Postscript
Posted by jennifer, October 7th, 2009 - under News.
Tags: People
Update December 12th, 2009 - Jennifer Marohasy is no longer regularly posting at this weblog. But occasionally posts information from friends at the community thread [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/ ]. Dr Marohasy is still writing for The Land and some of her columns for this and other newspapers can be read at her website [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/articles.php ].
Dr Marohasy was publically documenting discrepancies – including incomplete data sets being used by top UK climate scientists that spuriously support the case for global warming – before the now infamous emails from the Climate Research Centre in the UK were leaked. She gives informative and entertaining talks on global warming and other environmental issues [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/display/speaker.html ].
Update December 1st, 2009 - What a momentous week in Australian federal politics! And this morning, against considerable odds, a so-called climate change sceptics, Tony Abbot, took over as leader of the Opposition. It is now likely that the National and Liberal parties will unite behind Mr Abbot, and those passionate on this issue will fight very hard on the issue of emissions trading and the science of climate change. The mainstream media have always been dismissive of Tony Abbot. They are now going to have to at least report him on these issues and it may be in the context of an early federal election.
It is a great day for democracy in Australia.
The mainstream media has been offensively biased on the issue of man-made global warming. A journalist and friend recently described them as acting as “attack dogs”. Most journalists and editors never thought there was any real opposition in the Liberal party to the ETS, they should reflect on how wrong they were and now try and honestly understand Tony Abbot’s position and give other so-called sceptics a fair hearing.
Update November 24th, 2009 – Today the Australian Parliament is likely to vote for an emissions trading scheme in effect introducing very costly and unnecessary new legislation and regulation on the basis carbon dioxide is a pollutant and the Earth’s climate in crisis.
I recently received a postcard by snail mail with comment that this blog is a “little island of sanity in a mad world”.
I have certainly found it reassuring at times to read some of the comments in support of my blog posts explaining why there is no climate crisis.
But alas it seems the Australian government is going to ignore rational debate and discuss in favour of politics.
And recently I received a copy of a new book by Christopher Booker entitled ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the mostly costly scientific blunder in history?’ (Continuum 2009) and it begins:
“This book tells the story of what has been, scientifically and politically, one of the strangest episodes of our time. Indeed, as a case study in collective human psychology, it is turning out to have been one of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of our species.”
Feel free to continue to post at this increasingly long thread, though I feel I have probably contributed as much as I can by way of new blog posts to rational discussion on environmental issues including global warming/the climate crisis.
Much thanks and cheers.
October 20th, 2009 - Thanks for the many emails and submissions assuming I will be back soon. But alas I am still wandering. Those wanting to be useful could, instead of sending me something to post, make a financial donation to this blog. There is a little orange button at the right-hand side of this page. It asks for A$50.
PS I am making progress with my book – the dystopian fiction. And the picture of the truck was taken a few days ago in northwestern New South Wales.
October 7th, 2009 – “Walkabout” is a word we use here in Australia to let others in our community know we are going away for a period of time – perhaps to take more time to reflect on life.
I’m off for a bit – going walkabout.
PS I attended a lecture by Professor Bob Carter last night and was reminded that not so long ago the English speaking world believed all Swans to be white. The photograph of the black swans was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in western Victoria, Australia, in October 2007.
Advertisement
3,390 Responses to “Postscript”
Pages: « 1 … 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 [68] Show All
Pages: « 1 … 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 [68] Show All
“Gee Spangly – a single datum point”
Luke,
You’re quite right, but it’s where I live and it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE to what CSIRO, Bom and you are telling me and while you MIGHT [occasionally] make valid points when it comes to “the science”, pardon me for remaining generally sceptical.
It’s the same situation at my 47 yo Sea Level benchmark. Instead of rising by 3mm per year as the “science” claims, it is falling by at least this amount.
This is not denial by any stretch of the imagination. It’s called checking up on science using observable evidence and if you of the warming persuasion did it too then we would be getting a better standard of science.
So Lukey, I’ll give ya a tip: the “science” ain’t perfect!
Hey Luke, you wanna read something even funnier than your creative evidence-free opponents can muster up- schools in 3 US states including Texas of course, want to teach alternatives to the scientific consensus on global warming. ( New Scientist 13/3 p11). Problem is that even after a century the alternative cupboard is bare. As creationists are three times as likely as non-creationists to deny human origins of warming, maybe they have God on their side, and he might be able to create an alternative explanation and even a miracle cure in another century.
Gee this is too easy, Luke can answer ( mostly BS ) anything that we may throw at him but there is one question that trumps his BS everytime, i.e. how do you even begin to solve the problem?
