Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory. The famous philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, would describe AGW as the current dominant paradigm because this is where the majority of professional scientists claim their allegiance. Of course there are dissenters, commonly referred to as sceptics or deniers, and Kuhn would have correctly predict that these individual would be excluded from the scientific community as evidenced in the Climategate emails.
It is particularly evident from the Climategate emails that a group within the scientific community will go to great lengths to deny so-called sceptics the opportunity to publish in the peer-reviewed literature including through the removal of editors and stacking of review committees.
Nevertheless, outspoken sceptic Bob Carter has managed, over his distinguished career to amass a long list of publications in the peer-reviewed literature including publications of direct relevance to climate science in the best international peer-reviewed science journals.
I make specific mention of Professor Carter and his publication record, because yesterday, on the ABC Science Show, it was repeatedly stated that Professor Carter has a very poor publication record.
Robyn Williams’ introduction to the interview explains:
“Bob Ward says those who seek to reinterpret the science of climate change often have minimal publication records. Publication involves peer review. This process weeds out experiments and papers which are sub-standard. By contrast, anyone can write a book, write a newspaper article, or address public meetings. Bob Ward mentions a paper by Bob Carter, saying it contains false quotes and numerous examples of inaccuracy. Bob Ward says the Carter paper is the worst that has ever been published about climate change.”
Worst, in the actual interview not one specific, substantive error of science is raised by Mr Ward, or Mr Williams, to illustrate the general accusation.
While it is generally acknowledged that Mr Williams is hopelessly biased when it comes to the issue of climate change, his malicious treatment of Professor Carter is beyond anything reasonably acceptable on a science show broadcast by the ABC.
While an apology is in order, in addition I suggest that Mr Williams dedicate a show, within the next month or so, to an interview with Professor Carter to discuss the science in his new book ‘Climate the Counter Consensus’.
*********
Update October 11th
From: ABC Corporate_Affairs13, Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 10:42 AM
To: Jennifer Marohasy Subject: FW: Complaint Re. ABC Science Show
Dear Dr Marohasy,
Thank you for your email to the Chairman of the ABC regarding the 2 October broadcast of The Science Show. Your comments have been noted by the Chairman and forwarded to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs for our records.
I understand you have also written directly to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs through the ABC Contact online page. I can advise you that your concerns are being investigated and you will receive a substantive response in due course.
Following is a link to the ABC’s Code of Practice for your information – http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.
Yours sincerely, Kirstin McLiesh, Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer let’s hope Williams does allow Carter a chance to have his say and bring a bit of common sense to the debate, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Williams has a very poor record on the CAGW debate and of course once famously told Andrew Bolt that SL could rise by 100 metres in the next 100 years, so we know full well that we’re dealing with a leftwing extremist or fool.
Just to allow Bob to come on and talk about SLR would show who is misinformed and who is not, but unfortunately Williams wouldn’t have the courage to allow such a segment.
Well of course Bob has great credentials as a scientist and well published but alas not on contemporary climate science.
As the response to McLEAN, J., DE FREITAS, C. & CARTER, R.M. 2009 Influence of Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637 well showed. (ahem)
It was creamed.
Robin is being silly not giving Bob a forum. We could find out finally and exactly what Plan B is, and to ask all manner of revealing questions about his book. Although if the appreciation of ENSO is anything to go by – might be a worry.
(Yes I’ve bought his book! – so I’m a shareholder)
But what does one expect from Robin – everyone’s very tribal these days. And like Malcolm and Neville he’s very very angry.
Robyn [100 metres] Williams, the original fact-free science expert is sadly the best “our” ABC seems to be able to offer after all this time.
We can only hope that if we all complain long and loudly enough they will do something along the lines you mention.
Marc certainly tries hard:
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/
And Bob Ward, the “attack dog” for Jeremy Grantham is renowned for a similar MO. No facts, just rabid froth!
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/1/a-measured-view-from-grantham.html
Bob Carter’s honesty and integrity deserve better treatment by “our” ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/documents/2010-09-17-RMC.pdf
Luke said: ‘Robin is being silly not giving Bob a forum. We could find out finally and exactly what Plan B is.’
That is a good idea, but we won’t see it because the ABC is biased. I believe aunty have no credibility on climate science and this latest fiasco indicates they are in an intelligence fog which will be hard to eradicate. Don’t they have a charter?
Luke well knows what plan B is—- ADAPTATION and of course NEW TECHNOLOGY.
As Bob says in this latest video to promote his book ” trying to change the climate won’t work” or if you like look at his example of say Norway having a price on carbon since the early 90’s and still having an increase of around 15%, so after the world has wasted 100’s of billions of dollars for zero return, why not try adaptation and investment in new technology?
But I’ll concede I am bloody angry, you’re 100% correct, because it annoys the crap out of me to see adults behaving like kids when they should know better.
Sorry Bob’s video is here.
Adaptation = “do nothing”
New Technology ? – I just sprayed coffee all over my screen – you guys are anti new technology. Nothing works.
