are seeing is within the bounds of normal variation? ” two hilarious contradictory sentences combined. Cycles in the data – nope but shitloads of paleo evidence for quasi-periodic behaviour – over 1000s of years as ENSO and PDO. So which is it? Cycles – no – some cycles – no cycles. You’re rabbitting.
And you are actually think that the earth will build that amount heat over time without solar or greenhouse forcing – you probably like Coho believe in Jack’s beanstalk.
Well Neil if you consider the MWP as a “dry run” expect megadroughts through China, SW USA, central America, Africa, Australia – but hey why worry – just ignore theory and empirical evidence pointing in that direction.
It’s the willful ignorance of the denialist scum, the point blank refusal to consider any information properly, that defines the philosophical and moral bankruptcy of the sceptic position. You have had a little cursory glance of what I have posted and made some half-arsed quips. I laugh at your ill-considered assessment.
Neil – you haven’t even come to the most trivial level of understanding.
” Put it this way: will you bet your life and everything you own on it being right?”
That’s about as intellectually dishonest as you can get – so essentially your again moral bankrupt position is to address major issues like water resource allocation by ignoring all the available science.
You see Neil – opting in is not optional. Society and the economy has always been at war with climate. Decisions need to need to made while you sit on your hands and whine.
Which is also why the Chinese are dreadfully anxious about matters climate.
As for your again pathetic little assessment of the science – e.g. aerosols you’re so smart that you forgot about global brightening. Whoops a daisy. You could have mentioned Meehl’s paper where the PDO delays the greenhouse rise.
The graph stopped as that’s the results at the time. Don’t try to verbal the authors eh?
The validation is that you cannot reproduce the temperature rise with solar forcing. Add the forcing produced by the vast body of radiative physics research and it reproduces the GMST. It’s a test of AGW. Not the THE test.
The last 10 years clearly shows we don’t know everything – but GMST growth is only slowed to stasis. These results are shown in individual GCM runs – but you also have a quiet Sun and PDO flip. And despite all this teensy weensy CO2 is still holding it up – how can it be?
The science isn’t perfect but denialist alarmists like you aren’t up for a serious discussion either are you. The issue is one of risk management.
Strange that a bunch of rightist creeps would be so cavalier in formal decision making.
There is a considerable case grown over the last 5-7 year of a fundamental atmospheric circulation change in the southern hemisphere. A product of increasing tropospheric greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and natural variation. Timbal recently attributes the southern Australian rainfall decline to the STR intensity. But what drives the STR?
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/researchletters/CAWCR_Research_Letters2.pdf
But I think there is evidence this is one interlinked system. One issue morphing into and driving the next in a chain of events. All a bit beyond those who haven’t got quibbling about the GMST eh?
Lough’s documentation of SST rise around north-eastern and north-western Australia and changes in Indian Ocean Dipole all related in a linked system.
But Neil doesn’t want to know any of that – he’ll have a little quip about each paper that will reassure his need to keep mental control. Don’t let that cognitive dissonance out of the bag.
Hilarious that this blog post be about Academic freedom. And sceptics really not the least sceptical – not the least curious – just a bunch of denialist thugs in fact.
David W. J. Thompson and Susan Solomon (3 May 2002) Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Chang, Science 296 (5569), 895. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1069270]
Shindell, D. T., and G. A. Schmidt (2004), Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724.
Cai, W. (2006), Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03712, doi:10.1029/2005GL024911.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2006), SAM and regional rainfall in IPCC AR4 models: Can anthropogenic forcing account for southwest Western Australian winter rainfall reduction?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24708, doi:10.1029/2006GL028037.
Cai, W., T. Cowan, M. Dix, L. Rotstayn, J. Ribbe, G. Shi, and S. Wijffels (2007), Anthropogenic aerosol forcing and the structure of temperature trends in the southern Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14611, doi:10.1029/2007GL030380.
Power, S. B., and I. N. Smith (2007), Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El Niño both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030854.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2008), Evidence of impacts from rising temperature on inflows to the Murray-Darling Basin, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L07701, doi:10.1029/2008GL033390.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2008), Dynamics of late autumn rainfall reduction over southeastern Australia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L09708, doi:10.1029/2008GL033727.
Rainfall increases in northern Australia http://www.science.org.au/events/australiajapan/rotstayn.pdf
Rotstayn, L. D., et al. (2007), Have Australian rainfall and cloudiness increased due to the remote effects of Asian anthropogenic aerosols?, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D09202, doi:10.1029/2006JD007712.
Louis,
Why should he? The questions are not based on science but on Monbiot’s political adversarial approach”
Sooooooo exactly which of the questions are not based on science? I’m assuming you have read them in the context of Monbiot’s challenge to Plimer for a debate. Here they are so you can refresh your memory on science: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism
Sorry, my typo, other way around, Plimer challenged Monbiot to the debate, Monbiot accepted, gave science based questions which Plimer said he would answer and now Plimer won’t answer and tried to muddy the waters by putting his own questions which have been answered. Why?
Why are the denialists being so quiet about this when they are always jumping up and down saying that people wont debate them?
Jeremy C
As I stated earlier, Monbiot was not asking about the science, and yes I have read his list of questions. AGW is not a scientific theory, by the way, it is a political agenda dressed up in scientific clothes.
luke; your latest list of papers includes the Cai lexicon which have been superseded and the general notion of atmospheric circulation changes wrought by AGW vis a vis Power and Smith; I did post this before but here it is again to address these issues;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
As to Plimer and Moonbat; yes JC, Plimer could have handled this better but unlike Moonbat poor old Plimer doesn’t have the vast resources of RC and Tamino behind him but regardless of those resources RC’s responses to Plimer’s questions are garbage.
“regardless of those resources RC’s responses to Plimer’s questions are garbage.”
So exactly what and how are they garbage? Take us through them, otherwise you post is just assertions and as such are…. inadequate.
Luke wrote:
Look here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=216 and you will see that in Perth’s catchment areas for it’s domestic water supply, there is no significant change in rainfall over the last 30 years. And yet ACTEW seems to think that climate change has affected Perth’s water supply!
