Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Belief in the Truth of a Climate Theory

By

I wrote these two laws down on a scrap of paper years ago. I still have the scrap of paper but not the original reference.

Harris’s First Law:

Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science.

Harris’s Second Law:

The creativity of a scientist is directly proportional to how much he knows, and inversely proportional to how much he believes.

We know climate science is imprecise.   Who are our most knowledgeable and also creative climate scientists?

—————-
first posted August 04, 2005
Belief in the Truth of a Theory
Second posting May 09, 2008
Belief in the Truth of a Theory (Again)

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. gavin says

    See “Evolution, genesis and revelations, with readings from Empedocles to Wilson By C. Leon Harris”

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=VtSC_J6g5W8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=The+creativity+of+a+scientist+is+directly+proportional+to+how+much+he+knows,+and+inversely+proportional+to+how+much+he+believes+harris&source=bl&ots=wXC2gpiFdg&sig=L9w08jpe_rlbXT-sUAb7Mi7QdMs&hl=en&ei=Nzq2TPzMAYmlcbzdzfEC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

  3. spangled drongo says

    gavin,
    Didn’t you read Harris’ second law?

    BTW, Brian Gunter’s link showing 300 year temp records at least show it was warmer there 140 years ago.

    http://members.westnet.com.au/brigun/de_bilt_temps.html

    Seeing as accurate mercury-in-glass instruments originate from the 1640’s and exponentially more clever [but not experienced] human effort was applied earlier in their evolution, as witnessed by the infinite detail in their construction, these instruments should not be sold short.

    Also, in the centigrade scale where 0 = freezing and 100 = boiling [water], the 100 divisions are not hard to calibrate.

  4. spangled drongo says

    “Harris’s Second Law:

    “The creativity of a scientist is directly proportional to how much he knows, and inversely proportional to how much he believes.”

    Connolley would be classed as a struggler:

    ■Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues

  6. Luke says

    You’re easily bluffed aren’t you Spanglers – when was the Stevenson screen invented. Maybe the thermometer was in a clog before the late 1800s LOL ! Fancy a big WUWT fan not wanting to know the site metadata – sums up faux scepticism eh?

    But to Jen’s question “Who are our most knowledgeable and also creative climate scientists?”

    Likely to be a bunch of backroom men and women we don’t know.

  8. spangled drongo says

    When was the SS invented?

    Well Luke, probably around 1860 and before that thermometers were kept under cover in good ventilation and as I have pointed out to you before there is very little variation with this however modern placings, automatic readings and biased adjustments leave so much to be desired that they certainly wouldn’t be any more accurate today.

    John,

    That just sez it all, don’t it?

    “We know climate science is imprecise. Who are our most knowledgeable and also creative climate scientists?”

    The most knowledgable are probably the least creative.

  9. Luke says

    Well how humorous – on a thread about “best scientists” the boys show us how not to do it.

    John – no checking of source, no quoting of source, what references – from where are these data. And what does the 2nd graph even mean !!! Graph of WHAT? Mate if you take Quirk’s word for anything you must have come down in the last shower (in that MDB traversing cloud band probably). YOU ARE JOKING – an unscholarly unreferenced bit of tripe.

    Spanglers – as you well know “science” has revealed up to a 0.9 degree C difference in Glaisher stand versus Stevenson screen maximum. Wattsy himself has shown you differences between whitewash and latex paint. And you with not knowing any site measurement meta-data want to uncritically accept the Dutchy data over 300 years. Well what a self-confessed drongo.

  10. spangled drongo says

    “And you with not knowing any site measurement meta-data want to uncritically accept the Dutchy data over 300 years”

    Luke,

    You’re all mouth and trousers.

    That graph showed a warmer period SINCE THE INVENTION OF THE SS [around 1870]. That was the data I was prepared to accept as good quality and what I also said was that old errors [pre SS] are often no worse than modern ones.

  12. Luke says

    Desperate desperate bait and switch by Cohenite who senses the danger. You tell us what the graph means Cohers and what the source is!? Spare us the irrelevancies.

    Spanglers – utter rot – tell me when what was installed – who knows. Admit it – YOU HAVE NO IDEA ZERO about this site !!!

  13. John Sayers says

    John,

    That just sez it all, don’t it?

    yes it does, doesn’t Luke?

    Of course you are so determined that we as mere humans must pay penance, and gnash against the wall of subjugation and acceptance and be humbled by the great wall of scientific evidence that we are the most despicable of the world’s creations.

    We must pay for it in water rights on Murray Darling system, we must pay for it in higher prices for our power so we can support alternative power generation fantasies and bow down to the Green Mantra that we are just a meaningless impression on the world’s biosphere.

    I disagree.