Immediate retreat to cowards castle with the reply that it’s all too hard, afterall this entire year on year trial is really just his total wank.
Here’s a new challenge wimpy, I now say that other than new technology falling into our laps this really is mission impossible, do you agree or not, if not give us the facts and figures how you would do it.
It could be a compete compulsory change in the next 20 years or so to nuclear power perhaps for every country on the planet, but tell us how this could be done.
Remember we must reduce then stabilize co2 at 350 ppm or don’t you agree with Hansen on that as well?
Remember we’re producing some 6+ GT’s per annum at the moment but the IEA estimates that will grow to 35 GT’s by 2030, doesn’t quite add up does it , but please give us answer.
Hey anyone,
My stoopid question of the day. I have a general understanding of “Mike’s Nature trick” with respect to his original hockey stick graph, but I’m slightly confused by some of the arcane terminology. I’d like to be able to explain it clearly to non-scientists. Can anyone recommend a good general article that starts from Square 1, covers the important bases, and doesn’t oversimplify? Thanks.
Luke,
A bit more detail about that dumb butterfly story.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3444
spangled drongo
good article,
Only problem, who is going to read it?
Or more importantly, who with power in the media is going to mention it?
Coming back to sea level rise, my grandparents and now my parents, had this house right on the beach in Melbourne for over 80 years, and I can’t for the life of me discern any rise in the sea level. The pier here in Mordialloc, was first built around 1850 and subsequently rebuilt many times due to worms eating the timber and storms, (around 1900 and so).
The boat builder had his yard on the creek near the bridge for as long as I can remember, in the same spot.
Now I admit I can only go back 50 years or so, and in that time, if we had 50*3mm rise it would be just about 6 in in the old measure.
Coming here quite infrequently before, I’m sure I would have noticed it.
Living in the same spot some rise could go unnoticed, but 150 mm, I think not.
Cheers
Luke, bit pattern or whatever your real name is, why can’t you admit that the global warming industry has deceived the world via the use of cherry picking studies favourable to their pre-conceived “consensus”, false claims, dodgy data, biased computer models and a well funded propaganda machine?
The Luke,
“and that’s why the ocean temperatures are affected by UHI too are they”
Soooooooo…. are you trying to say that a less than 1C rise in air temp globally has produced a greater than 1C rise in ocean temp?
You’re from QLD, please explain?
Interesting article here about problems with the EU’s carbon trading market;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/european-emission-trading-rocked-by-scandal-over-recycled-carbon-permits/story-e6frg90o-1225842148852
I was stunned by this statement; “Efforts to tighten up the market have been stymied by recession, which has reduced Europe’s overall carbon dioxide output and kept the carbon price low.”
Am I the only one who thinks this means that a viable carbon market relies on an ongoing high output of CO2?
Surely not, Penny Wong wouldn’t tell us a fib would she?
Luke,
you are really grasping at straws with this “brown butterfly” thing. If you knew anything about evolution at all, you’d realise that the female’s response to climate change is an adaptation to previously encountered conditions, thus an own goal if you can put 2 and 2 together.
“Team member and climatologist Professor David Karoly applied global circulation models to the Melbourne region, ” says it all doesn’t it, plus please tell us how taking the temp record from a nearby town to account for the UHI in Melbourne has any relevance when the study was ABOUT Melbourne?
I’d go see a doctor about that gunshot wound to the foot which is probably leaving an unpleasant taste in your mouth.
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2009/12/analysis-of-australian-temperature-part.html
Well bugger me clouds do have an effect on the temperature, and the cloud cover over Australia has been decreasing
Who’d have thunked it.
..and of course the GCM’s handle clouds very precisely
Jonathan,
I was talking to an old bloke in his eighties [who still builds and flies ultralights BTW] who has been building jetties on contract as long as I can remember and I asked him about his thoughts on SLR and his own personal benchmarks and he said pretty much what scientists and council engineers have told me and that is that SLs are neither doing much either up or down but they are doing both in various places in very small increments.
IOW nothing happening.
Gee Spangly – a single datum point
No – a conclusive data point that shows you are a load of s**t as usual.
Yawn -a surfeit of denialists – so much bilge – so little time….
Anyway Spangly – as we were saying – and it pains me to quote someone like Hughesy – but shows the point ….
Let’s look at his http://www.warwickhughes.com/briswater/ and just to show “sceptics” also do “data adjustment” I suggest you read his “fine print”.
Anyway – lah de dah – if you started your analysis in the 1950s or 1970s you would get a significant trend in rainfall decline (I mean let’s look at something serious like the water supply catchment) – not bloody Mt Tamborine – fully of druggies, retirees and artists having a nice life.