Are you aware that the EOF’s (the more modern term is Principle Component, BTW) are affected by the physical shape of the area you are analysing, and that this fact has been known for 30 odd years, and is, in fact, a product of climate research. Anyway, they produce Chlandri patterns – the same patterns that you get when you cover a flat metal sheet (of any shape) in sand or similar and “bow” it (like a violin string). IOW, there are reasonances due to the physical shape that bias the PCs (EOFs). There are many issues with the maths these people use, and this is only one of them. I am not confident that there are many climate scientists that are well trained enough in stats to do much more than use a stats “cookbook”, and there are several interested statisticians who have shown massive flaws in climate papers – you see, it’s not that I have a problem with this sort of thing (hey – they’re human, and everyone makes mistakes, especially when they are pushing the limits, which is, after all, the definition of what a scientist does), but I do have a problem when these issues are pointed out and yet the very same methodology is used in subsequent papers – they’ve been told by experts in a field they are using the tools of, that their methodology is flawed and that they’d be happy to help them correct this problem, but they ignore that advice and push on anyway! And then have the balls to stand up and say, in all seriousness, “We are experts in this field, why won’t you listen to us?”!!
You reckon I’m confused??? There are many cycles in the data – they are of different lengths, different amplitudes and different phases. When you add them together, they produce a complex “driver” signal that is impossible to decompose into it’s component parts without shitloads more data than we currently have. We have at best 150 years of reliable and reasonably accurate data (there are issues with it, sure, but it’s considerably better than the record we have of what happened prior to that time), and yet we have historical and geological evidence of cycles on the order of 30 years, 180 years, 1500 years and 100k years. There are undoubtedly other cycles in there that we just don’t know about, simply because we don’t have the data to resolve them. It is a very brave soul that can say they understand what’s going on and predict the future path of climate in any but the broadest possible terms, and only a fool would suggest otherwise. Oh – sorry.
I’ve told you this before, but what the hell – Lubos Motl, who has forgotten more about maths than you or I will ever know, has already demonstrated that a random walk is more than capable of “creating” the temperature profile of the 20thC. But I guess that particular piece of information went into your black hole of inconvenient facts, eh?
Just two points on this:
* the alarmist position is either that the MWP didn’t exist, or if it did, it was regional.
* assuming you accept that it really did happen and was actually global, are you seriously suggesting that it was caused by anthropogenic CO2? No? Then what makes you think the current warm period is?
Hey, I’m no scientist, let alone a climate scientist. However, I have been following the debate for in excess of 10 years, and I have to tell you it’s not a pretty sight – and it’s the alarmists who have dragged the debate into the gutter, not the sceptics. The alarmists are the ones that: drag the debate into personal invective; who resort to claims “consensus” and then tout their latest “hero paper”, which goes against all previous research on the matter, as being definitive; that want to prevent any debate; that want to put people who disagree with them in gaol; that want to prevent their data falling into the hands of those who disagree with them instead of shoving it in their faces and saying “prove me wrong!”; the list goes on and on and it certainly looks like they think they are the only ones who know THE TRUTH and that anyone who disagrees with them is a heretic who should be burned – yet they say they are scientists!
Plus Cohenite,
Back to the question. Monbiot accepted the debate on the proviso that he could put some questions to Plimer. Plimer accepted but now won’t answer the questions. Instead he used the delaying tactic of throwing up his own questions which have been answered.
As to the vast resources of RC, weeeeeeeell RC is composed of a bunch of scientists, just like Plimer who spend their spare time blogging on the science of AGW. No vast resources there, no 100 billion bucks. Your point is inadequate because in the denialist universe Plimer’s work is supposed to be right (especially after putting resources into writing a book) so his questions shouldn’t be able to be answered by a bunch of consensual, lying, misguided, venial, money grabbing, cheating, marxist, scientists.
Cohenite, we have an air gap here.
Jeremy C
Plimer’s book contained some typos and other errors that would have been spotted by an editor, and this has been accepted resulting in the latest editions being corrected.
That said, I occasionally have nightmares over the results of my editing AIG News when occasionally the galley proofs end up with errors that the proof readers missed.
All in all the vendetta at Plimer is for one purpose – to vilify him personally – but then Monbiot etc all do play the man and not the ball.
I notice that Deltoid has focussed on this latest effort of character assassination.
Louis,
Monbiot’s questions to Plimer are an example of playing the ball not the man. You don’t see that?!?
All Plimer has to do is answer the questions and alongside this there is a free trip to London, courtesy of the Spectator (conservative) and the Guardian (centre), to debate Monbiot.
If you are right all Plimer has to point out are typo’s. He hasn’t done this. Perhaps the problems with his book aren’t typos……
Neil says; “Are you aware that the EOF’s (the more modern term is Principle Component, BTW) are affected by the physical shape of the area you are analysing”; they should be given the justified fuss with Mann and Steig; I suspect luke is enamoured with parker’s 1st EOF/PC because it gives a pretense of balance between natural and AGW factors; but as Neil observes we really only have 150 years of reasonable data and arguably only 30 years since the satellites came on stream; given this any long term EOF/PC may be stochastic with any LTP statistically indistinguishable from a random walk. Since 20thC climate records are not AGW compatible in themselves AGW cannot be salvaged by longer term factors.
JC; RC’s first answer is typical; they say just because natural factors may have caused a MWP doesn’t mean AGW is not causing 20thC warming; but this is illogical; if natural factors caused a MWP why can’t they be causing any warming happening during the 20thC; I have proof they are; do you have proof they aren’t?
Why would you listen to Hughes of all people. And you’ve already perverted the question. Try http://www.clw.csiro.au/conferences/GICC/cowan.pdf
EOF – barf – what woeful handwaving. Write the rebuttal. PCA has been a major tool for decades. The Parker et al paper is the simplest analysis you can do- it would kill you to actually read it – which you have not done. Predictable and contemptible denialist style.
Well maybe many cycles don’t really exist. In fac t exaintion of qusit-periodicity has yielded more. Is ENSO a “cycle”?? Is the PDO a “cycle”.
Motl – ROTFL. Ah yes a whole bunch of energy appears from nowhere and the whole Earth does a random walk in climate. Pullease !!! ” has already demonstrated” – oh come on now – I kacked.
MWP – “are you seriously suggesting that it was caused by anthropogenic CO2” nope
“Then what makes you think the current warm period is?” no solar forcing, is GHG forcing
As usual pseudo -sceptisicm makes you think ther eis on;y one way to a goal.
” it’s the alarmists who have dragged the debate into the gutter, not the sceptics.” oh pullease. DO pull the other leg. The comments on sceptic blogs and here is VILE !
You could go read some science instead of wallowing in blog bilge. The debate isn’t about science – it’s about politics.