  14. spangled drongo says

    And you do?

    Why would you discredit this long-term record, particularly since the late 19th C?

  16. gavin says

    Spangles; it grieves me to see you guys still waffling about old instruments and long temperature series. I should concede though there is not much of use on the internet for your guidance.
    To the trained eye, many of the old temperature records being discussed here wont stand being pulled apart for a number of reasons, none the least is lack of certification for most aspects including instruments and methods of sampling prior to averaging. This is why I commented on the previous thread that the Sydney and Melbourne graphs are more acceptable and that’s most probably due to a greater number of samples and supervision early on.

    Btw there was a study announced am today on Radio National that acknowledged your UHI effect in some detail. Recall too; I have always said we should include the longer and better urban records in the mix of stations. Only then can we see the total impact of man on planet Earth’s climate where it counts most, home!

    For those who don’t know where I’m coming from, it’s a long association with process control instrumentation in a wide range of major industries where I made, calibrated and sold thermometers that often had to work in harsh environments. We did continuous local “climate” measurements day and night.

  17. spangled drongo says

    So gavin,

    From which year do you think thermometers would be acceptable?

    WRT UHI, if you use any artificially warmed sites you get garbage. Urban, polar, whatever.[Polar are probably the worst of all]

    If the world is warming you don’t need these sites to tell you. The background warming will still be at natural sites and in the right proportion.

  18. John Sayers says

    so Gavin you reckon the old records are more accurate than the modern records.
    I hate to disappoint you but the modern records have been tampered with , in fact extremely tampered with.

    So it’s wonderful that we can pull out the old established records like Brian Gunter has offered to get us back to reality.

  19. gavin says

    Spangles; “artificially warmed sites” were my bread and butter, so were artificially cooled sites. Given some had huge deviations from ambient I got to work with a few very smart cookies too and this leads us to the more general question (Jen’s) of who knows what.

    With out traceability, any temp series by itself is worth sweet don’t tempt me nothing to a serious analyst worth his salt. When I take over an instrument or control system the first thing I do is somehow check its sensitivity or response, frequently by giving it a jolt then stand back, waiting for the alarms.

    Initial trouble shooting does not have to be laborious when you understand the thing. If I’m setting up a Stanley wood plane, I have a little routine but I don’t need to be pedantic. If I’m adding services to a comms site it could be better to ask the manager who usually accesses the other equipment before diving in. In technology much of what we do is by negotiation.

    As I said before measurement traceability here should start with NATA, if only to get the method right before doing the paperwork

  20. Luke says

    Diversionary nonsense John – you put the charge – where’s the cite? Where are the data from and analysed how? I’m asking ! Otherwise you’re promoting anti-science voodoo on a thread about best science. WTF?

    Spangles – I don’t doubt they have measured the temperature diligently – but under what conditions. Your beloved WUWT has told us that is the holy grail. If those measurements were taken in different enclosures – who knows?? Now you lot have gone on and on and on about site effects – when confronted with a real problem here suddenly it’s all hands in the air and too much bother. pffft !

    (maybe they didn’t get a Stevenson screen till 1910! – do you know?)

  24. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Without a strong account of the differences between knowledge, truth, belief and creativity, it is impossible to draw any strong conclusions on the basis of Harris’ two laws.

  25. gavin says

    John; I’m guessing Ms Campbell’s report is just another top down study (maybe Luke’s area of interest) that uses methods that even I dont understand and if it is, that is unfortunate because there is less chance of a bottom up review (grass roots inquiry re old probes etc) ever being published as time goes on. I suggest we need that before you guys can understand why the alarm bells are ringing everywhere in management circles today.

    On the other hand we are seeing why the longer temp time series from cities are more reliable in predicting overall trends. Its about mass, magnitude and many more attempts to define ambient in practice and that’s why I trust them over you lot.

  26. cohenite says

    What mirth; gavin intones:

    “Ms Campbell’s report is just another top down study (maybe Luke’s area of interest) that uses methods that even I dont understand”

    luke’s areas of interests are fatuities, amphigory and fawning towards such luminaries as foster aka tamino [btw luke did tammy consider UHI when showing how fair GISS is with Tokyo temperature adjustments?].

    But you gavin, what pomposity, what ego: “even I dont understand”; oh well, that leaves no possibility for the rest of us understanding it.

  27. gavin says

    Given several points on early thermometers, perhaps I should return with an insight on temperature as a concept and say this as a science is only several centuries old and add our individual expertise in the use of modern instruments is much less than that, say about fifty years.