But if you took a longer term view would be only a shallow decline – see BoM’s climate trend map series which bears this out. And if you look at their metadata they used a few high quality stations. You can probably find out which ones.
Although the calculated and simulated inflows in Wivenhoe – put the net result of Millennium drought as much worse than the Federation drought – for what that is worth – but of course it has rained now and the hydroillogical cycle has turned full circle. We’ll only worry about drought when we’re in the next one.
Derek – forget the Brown butterfly – just ponder all the 1000s of species world-wide all conspiring to change their temperature driven phenological development just so we can have “world government”. Commie insects ! hahahahahahaha
And ocean temps – gee so many “heat islands” Derek old son. At some point the light might go on that the UHI thing is a bloody bug furphy and crock !
What’s the first ocean EOF Derek – a bloody big centennial signal
“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).”
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.
UHI – what utter crap !
and gets even worse – denialists can’t analyse their own data
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_misinformation_urban_heat_island.html
Wakey wakey Derek !
and and and – from someone called MS (my Space, my Shit, my Stupidity ? ) “Luke, bit pattern or whatever your real name is” – what’s an MS? – a typo? pullease ….
Luke,
Sorry to disappoint. The UHI is real, all the AGWers agree on it. The science is settled.
In fact, the UHI is so real that NASA GISS had to do an upward adjustment in temperatures of rural stations to make it seem like a non-issue.
That’s how climatology works. You know something is real when climatologists fudge the data to make it go away. Just like we know the MWP and the LIA were real, because climatologists put in a great deal of work to make them go away.
Smoke and mirrors. And brown butterflies. Geesh. Talk about desperation.
More news about AGWers and related nutters:
Turns out, people who buy “green” consumer items are “more likely to cheat and steal”.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/01/0956797610363538
Probably like the organic farmer who turned to robbing banks.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/19/25707.htm
And AGWers are using brain-scans of humans to try and figure out how to convince them of AGW. It’s called “neuroframing”. Can the warmists possibly get more desperate than this? Probably.
http://bouphonia.blogspot.com/2010/03/dim-witted-public.html
did you catch the dummy spit in yesterday’s Age by Michael Ashley. He is a professor with the Department of Astrophysics at the University of New South Wales.
Why do I get the feeling that the UNSW suffers from severe group think.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/abc-should-be-praised-for-fair-reports-on-climate-change-20100318-qhqf.html
John,
It’s hard to believe a professor of any science at all wrote Ashley’s diatribe.
It’s fun to play with his grammar. Just add a period halfway through one sentence and you get: “I don’t know of a single credible climate scientist.” But that’s just part of the standard, transparent ploy. Once you posit that all credible scientists believe in AGW, you have an instant consensus among credible scientists.
Surely an astrophysicist should have better reasoning skills than that.
Confronted with a ream of alternative evidence Schiller shrugs and parrots a few mantras.
That’s why you are a denialist not a sceptic.
Luke,
Pretend to think like a scientist for once. The null hypothesis stands until other evidence shows otherwise.
The null hypothesis is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. The contrary notion, AGW, is upheld by only one thing, and it’s not even actual data: AGW rests entirely on the notion that “we don’t know why, which therefore proves humans are the cause.”
Which is of course quite useless reasoning. Though quite remunerative.
Did you get a diploma from your kindergarten, or drop out early?
Poor old Luke , same old, same old and still can’t answer one simple question.
If AGW is so real and you spend so much time defending it, then what would you do to fix the ( non) problem?
I mean if you can’t answer this simple question why bother displaying your cowardice and lack of reasoning day after day?
Luke,
All you got is a correlation between a rise in air temp and SST? Puleeese! You ever try heating up a beaker of water using a hair drier? WAKE UP!
According to the “data” SST’s have increased MORE than air temps over the past 150 years including a 1C JUMP in the 70s. So ask yourself, if you want to stick to the “correlation implies causation” mantra, which one is more likely to have caused the other hmmm?
Schiller, you beat me to the “smoke and mirrors” on luke, good one.
In a curious way, AGW, though a religion, has completely reversed religious accounts of causation.
Back in the day, it was “we don’t know, therefore, the gods did it.”
With AGW, it’s “we don’t know, therefore, we did it.”
Looking at the two assertions, the former is actually more plausible. That’s because the latter claim is, basically, “we don’t know what we’re doing”. That’s a fine admission, but you won’t hear climatologists stating the foundation of their “science” in such simple, accurate terms any time soon.
Piss off Neville – you would have to be a simpleton to to imply the a difficult problem is therefore a problem that doesn’t exist. Pullease ! Poor Neville out of his depth.