What you haven’t worked out is that you already have cliamte problems – so tell us Neil – how would you allocate water in the Murray Darling Basin from a climate perspective. Real problem – real issue – let’s go ! (it’s not about carbon taxes matey – and will you back your decision with your life and everything you own)
Coho – Dr Jones has already you you won’t be getting published as you have no mechanistic understanding. Stockwell’s problem.
As for the PCA – no magic simply the simplest analysis that you could do to ordinate the data. The results are entirely what you’d expect. Even boring. The beauty is two SST non-land series data sets. The PCA says nothing about AGW and natural actually.
Are you even surprised what the analysis shows?
In fact I only bring it up as it’s the scene setting comment for a much wider and controversial discussion which would be wasted here (i.e. AMO affecting Australian rainfall).
We can do bore-holes next.
” if natural factors caused a MWP why can’t they be causing any warming happening during the 20thC” – yuh – if the forcing is pixie dust magic – jeez are we men of science or astrologers. You don’t have a solar driver (unless you want to get into Svensmark). Same sort bullshit comment about “recovery” from the Little Ice Age. Like the Earth is elastic or gets “over” a cold. Coho – it’s simply indulgent and outrageous.
The rat dirt on the MWP is if you get away from Europe and wine growing and Cathedral building – it was a shit of a time elsewhere. See Brian Fagan’s book – the Great Warming”.
SO how’s the sceptics party going to handle water allocation in the MDB Coho?
are you on coke again Luke ?
Lukey: “what really shits me is you quote all their BS without even questioning it.” – what really shits me is that you never read anything I tell you ”
That’s not surprising Lukey, did you ever have anything interesting to say except to spout the usual AGW lies? I am still looking forward to your peer-reviewed paper on Steve McIntyre. Meanwhile looking at the form in the battle of the blogs:
McIntyre vs. The Believer Blogs
1. Tamino
McIntyre eats Tamino for breakfast with coffee and toast. Phhhht. Tamino gone.
2. RealSucks
McIntyre runs rings around the RealSucks dunderheads so fast they don’t even get to smell his exhaust. I don’t think I have ever seen anybody so hopelessly outclassed as those poor clods when McIntyre is in town. Anybody who wastes their time reading RealSucks is, well, a sucker.
3. Deltoid
Deltoid, the blog where all the scientific creationist trolls dwell. I believe its run by Tim Lambert, a sort of AGW/creationist Super Troll to whom all the other trolls bow down in supplication. In a former life Lambert aspired to be an apparatchik for Pavlov Beria, one of Stalin’s favorite henchmen, to whom Lambert bears a striking resemblance. In his latest incarnation now somewhat diminished, Lambert is merely a Master Troll amongst Lesser Trolls.
I think that the only sane and civilized thing you can do with Deltoid is to throw up a 10-foot barbed wire fence around it, throw in a few bananas, and just let the crazies get on with their devolution into a herd of wild numbats. Oh, and for the sake of public safety better put up a sign saying: “Keep out. Mad lunatics engaged in constant group sex. Do Not Disturb.”
4. The Rest.
What about them. Does anybody read them?
Cohenite,
“JC; RC’s first answer is typical; they say just because natural factors may have caused a MWP doesn’t mean AGW is not causing 20thC warming; but this is illogical; if natural factors caused a MWP why can’t they be causing any warming happening during the 20thC; I have proof they are; do you have proof they aren’t?”
????!!!!?????
Just how is it illogical? And then following on with proof doesn’t make sense but then give us your ‘proof’ and make Luke’s evening.
Lukey: “http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution_png BECAUSE IT’S A COMBINATION OF FACTORS – REMEMBER NOW”
How can you be sure it isn’t just a case of a lot of small piles of bullshit adding up to a larger pile of bullshit? This is the general impression I get from the whole AGW bonanza, particularly when its proponents are wholesale liars generally uninterested in science except as a political process.
“No that’s statistical bunk – Parker et al (above) show why ENSO is only a 2nd level effect by a mile.” Thats a particularly interesting comment, given that ENSO is said to be responsible for the huge temperature spike in 1998, with which CO2 has yet to allegedly catch up. But if I read the Parker paper to get more info, I’m just going to get a lot of AGW lies and bullshit. What can I do about this situation Lukey? How do I filter out the AGW lies, frauds and bullshit from the pro-active CO2 climate science agenda in order to assess the real facts of the matter? Do you have any advice for me apart from a referral to IPCC Holy Scriptures?
“These results are shown in individual GCM runs” You can make anything do anything in a GCM run Lukey, does this mean anything?
Well dribble,
Given your post above then Plimer should be able to answer Monbiot’s questions with ease…… as I suppose I can assume you would put Monbiot and his questions in the same place as the blogs you mention in such a non ad hom way…………So why are we waiting for Plimer?
Lukey: “You could go read some science instead of wallowing in blog bilge. The debate isn’t about science – it’s about politics.”
You are so right for a change Lukey. The science went out the window in, when, 1980? After that it has been politics all the way. Those are not science papers you are reading Lukey, they are political manifestos for the New Green Paradise, where every climate scientist gets his reward of 1000 virgins for fighting the good fight, where every AGW believer gets to sit under his solar panel and reflect upon the victories of the just, and where truth and honesty got flushed down the toilet along with everything else.
Jeremy C: “Given your post above then Plimer should be able to answer Monbiot’s questions with ease…… as I suppose I can assume you would put Monbiot and his questions in the same place as the blogs you mention in such a non ad hom way…………So why are we waiting for Plimer?”
I am sorry but as far as Plimer goes he is probably his own worst enemy. I have not read his book or followed the saga in any detail. Plimer was/is a member of the Australian Skeptics, a group whose normal remit is the debunking of astrologers, biblical creationism, UFOs, psychic believers, cold fusion and host of other beliefs with which I am sure Louis is more familiar than I. Essentially the Australian Skeptics are hatchet men for the mainstream scientific paradigm, masters in the art of debunking anything they don’t particularly like
Plimer’s problem in my opinion is that he is used to being on the establishment side and aligned with the power structure, while at the same time dealing with underpowered and disorganised opponents who usually don’t have much grasp of the scientific method, or those with insufficient funding for useful research to back up their claims. Anybody in this position has it too easy. They can be as arrogant, half-baked and as pseudo-scientific as they like in dealing with their opponents, and they will always get away with it because they are backed up with establishment power.