    When making your own instruments it becomes necessary to consider test points that can be used over and over. Around Melbourne in the 1960’s we used water and ice or boiling water in industry standard calorimeter. The first big question is your probe immersion depth then a consideration of hardware expansion and possible scale distortion through those tests. The maker is usually faced with a compromise after trying to fix both ends of the instrument range while waiting for all variables to settle. That bit in the middle is often the result of a best fit at the ends and this applies most to those max min u tube types.

    Our creativity at the leading edge is only restrained by our knowledge of the ancients. Test points in our ordinary temperature scale are governed by the practice. Water at ice point or steam point is the easy part. Other trades need larger ranges so we do more interesting stuff like play with hot oil (below flash point) and molten salt in the pot to get around 800C as our top calibration and so a craft is established.

    Climate as a concept is more involved than temperature and from experience has more to do with dew points than melting points but that’s another story in master apprenticeship relations on the edge of technology.

    Btw salt is so important in our climate knowledge.

  28. spangled drongo says

    Good link John.

    Looks like an exercise in bom bum covering.

    gavin,

    Stop going on about your expertise.

    The fact is we have these old records. We should preserve them intact as they are probably more accurate than proxies.

  30. John Sayers says

    Yes SD – now that the New Zealanders have their version of BoM on the run they are probably shoring up their wall for when it gets here. 🙂

  33. spangled drongo says

    The BoM can extract more alarmism out of a given set of data than just about anyone.
    But if you can lose a bit as well. Oh Wow! 900 mm! Is that careless or what?

    Also Church and Steffan can crank more SLR out of the figures than anyone else too. When it is known that the error is ten times greater than the signal.

    No wonder the BoM is worried about their BuM cos this is where they’ll get bitten.

    Jen, maybe you can get a chance to comment on institutionalised alarmism on Monday.

  34. John Sayers says

    They’ve added a new panel member. According to Joanne Nova she was also invited but couldn’t make it.

    Here is the panel makeup, from the Q & A site:

    Next Program’s panellists
    Tim Flannery – scientist and author
    Greg Hunt – shadow minister for climate action
    Jennifer Marohasy – climate skeptic
    Bruce Guthrie – former News Limited editor
    Jennifer Hewett – journalist, The Australian

  35. Luke says

    What liars you are – how have they lost 900mm? and (this should be good) – pray tell how are these numbers calculated. Floor is yours boys …

    Lucky Jo didn’t make it – I’d have to kick my screen in (again). I wonder if David Evans has repaid all the dollars he creamed from the AGO before he stopped believing.

  36. John Sayers says

    No Luke – the floor is Tom Quirks.

    I think you’ll find he had downloaded the data back in 2008 and again recently and they differ by 900mm. Doesn’t surprise me.

  37. Luke says

    Unreferenced crap from a nitwit. No references – no sources – maybe he made it up? Uncheckable.

  39. spangled drongo says

    Luke’s response:

    “What liars you are”.

    “Unreferenced crap from a nitwit”.

    “uncheckable”.

    The missing rainfall is in the wet/cool period from the late forties to the mid seventies and I would think that on the face of it, what he says is quite possible.

  40. Luke says

    Well don’t say I didn’t give you guys a chance to put up. You gooses.

    The Bureau updated its analyses to the more accurate AWAP (Australian Water Availability Project ) in 2009 which is more accurate. If you lot weren’t such halfwits you’d realise you’re dealing with the a spatial interpolated analysis anyway. Which is totally above your heads. There is no whole of MDB gauge. Of course dweebies wouldn’t have thought about interpolation issues. 900mm – what a fanciful wank.

    As usual muckraking lying denialists fabricating stories. Ping orf.

    You pathetic amateurs.

  41. Ron Pike says

    Luke,
    The only thing over your head is your backside, because that is where it is stuck.
    If you cannot add some rational discussion instead of the constant arrogant abuse, then spare us your tiresome tirades.
    Pikey.

  43. spangled drongo says

    Nice to see you’ve toned those responses down, Lukey.

    You’re much more convincing that way.

    Nearly as smooth as the BoM.

    “There is no whole of MDB gauge”

    Exactly!

    And that’s why your creepy mates can rort the story all they wish.

    That graph shows the lowest falls to have occurred during periods of flooding.

    Oh well, just another one of their unchained, rabid dogs that’ll return to bite ’em.

    [ad infinitum]

  45. Luke says

    No it does NOT ! The changes from an enhanced analysis from a major new project makes a small adjustment to the numbers. You have offered no proof for your libelous claims. What a pathetic denialist you are to scream “rort” – what gutter filth. Based on what – “your opinion” pfft !

    Your creepy denialist stooge mates again misleading the public.

    You see this is the problem with all this amateur nonsense – inevitably wrong and a waste of time checking. Can you imagine that this drongo Quirk hasn’t even made the most basic checks. What a clown.