Yes Derek all you have is well known radiative physics and no solar driver. Wakey wakey. Correlation indeed …
Schiller drivels on …. zzzzz
Luke, to quote your ref. “The first is a global warming signal that is very highly correlated with global mean SST. ”
What do you think this “correlation” implies lukey boy?
No solar driver? According to everything I could find on SST’s, solar is the ONLY driver. Even Wiki says that and according to gavin, Wikipedia is the authority on all things scientific.
Geeez Luke talk about rope a dope, the problem is yours not mine dumb bum, I mean is there anything keeping your ears apart?
Anyhow we all know why you can’t answer, so its back to cowards castle with you and take your fundamentalist religion with you.
Oh pullease Derek – solar does not explain a large proportion of the warming – did you come down in the last shower.
Yes correlation is the correct word ? So ? Like denialist is the correct word.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
One of the warmest years of record with a quiet Sun – sheesh ….
Err Neville – I think the problem might be …. “ours” …. somehow.
“One of the warmest years of record with a quiet Sun – sheesh ….”
but where is it warm? – definitely not the tropics or the Southern hemisphere as they have been consistently stable for the past couple of decades.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
So where is this warming in the NH coming from Luke?? It appears it is in Siberia and Canada.
Care to explain why??
The warming is coming from that giant hot spot that NASA GISS discovered perching atop the snow-covered mountain peaks of Bolivia.
Neville,
You always know when lukey is caught out ’cause he dodges and weaves but never answers the question. Just like he’s trying to be cute with the correlation thing, he hasn’t figured a way out of that one yet so he just dances around with non-answers.
For example; “solar does not explain a large proportion of the warming” he says but isn’t explicit as to whether he means air or water and then doesn’t suggest what does explain it.
And again;”Yes correlation is the correct word ? So ? ” is about as non committal as you can get which means he’s stuck for an answer.
He may have a lot of resources at his disposal but I’m afraid ol’ lukey boy isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.
This is a different Luke.
Notice he hasn’t said the f-word for a long time?
nah – it’s the same Luke – he’s just realised his foul language seriously annoys us!
Well fuck … Luke isn’t smart – but you lot sure are thick as bricks – unable to undertake some basic research on matters obvious – instead sucking on “quote mined” denialist bilge for din dins. Really – how hard is it dudes – (the problem that is).
Do go on Derek – if you calculate the solar forcing from the observed data it doesn’t explain the observed warming. Like duh ! I assume you read all the references in the previous link. And isn’t it strange we haven’t plummeted to temperatures of 100 years ago – such a quiet Sun yet still so warm. Nah – don’t think about – you’ll turn into a pumpkin.
And yes correlation is the correct word ! Correlation of course does not mean cause and effect – but it is an English word used to express certain conditions. You seem to have a problem with it. One may say correlate then offer up other evidence to substantiate causation. Gee maybe I’m a deep philosopher to know that ? Like http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
Let’s try another one – how many “sceptics” are creationists. Is there a correlation.
Schiller keeps up with his denialism parroting Spencer’s latest “finding”. And like dogs returning to their vomit the denialists use the specific to argue the general.
The climate models have always predicted the north will warm faster than the south – something about more land and less ocean. Too subtle? And the ozone depletion has effectively walled inner Antarctica from greenhouse warming (for a while).
All the discussion on this has been done here ad nauseum but denialists love to forget everything unfavourable. (Thompson and Solomon, 2002; Shindell and Schmidt, 2004) Such selective ongoing amnesia.
“if you calculate the solar forcing from the observed data it doesn’t explain the observed warming. ”
There you go again luke, are you talking about air temp or SST?
You’ve just proved my point, you can’t give a straight answer.
I’ll ask point blank; does air temp affect SST ?
Luke, you can’t even stay on point with your own posts. The original point was that one of your links showed a correlation between air temp and SST, your last link gives a list of research papers suggesting a correlation between IR flux and air temp which is totally irrelevant to my question.
Correlations don’t establish a probability, ad hoc ergo propter hoc. Coincidences do happen.
Some of Luke’s ideas are worth pondering, like the coolest places should show the warming anomaly first. This will require some sleuthing.
And an improvement on the “sloppy science” would help.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-it.s-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science/
Luke says,
“if you calculate the solar forcing from the observed data it doesn’t explain the observed warming.”
I thought the warmists understood this and could explain it all because the ’science is settled’. Is Fluke conceding the point? Or maybe it’s along the lines of the standard ‘we don’t know, therefore humans are doing it’ thing.
Yikes!
The IPCC was right about the glaciers, the only error, quite trivial actually, was that they simply named the wrong glaciers by accident.
“Shortly before midnight, the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, the island’s fifth largest, started to spew smoke and lava”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100378.html
You see? AGW is really real, if you’re willing to see the obvious evidence!