In jumping into the climate fray as a skeptic Plimer is now on the side of the weak and disenfranchised, while the climate gang has taken over the establishment. Going up against Big Science is like going up against Big Tobacco. They have all the money, all the power, and they play just as dirty if they think their pet paradigms are threatened. So now the boot is on the other foot as far as Plimer is concerned.
In any debunking campaign the first thing is to avoid concentration on your opponents main arguments when you don’t have a ready answer for them, but instead concentrate on the small errors and trivialities. This puts the spotlight on your opponent’s mistakes and takes attention away from the weaknesses in your own case. This is standard operating procedure and is precisely what has happened to Plimer.
Therefore I was surprised to discover that Plimer, in getting his book into publication, appears to have done somewhat of a rush job and made too many mistakes. He should have known in advance that in going up against the current fashionable establishment paradigm de jour, he would be torn apart by vultures over any mistake, even the slightest. I would have thought therefore that he would have fact checked and peer-reviewed his book to the nth degree before offering it up to the wolves. The fact that he didn’t is his own problem.
I think Plimer has done good work in the past in fighting against scientific creationism, a pernicious form of religion that needs to be kept out of secular schools, indeed he has gone well beyond the call of duty in this respect. One of my siblings, a geologist, studied under Plimer and has nothing but good words to say about him. However as far as I am concerned Plimer is ultimately just another arrogant and pseudo-scientific member of the Australian Skeptics who deserves what he gets as far as punishment dished out goes.
The Monbiot stuff I don’t know much about but will read up and get back to you to offer an opinion.
Well JC;
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/gatemaster99/warmtwice.png
And here is how AGW would have it;
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/image102.jpg
This is statistical chicanery and ignores all of Parker’s EOFs.
After this “Those are not science papers you are reading Lukey, they are political manifestos”
Well you’re quite a mental case aren’t you. A rabid little ranter.
“How can you be sure it isn’t just a case of a lot of small piles of bullshit adding up to a larger pile of bullshit?” – well how can we be sure that you might be the greatest moron to have ever been created. And how can we be sure that you head isn’t actually your are. We can’t.
At some point you’ll realise that McIntyre has led you into a pit of nihilism – where no light enters. Remember he never actually creates anything.
Don’t even bother Dribble – I’m now ignoring. So boring. Yawn.
Coho – at this point you are truly gone. Stop hanging around with statisticians.
How nice, the Luke sock puppet who is rude, uninformative and mentally deranged is back from leave, or treatment.
Welcome back, to the ensemble Luke v.dolt.
But occasionally, from the mouth of a moron, comes truth:
AGW is not about science at all. It is about politics.
Good job, Luke v.dolt.
Keep blithering away.
Lukey: “Don’t even bother Dribble – I’m now ignoring. So boring. Yawn.”
Goodoh, Lukey you’re a waste of time and space anyway. Piss off while you are at it, but before you go here’s another one:
“Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change
Cynthia Rosenzweig1, David Karoly2, Marta Vicarelli1, Peter Neofotis1, Qigang Wu3, Gino Casassa4, Annette Menzel5, Terry L. Root6, Nicole Estrella5, Bernard Seguin7, Piotr Tryjanowski8, Chunzhen Liu9, Samuel Rawlins10 & Anton Imeson11”
And the justification for the title of this paper to include the statement ‘anthropogenic’ along with ‘climate change’? Why its because the IPCC, ie themselves, say so, so there. And you say that they aren’t all frauds? Get real, they all stink to high heaven and back again. The whole lot of them are smelly little frauds like you Lukey.
I’m not hanging around statisticians luke, I’m talking to you; BTW that Kaufman study on Arctic warming must be placed in the Steig hall of [non]fame; it’s a shocker;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/#more-10531
Hunter – look the way it works it that you don’t copy the insults – you come back with some devastating science analysis that proves you’re not stupid after all. You see Huntsbo – isn’t it strange on a thread bout academic freedom that yourself and Dribble are reduced to kindergarten comments like “smelly little frauds”. “IPCC go poo poos” “Sir – he hit me”.
But hey that’s the level of the denialist filth intellect isn’t it. No science, no substance, no style – just a bunch of venomous little ranters.
Dribble,
You make some excellent points but whether Plimer changed course is moot. He was and remains an exploration and mining geologist and thus more acutely aware of the practical application of the scientific method than practioners of the “soft sciences” (excluding chemistry and electrical engineering).
Hence his position always was that CO2 cannot drive the Earth’s climate for one simple reason – observation and measurement. I could add additional facts in science which would demolish the methodolgies used by the AGW scientists since from personal experience we in the exploration and mining industries know those methods don’t work as intended (Hence my consistent emphasis on the silliness of avergaing intensive variables etc).
Plimer’s error was not having his first edition properly edited – he admits as much and the later editions were fixed up. Monbiots questions were basically directed at those editing errors and thus nothing more than a blatant attempt at further embarassing Plimer.
Plimer is also used to being setup by the various state and socialist media outlets, and while he asked for the debate initially, I think he subsequently realised from further exposure to the public, that science is not debated. I think he realised that debating Monbiot with the Monbiot’s resources was little different to walking into a lions den without the blessings of being a Daniel. Stupid Plimer is not.
Here lies the essence of the AGW issue – that it requires incessant debate and publishing of science papers to “prove” it means that the theory is not self evident, (as in the observation that gravity is self evident). AGW ios simply a political agenda couched in scientology.
I think that the AGW crowd are a lilttle cheesed off that the show trial of PLimer isn’t going to happen.
I was at the Plimer-Warden climate debate in Perth on July 9 and Plimer’s adversary, despite being a geologist, could not mount one scientfiic counterpoint to Plimer’s arguments enunciated in his book.
There does not seem to be much of a cooperation between the Gore people here, and those in the UK, so I suspect we are actually dealing with a straw man argument from Monbiot.
Luke,
Still as venomous as ever justifying your scientology are you? It only takes one observation to refute AGW, that has been done, and all the pro arguments you mount matter not. You are the denialist, not the sceptics.
Sinkers – All Plimer has to do is answer Monbiot and RC – he’s been cleaned up mate . A disgraceful litany of errors all publicly documented. Spare us the tedious philosophising. It’s over. He’s done a runner mate., And that’s the answer. And only the denialist filth would try to squirm out of it.
“Monbiot’s resources” – hahahahahahahaha – Plimer only has every denialist on the planet to assist ! Come on – pull the other leg. ho ho ho ho
“I was at the Plimer-Warden climate debate in Perth on July 9 and Plimer’s adversary, despite being a geologist, could not mount one scientfiic counterpoint to Plimer’s arguments enunciated in his book.” – yes but you’re a dope ! Pity 20 other scientists have creamed it.