    Indeed if you dweebs had any ability you’d get all BoM’s raw data and publish your own analysis. But you’re too stupid to do that. You’d rather simply promote someone else’s baseless libel – “rort” indeed.

    And this is on a thread about “best science”. WHAT A MASSIVE JOKE !

  47. Mike S. says

    If anyone else has the time to run the numbers (and isn’t firewall-blocked – grumble grumble), here are the links I got from a WUWT comment:

    Jan. 30, 2008 archived data:
    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/mdb/latest.txt

    Current data:
    http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/mdb/latest.txt

    One of the other commenters at WUWT did run some numbers and checked the trends, not much difference apparently:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/bom-disappears-rainfall-data-no-trend-becomes-downtrend/#comment-508420

  48. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Hunter,

    Luke is simply reverting to type.

    The authors suggest that aggression by narcissists is an interpersonally meaningful and specific response to an ego threat. “Narcissists mainly want to punish or defeat someone who has threatened their highly favorable views of themselves,” the authors note. “People who are preoccupied with validating a grandiose self-image apparently find criticism highly upsetting and lash out against the source of it.”

    Article: “Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Direct and Misplaced Aggression: Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to Violence?” by Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., Iowa State University and Roy F. Baumeister, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 1.

    See also, ‘Narcissistic personality disorder’, Mayo Clinic, November 19, 2009, mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652

  49. hunter says

    Schiller,
    Luke, in my idiom, is simply a jerk.
    In my experience the more over-the-top the jerk is, the less they actually have to offer.
    They hope to shout their way out of the challenge to their jerkdom.
    If he was typing in all-caps he would not be more obnoxious.
    His assertion that after many years the records of the rainfall were in need of a dramatic changes is utter bullshit and he knows it.
    It is simply part of the systemic rewrite of cliamte history by people who profit quite nicely by enhancing the fear factor.
    The iconic figure of Queeg- the dull witted over promoted life long loser who depends entirely on his authority to force through his sad parody of actual leadership fits our Luke gang to a ‘t’. The Luke sock puppet is just a bunch of your over employed bureaucrats who are outraged that mere citizens would dare ever stand up and ask for things like reasonable evidence, ethical treatment of same, and rational thinking. So he melts down from time to time and allows his inner jerk to shine forth.

  50. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Hunter,

    I am not sure that our theories are incompatible.

    What’s more, I’ve dealt with activists who’ve embedded themselves in a number of fields/narratives, and Luke’s behavior is so typical that it’s nearly boring. These people consistently exhibit the same diagnosable symptoms in as many ‘green’ campaigns as you would wish to mention.

    What sets these people apart from others with psychiatric symptoms is that there exists no medical regimen for alleviation of narcissistic/personality disorder symptoms. What confounds the clinical approach is that these people do not believe they have a problem. Indeed, the problem itself is the most rewarding aspect of their lives, so they won’t seek treatment.

    Pointing out to them that they have a diagnosable (likely not treatable) condition threatens their sense of self-worth at such a fundamental level that they lash out like cornered animals. Part of this is because they typically can experience only two emotions: rage, and self-pity.

    That said, it would be easy for some to be inclined to forgive them their disability, but that would only serve to inflame them all the more.

    They’re far happier to be labeled ‘a jerk’, than to be thought of as damaged humans.

  51. Luke says

    Defence of the position by two arch members of the denialist filth – nil.

    Are you guys on the take – do you receive a pension from your local tea party think tank for coming up with nonsense. If so hand it back as you aren’t very good.

    Now let’s see how incredibly stupid Hunter actually is “His assertion that after many years the records of the rainfall were in need of a dramatic changes is utter bullshit and he knows it.”

    “Dramatic” is 2-3% – ROTFL – you clown.

    But who says any rainfall records were changed. Think about it !

    Alas guys – there probably is no treatment for being utter wankers – most likely genetic.

  52. Schiller Thurkettle says

    See how he flails about blindly with invective and insinuation from what appears to him to be an Empyrean height of unassailable self-congratulatory certitude? He doesn’t realize that the only person he impresses is himself. But that’s good enough for him, it’s actually all that he’s about.

  53. Dallas Beaufort says

    Hey Luke, can you retrieve some of the long range weather forecasts produced by Inigo Jones(RIP),now that would be handy.

  54. spangled drongo says

    “But who says any rainfall records were changed.”

    But you’re saying it’s OK to simply select other data after 60 years?

    Now, who’s in denial about science?

  55. Luke says

    Well what records were changed Spangles? Tell me …. do you know how to do spatial interpolation Spangles – would you pick thin plate Laplacian splines or kriging or ?? – choices that will change the number. Are you using orographic covariates? If you has any experience using the BoM database you’d know that there are some errors which need careful analysis.

    Maybe two stations which are the same record? You would also be now assuming the massive AWAP project http://www.eoc.csiro.au/awap/doc/AWAP3.FinalReport.20080601.V10.pdf which has produced the current time series is corrupt. So many people – no Fed public service left.

    Jeez mate – you wonder why I go off !!’

    You could simply leave all the stations the same and change the interpolation algorithm and get different answers. Tell us Spangles how has BoM corrupted your understanding with this 2-3% per annum change in a Basin wide number !!

    So tell us how the interpolations are done Spangly Bum. Come on !!

    AND why did Tom Quirk not ring up and ask !! eh ? eh?

    Dallas – interesting point – I do remember that the Bureau did a study on Inigo Jones ==> Lennox Walker now Hayden Walker’s solar based system. From memory he got some right but more wrong. You need a formal skill test analysis. Nevertheless still has a major following in the bush.

  56. Luke says

    http://www.worldweather.com.au/Meteor.htm

    There you go !

    Non-definitive random blog comment : “Some years ago, the BoM did a study of Jones’s forecasts over a two year period and found he had an accuracy of 37% which is slightly less than you could achieve using probabilities from past records !

  57. John Sayers says

    Luike – could you possibly get down from your ivory tower and explain how the BoM lost 900mm in rainfall from their 2008 record.

    That’s all we need to know, we don’t need your outrageously rude remarks.

  58. spangled drongo says

    Stop telling us how smart you are and explain why the experts always go down the “it’s worse than we thought” road with their adjustments of past data.
    Carying out computer model testing with drought data is not science even if it does justify the govt buying back five times as much water.

  59. spangled drongo says

    Luke,

    After 1948 the 2010 chart shows reduced rainfall compared with 2008.

    That’s a distinct data fiddle!

    You do now realise, if it’s right, that many MDB farmers will be able to put in retro claims for more drought assistance for the last 60 years?

    John,

    That ain’t no ivory tower, that’s just Luke hanging from his own flag-pole.

  60. spangled drongo says

    Peer reviewed paper in academic journal says that most climate variation on earth is due to celestial effects (movements of the planets etc)

    Long range weather forecasters with good track records have long used such factors in making their forecasts. That the Warmist “models” don’t include such factors shows how inaccurate they are. Abstract below

    Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations

    by Nicola Scafetta

    http://climaterealists.com/?id=6465

  61. Dallas Beaufort says

    Hi Luke, from my memory, Inigo Jones did forecast the weather events while not working for the Bom, but could not prescribe which town would receive rain, but rain did fall in the general regions.

  63. spangled drongo says

    DB, farmers always paid attention to Inigo Jones’ forecasts. He had some great long-term success from his Crohamhurst observatory based on sunspots.
    I think he got plenty wrong too, but he was always forgiven.

  65. Luke says

    Sayers – you’re a goose – they have not lost 900mm ? Prove it was there in the first place. Your comments are moronic. The only reasons why spruikers like Quirk (great name eh?) have come up with 900mm is add each year one after the other.

    It’s the old bush saying John – wool unshorn from lambs unborn.

    Spanglers – you’re even a worse ninny – given rainfall analysis is on deciles – prove the percentile ranking have changed that much.

    2-3% doobies…. are you lot for real ! what frightening denialist logic.

    So dweebs – tell us how you understanding of MDB rainfall patterns have changes – what major decisions would you have made differently – this should be good – stand by for either chirping crickets, arm waving or some pyscho-babble attack.

  66. Luke says

    I guess the establishment is cynical that these guys have anything. Given El Nino and La Nina cause swings from drought to flood – just making a few up will get some wins just by chance. So they have to prove they have mathematical skill over guessing.

    Any classic is “there will be 2-3 cyclones this year”. Jeez – who would have thought? Tell me something I don’t know.

    But the classic is fine or wet for a wedding 6 months hence. Spanglers probably believes.

  67. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Spangled,

    I tremendously enjoyed your remark about farmers putting in retro claims for more drought assistance for the last 60 years based on the ‘adjustment’ of records.

    Government hoist by its own petard — would make lovely fodder for an interesting court case if the government refuses retro claims.

    Then again, the BoM might do what NZ did and claim that the numbers are ‘not official government numbers’.

  68. Larry Fields says

    (Gregory) Benford’s Law of Controversy:
    “Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.”

  70. toby robertson says

    “In conclusion Dr. Kaiser dismisses the claims of the Royal Society as “clearly untenable.” He admonishes the once peerless institution for failing to do a few “simple order-of-magnitude calculations” so as to as check the veracity of their claims. Even though it took months to prepare that document, Klaus says, “ it appears the Royal Society’s math is still wrong.”