But hey it’s “academic freedom” where you get to write all manner of unedited bilge and try to hock it to the gullible.
Jennifer
Only two crumbs of comfort to be taken from such an amazing rant:
1 He says ‘vast’ number of scientists – not long ago he would have said ‘all’ scientists.
2 The religious nature of his ‘argument’ becomes very clear in the use of ‘morally reprehensible’ as a description of your scientific view.
We hear of frequent defections from the warming camp of warmists becoming sceptics – I would very much like to have some data of the numbers moving in the other direction – if any! Do you have anything on this?
Keep up the good work!
Luke wrote:
Well, the data is the data, right? As long as it’s accurately cited, does it matter who does the citing?
Anyway, here’s some data I just looked up on the BoM website:
Perth Gardens Rainfall
1881-1910 Avg: Jan 7.3mm, Jun 169.3mm
1901-1930 Avg: Jan 8.6mm, Jun 180.3mm
1920-1950 Avg: Jan 8.9mm, Jun 194.0mm
Perth 2009 Rainfall: Jan 0.2mm, Jun 156.2mm
Perth Airport 2009 Rainfall: Jan 12.6mm, Jun 131.4mm
Alas, at a quick look, I was unable to find Perth Gardens rainfall which would have been a direct comparison, so that’s why I used Perth Metro and Perth Airport numbers. You can plainly see that the exact location matters from the difference in the numbers between Perth Metro and Perth Airport for the same single month. Be that as it may, it does not appear to me to be in any way outside the ordinary unless you cherry pick your start date in, say, 1950 so you can show a “massive fall” – but we wouldn’t do that, would we? No, we’d want to use all the data we have, right? Oh wait…
Yes, PCA has indeed been a useful tool for decades. If you are unaware of the implications and limitations of the tool your are using, it’s very easy to screw it up. As has been noted before: small, uninteresting variations in methodology should not create large changes in the results. And yet, for many of these papers such as Steig et al, small changes make a very large difference.
They appear to be somewhay cyclic to me – for sure, they are not completely regular or entirely predictable yet, but I would suspect that in a few thousand years we’ll have enough data to get a good handle on what’s happening with them. Until then, you can guess if you like – I’d rather you didn’t gamble my future on your guesses though.
WTF are you on about? Surely you would agree that there is natural variability in the climate – I mean, even the grossly oversimplified climate models show that much, and it’s the explaination at RC of why temps haven’t increased over the last decade. Lubos has shown that such variations with even the smallest amount of LTP can create temporal patterns in the data that easily exceed the changes we experienced over the 20thC. And while that doesn’t mean “it’s all natural”, it certainly does show that it could be.
What caused the MWP? What makes you certain that the 20thC warming was not caused by the same factor(s)?
Right – sending me off to study something, then telling me it’s not about that anyway. Sounds familiar…
Lukey: “Hunter – look the way it works it that you don’t copy the insults – you come back with some devastating science analysis that proves you’re not stupid after all. ” We’re all still waiting for your peer-reviewed analysis of Steve McIntyre, Lukey, I bet it’ll be a doozy. Any sort of devastating science analysis at all from you and your buddies would be a bonus for the readership. Please go head, make our day.
“But hey that’s the level of the denialist filth intellect isn’t it. No science, no substance, no style – just a bunch of venomous little ranters.” – Coming from you Lukey, I’d say that you just won the Nobel Prize for the most Hypocritical, Self-Deluded, Abusive and Content-Free Ranter of the Year For All Blogs In the Known Universe.
“At some point you’ll realise that McIntyre has led you into a pit of nihilism – where no light enters. Remember he never actually creates anything.” Well at least he doesn’t create a pack of lies, Lukey. If you believe he has, please direct me to a rational analysis of where he has lied. But please don’t tell me to go to RealSucks or Deltoid. I’d want something a bit more substantial to not feel that my intelligence has been grossly insulted. What the world needs is a couple of hundred more like him to go through the The Great IPCC Wank-Up like a dose of salts and sort out some facts from under all the layers of politicized crud.
Neil Fisher wrote “As has been noted before: small, uninteresting variations in methodology should not create large changes in the results. And yet, for many of these papers such as Steig et al, small changes make a very large difference.”
Simply means the analysis is not ROBUST and indicates that the assumption (theory ?) is wrong.
Louis: “You make some excellent points but whether Plimer changed course is moot. He was and remains an exploration and mining geologist and thus more acutely aware of the practical application of the scientific method than practioners of the “soft sciences” (excluding chemistry and electrical engineering).”
I am not saying that Plimer has changed course, rather that as far as this issue is concerned he is now on the wrong side of the establishment power structure whereas previously he enjoyed its benefits.
“Plimer’s error was not having his first edition properly edited – he admits as much and the later editions were fixed up. Monbiots questions were basically directed at those editing errors and thus nothing more than a blatant attempt at further embarassing Plimer.”
The point I was trying to make is that Plimer has much experience as a debunker of non-establishment beliefs, and therefore should know exactly how debunking is done. He should have known in advance not to make trivial errors in the first place. Its too late to fix up errors after the damage is done and you are full of bulletholes. But I suppose that in this game as in any other its ultimately not how you start but how you finish thats more important.
“Plimer is also used to being setup by the various state and socialist media outlets, and while he asked for the debate initially, I think he subsequently realised from further exposure to the public, that science is not debated. I think he realised that debating Monbiot with the Monbiot’s resources was little different to walking into a lions den without the blessings of being a Daniel. Stupid Plimer is not.”
Yes Plimer has now realized the hard way, if he didn’t before, that in paradigm related issues power is more important than science. Since the pollies and the media are invariably ineffectual in dealing with complex technical issues, these outlets, whatever their political color, are just led along by the nose by Big Science. Thats what paradigm power is all about. Big Science is the equivalent of the once all-powerful medieval Church in modern westernized societies. It has no effective opposition as far as its scientific pronouncements are concerned. There is no equivalent of an official Opposition Party such as in politics, or a Counsel for the Defence as in the courtroom. This is why the integrity of its participants is essential to the process. Once the consensus or received wisdom is taken over by a gang, the rot immediately sets in. This is actually quite normal for science and happens all the time, but in the case of climate science it is has become much more serious due to the massive consequences. I mean who cares if much of modern cosmology for example is a pile of bullshit, it has little effect in the real world. The expensive consequences of mitigating alleged anthropogenic climate change are far more practical in scope.