    Finally, he cautions us “…not to trust all the hype or myths you hear or read…but look at the facts, then make up your own mind, and do believe in a better tomorrow.”

    thx spangles, good link, of course some people look at the “facts” and think catastrophe , fortunately many of us dont!

  71. spangled drongo says

    “what major decisions would you have made differently”

    Well Flukey, maybe I would have included the last few weeks of heavy rain which would have sure stuffed their 2010 graph.

    Wonder why they didn’t do that?

    And as for those “crickets”, for someone who constantly criticises our US mates, you sure can’t speak without using their sayings.

    Iz ‘e an ozzie, iz ‘e eh?

  72. Luke says

    Why would it have “stuffed” their graph? You’re simply talking moronic drivel. I am stunned how wishy washy you guys are on this – means your comprehension level is about gnat level.

    BTW I first used “crickets” here years ago with SJT. Try to keep up.

  73. gavin says

    Just noticed a job for SD: “The Old Weather project (www.oldweather.org) is looking for volunteers to extract data and weather observations from digital versions of handwritten historical ship log books, which are difficult for a computer to read”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B2TI20101012

    Meanwhile; our last chance: “The Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) on Tuesday launched an investigation with two US university research centers that plans to learn more about climate history by analyzing ice cores to be extracted from glaciers on Jaya Wijaya Mountain near Puncak Jaya , Papua”

    http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/05/20/ri-us-launch-climate-study-puncak-jaya-glaciers.html

    Gobal “instruments” in October, see http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2010/10/

    We are bound to do our bit too; “The United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney is pleased to announce the creation of the Australia-United States Climate-Energy-Water Nexus project (AUS-CEW) in a new partnership with the Crawford School of Economics and Government at The Australian National University”

    http://ussc.edu.au/news-room/US-Studies-Centre-and-ANU-to-study-climate-energy-and-water-linkages

  74. spangled drongo says

    “BTW I first used “crickets” here years ago with SJT. Try to keep up.”

    Oh well! That makes it a Luke original then.

    Hear that Schiller, James, Larry and all you Merkins! You’re a bunch of plagiarists!

    Just wait till John Mashey hears about this!

  76. cohenite says

    luke is talking dirty again; and by dirty I mean about statistics; the BoM and CSIRO treatment of rainfall records is dealt with here:

    http://landshape.org/enm/files/2010/10/Critique-of-DECR-EE.pdf

    Needless to say the BoM approach is based on IPCC techniques; Stockwell tested the BoM validation of models used to generate the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report [DECR] and found that with 3 different approaches, including the one used by the resident evil whiz-kid, Santer, that none of the models or the ensemble could hindcast, that is match what had happened in the past or the immediate period following the predictions. Quirk’s findings of a decrease of ~ 900ml in rainfall by BoM modeling is consistent with Stockwell’s findings in a peer reviewed paper.

  77. spangled drongo says

    “Why would it have “stuffed” their graph? You’re simply talking moronic drivel. I am stunned how wishy washy you guys are on this – means your comprehension level is about gnat level.”

    Thanks, cohers.

    Looks like my comprehension level was a bit higher than yours, Flukey, old chap.

  79. spangled drongo says

    gavin,

    No lame excuse. Just use your imagination!

    When you’ve got an energy intensive industry that’s bigger than the glacier going on right beside it and the natural background temperature is already above freezing, wadda ya think happens?

    And you reckon you’re a specialist on temperatures?

  80. gavin says

    Spangles; although I don’t believe this mine has melted a particular ice block but which ever way you look at it, man has impacted on his environment.

    In this case (yours), if burning fossil fuel has direct implications on neighborhood climate, why not the rest of the world?

    In all those other links re glacial retreat like the Swiss Alps, NZ etc do you suggest it’s only due to nearby human enterprise?

    C’mon!

  81. Luke says

    Cohenite – a completely irrelevant diversion. Answer the question and stop arm waving. Spanglers of course having fallen for Quirk’s bunk desperately jumps on a passing bus of hookers.

  82. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Cohenite,

    Maybe we should reconsider the wisdom of this popular quote: Don’t wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.

  83. spangled drongo says

    “In this case (yours), if burning fossil fuel has direct implications on neighborhood climate, why not the rest of the world?”

    gavin,

    That’s exactly the point! We have a temperature increase of 0.7c, we have a recovery from the LIA, we have a modern industrial era, we have a population of 6 plus bil and we have a rising atmo CO2 [that doesn’t correlate very well with the warming, btw] and you want to blame it all on the atmo CO2.

    If man’s activities didn’t produce ANY CO2 we may possibly have even more warming.

    The signal is drowned by the noise.

  84. spangled drongo says

    gavin

    I’m talking here about a mine next door to a glacier where the ambient temp is already above freezing. That situation doesn’t apply with any other glaciers that I know of.

    As the prisioner said to the chief warden in the Shawshank Redemption, “don’t be obtuse.”

  85. Luke says

    Spanglers

    I enjoy that movie too

    Remember ” Geology is the study of pressure and time. That’s all it takes, really. Pressure and time”

    and

    “Andy crawled to freedom through five hundred yards of shit-smelling foulness I can’t even imagine. Or maybe I just don’t want to. Five hundred yards. The length of five football fields. Just shy of half a mile”

    Good training for junior managers

    But back the MDB rainfall – sound of crickets

  86. Luke says

    OK Spanglers, Cohers and other silly denialists and conspiracy theorists – I have wasted more time tracking down all the fine details. And was as I said.

    • The Bureau of Meteorology updated its spatial analyses in 2009 as part of the Australian Water Availability Project (further details on the Bureau’s component can be found here (http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2009/jones.pdf). The new data are at a much higher resolution (~5km versus ~25km previously) and substantially more accurate. The analyses are described in a scientific paper (above), and draw on a partnership between Bureau of Rural Sciences, CSIRO, Australian National University and the Bureau of Meteorology.

    • A large area average (such as for the Murray-Darling Basin) is not a measurable quantity but rather is estimated from discrete values at stations. The estimate has most recently been improved by improving the quality of the underling algorithms used to convert station rainfall to gridded rainfall. The process of improving data and estimates is ongoing, through the use of new data (such as from satellites/radar), back digitisation of historical rainfall data and improvement to spatial analysis algorithms.

    • The difference between the old (Barnes) and new (Australian Water Availability) analyses is typically 0 to 5% by year – the mean difference is 1.8%. The newer analyses are very slightly drier overall than the Barnes analyses, in part, because earlier versions of the analyses tended to spread rainfall too widely from alpine/high altitude stations because they did not account for altitude. In both cases the linear trend in the area average Murray-Darling Basin rainfall data is for a very slight (non-significant) increase of rainfall over the last 110 years

    • A description of the data and methodology has been available publicly at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/about/rain_timeseries.shtml

    Will Tom Quirk make an unreserved apology !?

    You guys really are a shoddy mob aren’t you? Checking up on denialist scum accusations – a waste of time.

  87. Huh? says

    “Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science.”
    Not amongst scientists, it isn’t, unless you think the theory of gravity (http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/699/2/1395/) is about a billion times less believable than quantum electrodynamics (Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030802 (2006), Erratum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 039902 (2007).

    “The creativity of a scientist is directly proportional to how much he knows, and inversely proportional to how much he believes.”
    No, it isn’t. Many Nobel-winning scientists got there by asking just one question in a vast body of firmly-held convictions.

    But this blog isn’t about the philosophy of science. It is about writing polemics to reassure non-scientists who are scared because thousands of well-informed scientists have discovered that the future ain’t gonna be pretty..

  88. Jeff Sandon says

    Jennifer,

    As a supposed so-called “scientist”, I thought you would uphold a rather strict and scientific definition of the term “law” (for example, as in “First Law of thermodynamics”), not this pseudo-psychological crap (i.e. Harris’ Law!).

    You write, and think, more like an economist, who we ALL know are not scientists, and do not think like scientists, despite what their employers and PR firms proclaim!

  89. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Luke, others:

    Luke would like us to believe that fiddled data are better than raw data.

    Fact is, you fiddle the data first, then the code becomes less relevant, perhaps even intuitive. That’s because the fix is in before the data meet actual code.

    The funny thing people tend to forget is that computers and the code they run are expected to generate intended results. Thus, the results of climate modeling are fore-ordained.

    Use an AGW model to develop al-gore-rithms to ‘smooth and adjust’ raw data will therefore of course yield a warming trend.

  90. Luke says

    Schiller – what has anything you’ve just written got to do with this issue.

    You don’t have a raw spatial value for the MDB dickhead. And this has nothing to do with climate modelling or Al Gore. Or warming trends.

  91. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Luke,

    Asking me to believe the claims of someone who denies the most fundamental laws of physics is asking a lot.

    Sure, you might say something accurate, but that would be an accident on your part.

  92. hunter says

    Huh?,
    And you of course are a climate scientist?
    Or are you channeling Bob Ward?

    Jennifer,
    The AGW trolls are out in force. You must be doing something good.
    Keep up the good work!

  93. Huh? says

    Hi Jennifer

    I’d be interested to read about Harris’s Laws in any publications on the sociology of science. It doesn’t matter which branch of science. In particular, has anyone ever surveyed scientists for their degree of acceptance, implicit or explicit, of, or adherence to, Harris’s Laws then compared this with the number of times their papers are cited by others?