Monbiot’s resources are in effect the resources of the entire scientific establishment, with its multi-billions worth of infrastructure backed by the state. He can call on any amount of willingly proffered advice from professional persons seeking to defend the consensus. I appreciate Plimer going in to bat for climate skepticism and admire his courage but not his foolhardiness.
“Here lies the essence of the AGW issue – that it requires incessant debate and publishing of science papers to “prove” it means that the theory is not self evident, (as in the observation that gravity is self evident). AGW ios simply a political agenda couched in scientology.”
I agree. The problem is that climate is a more or less nebulous phenomenon with no clear cut and self-evident (except to AGW believers) answers currently available to back the various claims. Therefore political expediency has developed in order to brush over the various inadequacies of the scientific case. This in turn is driven by the self-percieved need to hurry up and save the world in time before it is destroyed by the alleged tipping points. In my opinion there is no particular hurry since the real world in reality cannot change its energy systems fast enough to do much about it whatever is done. The next 20-30 years would be better spent in going over the science properly and developing a more mature approach as to what should be done, if anything. At the moment all we have is a lot of hysterical fuck-heads like Hansen, along with a host of lesser droob-tubes like Raupach etc, all running around like chooks with their heads chopped off.
“I was at the Plimer-Warden climate debate in Perth on July 9 and Plimer’s adversary, despite being a geologist, could not mount one scientfiic counterpoint to Plimer’s arguments enunciated in his book.”
Unfortunately I cannot offer any opinion on this, however you have encouraged me to look into the issue. It should make a welcome change from trying to follow the ins and outs of the hot spot data laundering trail.
Well after a quick look at the Monbiot-Plimer debate, or rather debacle, I’d have to give Plimer an F for his efforts so far. His textbook-type questions in answer to Monbiot do not impress either. If he is going to ask Monbiot these sorts of questions he ought to provide answers for them on the spot. Looks like Plimer has been killed in action. Can he resurrect himself? The signs do not good for that prospect. Over to you Louis.
Neil F
2 sites in Perth when we’re talking the SW corner – come on matey stop the diddling. Make a serious attempt eh?
PCA – yes yes – just more hand waving – make a specific critique and stop being serially dishonest on “possibilities”
” What caused the MWP? What makes you certain that the 20thC warming was not caused by the same factor(s)?” … as McIntyre says – he doesn’t know the extent to which the MWP exists or not – he’s only the auditor not a climate scientist – go figure?
I see you’ve ducked solving any real world climate problems – like MDB water allocation. Neil prefers to sit on his hands. All denialists love to run away from real problems.
Louis being a good little boy and member of the ra-ra team of the dead geologists society will defend the indefensible. Loyal to the end. Stick with ya mates. Any tactic is justifiable to fight the real enemy. Louis he did good stuff and creation science rebuttals and he’s a great geologist – however on this one he’s way off the reservation and has been less than thorough in his research.
Incidentally Dribble dick – do you know Mike Raupach – I do and I find your assessment of him personally noxious. What’s your basis for this personal attack. Just tell us – how many of his papers have you ever read eh? What would the topics be? Do you know his approach and demeanor to make the assertions you do.
“Coming from you Lukey, I’d say that you just won the Nobel Prize for the most Hypocritical, Self-Deluded, Abusive and Content-Free Ranter of the Year For All Blogs In the Known Universe.”
I liked that – cut it out and put on the wall. Good sledging !
It’s a pity Dribble that you are not just a tad more curious. Coz if you were you’d start to ponder the costs of inaction. You would actually value what references I gave you. You might even ask for a copy and have a read. You see I didn’t come to AGW as a “cause” – I came to it worrying about existing climate variability. From there you start to see trends in data ,,,,
And hey – it’s not about ideology – I just really need to know – OK?!
Luke,
You guys have already lost. And your alleged cv on how you got here does not even get close to adding up.
The idea that you are a bunch of over employed bureaucrats is a much better fit. And in your over employed state you started pretending you could control the climate.
The AGW political agenda will roll on a bit farther, but you lost the science.
Because you never had it.
There never was any apocalypse going to happen. No climate apocalypse is coming.
Deal with it.
You AGW creeps never came up with anything outside the margin of error or natural, well established variability. Now you pretend it would be much cooler except for CO2. And you keep fabricating hockey sticks using the same garbage data and bad stats.
Your only remaining twig of support comes from repetition of the same, tired bs.
You sock puppets are boring, rude and wrong.
Why bother being nice to trolls like you?
Lukey: “Incidentally Dribble dick – do you know Mike Raupach – I do and I find your assessment of him personally noxious. What’s your basis for this personal attack. Just tell us – how many of his papers have you ever read eh? What would the topics be? Do you know his approach and demeanor to make the assertions you do.”
I am sure that Sir Michael is, as you appear to assure us, a nice bloke and may even be, for all I know, a world shattering scientific genius. Frankly from his hopelessly disorganised and unconvincing epistle to the SMH I am not particularly impressed with what I have seen of his work so far. I have not read any of his papers and have no plans to do so. I am sure he is already generously rewarded for his work in this respect by the taxpayer.
I do object however to what in my opinion is his blatant misrepresentation of the 20th century temperature record in a public forum for the ostensible purposes of his private or publicly funded political advocacy. If you feel my representation of this matter, which is on record on this blog, is factually incorrect in any way, please feel free to explain where I am incorrect. You have so far not offered any explanation of why I am incorrect in this matter, so I am still waiting to hear it. If I am in fact incorrect I will offer my deepest apologies to Sir Michael and take pains to not further impinge upon his integrity until any future apparent infringements on his part appear to make it necessary. I do however reserve the right to consider Sir Michael a buffoon as far as his political advocacy in relation to climate science is concerned.
Lukey: “I liked that – cut it out and put on the wall. Good sledging !”
Thank you. You are generous in your praise.
“It’s a pity Dribble that you are not just a tad more curious. Coz if you were you’d start to ponder the costs of inaction. etc etc” Nope. I like to think that I have been around the traps a bit and seen it all before. Inaction in your vocabulary is code for ‘not jumping up and running around in hysterics just because various climate shonks of dubious scientific worth say I should’. As I have already stated, my opinion is that for practical real world reasons, precipitous action in this affair is non-productive and conducive to stupidity.
“I have not read any of his papers and have no plans to do so” Pig ignorant moron.
What Raupach said is true – what’s wrong with it?
Lukey: “You would actually value what references I gave you. You might even ask for a copy and have a read. You see I didn’t come to AGW as a “cause” – I came to it worrying about existing climate variability. From there you start to see trends in data ,,,,”
And I might add, you are starting to sound remarkably like a Jehova’s Witness suggesting to me that if only I were to peruse the holy scripture therein I would believe….. What I am suggesting is that you should be careful of what you are about to brainwash yourself with.
“What Raupach said is true – what’s wrong with it?”
Sorry but I cannot recollect my exact comments at this point. If you wish to take the matter further, please refer to my actual blog comments that are available in the archives.
Luke,
“Louis he did good stuff and creation science rebuttals and he’s a great geologist”.
Sorry but anyone who loses to creationists has only themselves to blame…… Jennifer can tell you why i can say that
A “JW” – nope coz I’m not cold calling you. I’m not asking you to consider anything supernatural. And I’ll probably tell you to F.O. anyway. I’m simply saying that you guys aren’t that smart as you don’t use the interaction as a learning experience. We do – so we get to defeat you later. Thanks for playing.
“Sorry but I cannot recollect my exact comments at this point” yes but you happy to launch a major torrent of abuse on your faulty memory.
I checked out Monbiot’s questions to Plimer and I had no problem answering most of them. Most can be answered by refering to climate4you charts or wood for trees charts.
The only two I couldn’t answer were the obvious error regarding “US temps and world temps in 1934” which is a typical mistake many have made and Plimer should have known better, and the statement regarding the CO2 output of volcanoes v AGW.
From my searching I’d prefer to accept that we don’t really know how much CO2 the world’s volcanic regions emit as it appears no one has researched it fully.
Luke wrote:
You said previously:
So I went off to http://www.bom.gov.au and had a quick look at their online data – which I quoted.
It seems Warwick Hughes was right, despite your slur. It took me less than 5 minutes to find that data – sure it’s only one site, but it confirms what Hughes said – I see no reason to waste any more time when you’ll simply continue to ignore the data.
STeve McIntyre, Jeff Id, RomanM, and RyanO are just some of the people who have critiqued these anayses – since they are all much better at stats than me, perhaps you could look at their criticisms?
You seemed pretty sure that it existed before, have you changed your mind?
Perhaps if you had the data to show the problem was “unprecedented”, there would be a reason to have a “plan”.
Neil F
If you want to ignore serious analyses of SW WA rainfall decline for someone like Hughes – well good luck to you matey. I assume you summarily ignore all literature. I assume you ignore all the IOCI’s work
As for PCA – make a specific claim or buzz off. Hand waving and feigned insecurity mean nought.
MWP – just telling you want Macca said – I didn’t say “how warm” the MWP was did I. He doesn’t either – read closely !
On MDB – classic bail-out – don’t worry about unprecedented or more hand waving – what’s your approach ?? As usual another denialist throwing out the flares and smoke.
“This Michael has an evil intent. He’s checking your perimeter. I wouldn’t give him any ammo.”
Oopsy, better get into the shack in Montana!
Slightly OT but have you noticed this report in New Scientist, an AGW supporting rag for 20 years, on the IPCC climate change convention in Geneva.
Note what it says and who it quotes.
Food for thought for Mz. Wong et al. I would imagine.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Kindest Regards
Luke wrote:
Assume what you like. I pointed out that ACTEW claimed Perth was low on potable water because of climate change – it’s not, as the data cited by Hughes and confirmed by my – admittedly brief – perusal of BOM data.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195 – not PCA specific, but relevent none-the-less
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5326 is what SM has to say on Chlandi patterns and PCA
Did it exists in your opinion, and if so was it global in your opinion, and if so can you quantify how much?
If we don’t know what’s normal, then it’s hardly possible to decide on a course of action, is it? Because if it’s just normal variation, we need do nothing. If it’s abnormal, it would be prudent to ask why, and what can we do about it. So as far as I’m concerned, your job is to show it’s abnormal, and why it’s abnormal. You haven’t done either – why should I worry?
Lukey: “Sorry but I cannot recollect my exact comments at this point” yes but you happy to launch a major torrent of abuse on your faulty memory.”
Look Lukey, I am very busy at the moment providing sexual services of an unprintable nature to the more attractive female members of my private UFO cult. I’m even forced to dictate these memoirs to you via an amanuensis while getting massaged back to life during tea breaks. I just don’t have time to do all the minor legwork for potty mouthed, lazy and stupid trolls like yourself.
But since you have taken the trouble to ask, and I am a kindly man, here is what Raupach said in his newspaper epistle:
“The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950.”
If you look at any of the major temperature indexes, such as the HadCrud global average temperature 1850-2008 on the HadCrud website, you will see that the amount of temperature increase during the period has been similar before 1950 to after 1950. If Raupach’s statement is therefore not a blatant lie, please explain to me why not.
While we are on the subject of Raupach, I might further comment that as far as I am aware his hysterical Armageddon type ice sheet melting scenario found in the same article and described in a previous comment in this thread is not normally one that is propounded by such eminent authorities (chortle) as the IPCC. For your edification I provide it again here as follows:
“Temperature rises of two to three degrees (or higher) carry a high risk of irreversible decay of the Greenland ice sheet from surface warming alone, leading to a sea level rise of up to about seven metres. Destabilisation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause a further few metres of sea-level rise.”
Could you provide some references from amongst the hallowed works of the climate shonks in which this conclusion is documented by hard, bulletproof science of indisputable rigor. If you cannot, then can you explain why is Raupach making these hysterical claims in a major newspaper.
Additionally, Raupach claims there are three independent lines of evidence for the claim that the dominant cause of global warming is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions:
“……..the dominant cause of the warming since about 1950 is the increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases released by human activities, of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important.
This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely – from the predictions of climate models.”
Raupach does not seem to be aware that climate models, or so their manufacturers say, are based on basic physics. Therefore there are not three independent lines of evidence that he quotes, only two.
Now I don’t know about Generation XYZ, but in my day English lessons incorporated something called ‘clear thinking’, in which the student was required to demonstrate an ability to express himself in a clear and unambiguous manner, and to try not to contradict himself in too blatant a fashion. Obviously it seems that Raupach was out playing with weather balloons on those days when he should have been inside learning about this form of a now abandoned esoteric philosophy.