  94. hunter says

    As predicted, Luke panicked, flung some of his ever abundant feces around, and hoped to win the day by sheer volume of shit.
    Well Luke, yes you do produce more feces that anyone else here. And you fling it farther- too bad there is no Olympic competition for bureaucratic feces flinging.
    Here is the why of Luke and his bestest sport:
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_monkeys_or_apes_at_the_zoo_throw_their_feces

    The Luke collective flings enough feces to make them a world class monkey exhibit, I think.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg2AezJo8aQ
    Cheers,

  95. Luke says

    Ah Hunter – a highly intelligent denialist response – having exposed you guys as utter frauds on the MDB rainfall saga – you have little left except abuse.

    Mate – you have been dakked – your pants are around your ankles – and we now know you are dickless as well as witless.

  96. hunter says

    Luke,
    You only get what you deserve.
    You keeping flinging the poo- you produce on an endless supply of it.
    As for my anatomy- tell us please: have you been having naughty little dreams at night you need to tell your priest or shrink about?
    You little apes do like acting out in the safety of your cage.

  97. Luke says

    Hunter – I made a comprehensive technical response. I assume your abuse is because you are totally defeated. In fact why don’t you you squeeze your single neurone with all your might and try to make a “technical” comment. Otherwise I’ll just have to conclude you’re a pig ignorant loon who really hasn’t a clue – in fact you’re like a two year old who’s had his all day sucker removed. Look can I help it – if you guys simply promoted a story and were completely exposed as frauds?

  98. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Huh?,

    If you find anything on Harris’ first and second laws, they will be discussed in journals of philosophy, rather than in scientific publications.

    The problems in interpreting the basic elements of the two laws are tremendous, and some would say, insurmountable.

    To discuss these two laws in any fruitful way would, for instance, require a cogent account of how belief and knowledge are different. For instance, you can say that knowledge = belief + truth.

    But you can also say belief = knowing + truth. You don’t get any meaningfully different results under either interpretation.

    Thus, the unsettled meaning of those terms in the two laws completely confounds any attempt to determine the relationship of those terms to ‘scientific precision’ or creativity.

    I personally am convinced that the definitions of the terms involved in the two laws are actually incapable of rendering a coherent account, and that they will remain so. After all, the debate on the meaning of those terms goes back to Plato and Aristotle, and remains inconclusive.

    OK Luke now it’s your turn to demonstrate your ability to ‘stay on topic’.

    Tell us what you got on the subject, Luke.

  100. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Luke must be talking about ‘post-normal science’.

    Which is heedless of data and conclusions, while deeply [sic] concerned about what is said about them.

    Which makes perfect sense in Luke’s case, when he writes the word, ‘irrelevant’.

    This of course makes Luke irrelevant to what we’re discussing — and makes Luke’s words frivolous.

  102. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Great link, Luke. Reinforces the general observation that there are two things which make it nearly impossible for warmists and skeptics to discuss things:

    1. Warmists play the man, skeptics play the ball.

    2. Warmists are actually about wind, solar, etc. power, overpopulation, coal, you name it. Skeptics are actually interested in climate change and how to prove it.

    3. Warmists insist on peer-review (with glaring exceptions), while skeptics insist on evidence. (This is actually a variation on (1) above.)

  103. Luke says

    Or sceptics are complete crap. Like you doofus. Like your total ducking of your support for that stupid article by Quirk. Like your stupid misunderstanding on greenhouse which not even Lindzen supports or Spencer.

    “skeptics play the ball.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – good one Schiller.

  104. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Luke,

    Thank you for serving as a textbook example of what I said.

    Quirk, Lindzen, Spencer, who cares? Skeptics/realists want facts, not hero-worship. Calling me a ‘doofus’ and lends even more credence to the observation that warmists are about the man, not the ball.

  105. Schiller Thurkettle says

    Is there out there, somewhere, a logical fallacy where person A doesn’t understand the topic, but thinks they do, and accuses person B of ‘not understanding’ because they’re not as confused as person A?

    The resemblance to the Straw Man is obvious, but making oneself the Straw Man, apparently unknowingly, would seem to be a species of fallaciousness that has yet to be described.

  110. Neville says

    Bolt gives a round up of BOM forecasts for the winter and spring of 2010, needless to say they were hopelessly wrong.

    He also gives silly Timmy another serve for all his recent crap predictions, but rest assured they’ll have one grafted on fool from this blog supporting them to the bitter end.

    That’s why we have words like fool and stupid as part of our vocabulary.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/calling_flannery_to_account/