Of course if Raupach had been Plimer these ‘trivial’ errors would have been pounced upon by the climate spivs with undisguised glee and rebuttals posted all over the Internet. However I have not as yet donned rubber gloves and trawled through the toxic waste at Deltoid to determine if this has been done as yet.
I don’t know the reason by which I was banned to post on this blog at the same time I was banned from Watts Up With That. Was it because I was talking a bit on quantum mechanics or for the rainbow lorikeets?
Regards,
Nasif Nahle
Lukey: “A “JW” – nope coz I’m not cold calling you. I’m not asking you to consider anything supernatural. And I’ll probably tell you to F.O. anyway. I’m simply saying that you guys aren’t that smart as you don’t use the interaction as a learning experience. We do – so we get to defeat you later. Thanks for playing.”
But you are cold-calling us Lukey. Haven’t you noticed that you are a deeply unwelcome believer troll infesting a skeptic blog by any chance? Are you that childishly unselfaware? By comparison the JWs are graciously polite. Additionally you have been told on numerous occasions to Fuck Off. If you have missed being told while you were out playing with yourself, by all means here is it again: Fuck Off Lukey.
I’m happy to use interaction as a learning experience if the interactors have something intelligent to say, but unfortunately the believer trolls on this site have not produced anything of interest so far except to repeat the standard forms of nauseating climate shonk bullshit that can be found anywhere in believer blog world. If you have anything interesting to say, I am still waiting to hear it.
I just scrolled past Dribble’s drivel – so boring now. SJT tell me if he says anything useful if you haven’t used the kill button.
Neil – “Because if it’s just normal variation, we need do nothing. If it’s abnormal, it would be prudent to ask why, and what can we do about it. So as far as I’m concerned, your job is to show it’s abnormal, and why it’s abnormal. You haven’t done either – why should I worry?”
Oh dear – sound buzzer – fail ! System’s in crisis – new policy demanded. Sacked for not handing in homework to Minister. You useless denialist fool. Unbloody believeable !!!
“, your job is to show it’s abnormal” – well it isn’t – so don’t verbal me you denialist turd.
Whats that sound I hear Lukey? Is it that the sound of slurping noises from your lips on Raupach’s bottom? He is going to have get a new group of sycophants, this one doesn’t have the pizazz to even provide a straight answer to a simple question.
Luke wrote:
Yes, just so Luke – only I think it’s you who have failed in the homework delivery department, not me. You see, we have heard all sorts of claims from scientists over the years that turned out to be pure fantasy and nothing more – things like “heavier than air flight is impossible”, “nuclear energy will make electricity too cheap to meter” and other such rubbish. And we have also seen several “environmental emergencies” that turned out not to be what they were touted as – DDT, the ozone hole and so on. And these were bad enough in the limited damage they were capable of. So as I said, when I see people wanting to make major changes to the whole economy based on such speculation, I’m inclined to want to see some pretty solid evidence, and the closer I look, the more solid it shold be. Alas for you, AGW does not fit – the closer one looks, the more assumptions one finds and the shakier the case appears.
If you want me to change my “evil ways”, it is your job to convince me I need to change. You haven’t, so I’m not. And frankly, if you think hurling abuse is going to convince anyone, you have much to learn about human nature.
dribble,
Pointing out that the Luke is not as smart as they think they are may rank as understatement of the new century.
Luke,
Please keep it up.
You are yours are exactly the reason people are seeing that the AGW claims are bunk.
Neil – you’ve simply done a runner ol’ son. So any major new agricultural investment like MDB water allocation or say multi-million dollar new peanut industry investment at Katherine requires hydrological and climatological risk assessment. Unless you’re into flipping coins.
Alas you don’t have anything to offer as you’ve shat all over the science that you could use and you’d be too dense to attempt to use it if you tried.
So how the hell would we do anything if the denialist filth were in charge?
Bob Carter always bangs on about Plan B – errr where is it then?
“If you want me to change my “evil ways” ” – did I say you were evil or undertaking immoral activities. Nope. More verballing.
I’m not hurling abuse – I’m carrying on like the rest of you. Problem is you don’t notice your own behaviour. “When in Rome …. !”
Lukie: “So how the hell would we do anything if the denialist filth were in charge?”
Well for a start I’d sack that fraud Raupach and his cohorts for lying to the public. If they are going to commit the scientific equivalent of original sin they should be made to pay the price.
Then I’d decree that all authors of all climate related papers be required to archive exact data, methods and code as a condition of publication.
I would then decommission the IPCC for the reason that it is clearly a politicized and agenda driven bureacracy with its hand in the till. I have no suggestions for its replacement, but would certainly like to see a better method of determining scientific truth than the exposition of bureacratic gobblegook.
“Problem is you don’t notice your own behaviour. “When in Rome …. !””
Your own behaviour rarely rises above abuse either. Why not try comments longer than the average Tweet for example. Show us your knowledge for a change, don’t just throw off one-liners and refer us to papers produced by shonks. Why not try it Lukey, give it a go. We are willing to impressed by you if you can show us you have got the goods.
Errata:
The comment above made in relation to the IPCC, ie ‘exposition of of bureacratic gobblegook’, should have read ‘exposition of conniving bureacratic gobblegook’.
Nasif; I’ll read any thing you have to say about QM; and I still think this paper does as much as anything to kill AGW;
http://biocarb.org/Induced_Emission.html
And it surely deals with back-radiation and Philipona.
dribble: “Well for a start I’d sack that fraud Raupach and his cohorts for lying to the public. If they are going to commit the scientific equivalent of original sin they should be made to pay the price. ”
As an alternative to termination of employment, I would suggest that Raupach could instead offer to walk the length of Sydney in sackcloth and ashes with a sign around his neck saying ‘Mea culpa’, whilst whipping himself with a rubber hockey stick. The same goes for his corrupt co-authors.
I still think that my previous suggestion, that Raupach be given a rest cure and sent off to look for leprechauns is nevertheless valid. Raupach may make the discovery of a lifetime if he were to seek alternate realities to orthodox climate hysteria. But then again, as a person specializing in climate he may not be the best person for that particular job.
LUKE
Part of the QLD guvmint policy to solve the health crisis in yiour health system, free as I understand it to be, is to expect doctors to drink at least 6 cups of coffee per day.
Six cups? I would have thought 60 more appropriate considering present circumstances.
This post and the comments following have been edited to remove the name of the letter writer – following a request for anonymity. Comment are now closed.