There is NO Plan B – it’s just a slogan.
At the end of the interview, Bob Williams mentioned that the Royal Society had issued a new statement on “climate change”. What he did not mention–and certainly should have mentioned–was that it represented a major change in stance away from the theme that man-made global warming is real and dangerous and we must do something about it.
I also found that quite objectionable that, all through the interview, the mantra was that only “climate scientists” who had published in the “right” peer-reviewed journals (and, as we know from “climategate” using the “right peer” reviewers) had any credibility. Anyone who has studied the history of science will know that many major breakthroughs have been made by people from outside that area of the science.
In the case of “climate change” all one needs to do is to look at simple statistical data freely available on many websites regarding the relationship between the Southern oscillation index and temperature 7 months later (which, right now, is predicting a switch to colder conditions before the end of this year) and the relationship between long sunspot cycles and the temperature in the succeeding sunspot cycle–which tells us that we are in for a cooling period. You don’t need to be a “climate scientist” (whatever that may be) to analyse the data. You just need to be able to think clearly and use a spreadsheet.
It is quite disgraceful that the ABC chooses to air personal attacks on Bob Carter’s credibility as a climate scientist without making the slightest attempt to achieve balance and fairness.
Luke,
I am not sure how you can honestly suggest Bob does not publish on contemporary climate science … he publishes about paleoclimate which is a key component of the contemporary IPCC reports?
For example, CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662.
Others,
I have no problems with Robyn Williams encouraging debate on radio but if someone’s effort are going to be attacked it should be by listing examples of what they got wrong. For example, in the following i explain by way of example how Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe, Bob Brown and Jared Diamond are wrong. The piece was recorded in 2005.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2005/1509193.htm
Sorry contemporary as in terms of the last 100 years climate and its trajectory – and factors relevant to that issue. The single paper addressing that issue (McLean et al) has been hit out of the stadium. However as I said, I don’t think that disqualifies him as an interesting person with an interesting view point for Williams to interview.
But lets face it – AGW has become tribal – each side hates the other. And are deeply suspicious.
The reason I’m very interested in Plan B is how one can do a Plan B when sceptics have denounced all climate science, climate scientists and all data sets. Doesn’t leave much of a basis for climate risk decisions. e.g. solving a water allocation problem, coastal engineering. You’ve torched the temple I’m afraid.
It’s all very pretentious to go on about attacks on character given the libellous comments ongoing here about the nation’s climate scientists. Who hasn’t been called a fraud by now. Really !
Luke you really are impossible to reason with , it isn’t complicated , if something needs fixing you attempt to fix it, if not you save your money and carefully allocate much smaller ammounts on agreed research, like better batteries for example or build new dams as well as better water conservation technology, or whatever is required.
But please forget about expensive, inefficient, hopeless technology like wind and solar farms that require massive govt subsidies and need backup of CF stations as well.
The wasteful, useless broad brush of an ETS or a price on carbon demonstrably just doesn’t work, just how much longer do we attempt to flog this dead horse?
As I’ve explained ad nauseum in the past, 75% of the increase in co2 in the next 30 years will be produced by the developing countries and they aren’t listening with regard to cut backs.
If they won’t play ball the ball game is finished before it starts.
First a serious climate change problem has to be identified and then a solution has to be found. This is not new, it is simply common sense. It is how humans have adapted throughout history, because the climate has always changed. It is complete folly to think that we can control the climate by cutting CO2, or anything else. It is the lack of any credible evidence for the CO2 hypothesis that has led to the nasty attacks on scientists like Prof Bob Carter. In fact these nasty attacks do more to undermine the credibility of those making them, as it exposes their lack of real scientific arguments.
But lets face it – AGW has become tribal – each side hates the other. And are deeply suspicious.
It was creamed. – what, when, where, and how? Be specific.
Don’t know about the rest of you, but I for one find it irritating when a rattlesnake complains about the debate being poisoned.
James – peace out man – I’m sorry – you must have been away from the planet during that episode – it went viral !
– a very brief sample from Google of the times ….
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/mclean-whinges.html
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/03/denial-isnt-just-river-in-egypt-it-runs.html
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/03/31/mclean-de-freitas-and-carter-response-fails-the-peer-review-process/
But hey – I thought we all agreed to pretend it never happened and never to discuss it again.
Dear Neville – build some more dams eh? But how – with what cost benefit/engineering. You see you lot have said all the climate records are corrupt – all the MDB hydrology science is corrupt etc. All the practitioners are frauds. Having torched the temple you have no basis for constructing anything you see. Coz you disbelieve all data and all the science. Who knows what a dam might yield with no engineering basis.
Ah yes. The old erase the cold balloon readings from the record then badger Bob Carter for including them trick.
Co authored embarassingly by most every one of the co defendants of climategate.
Why didn’t you (or fast Jimmy Annan) come right out and say Foster (aka Tamino aka Openmind but not really) et al .
Bashful maybe.
Their main complaint about McLean.
What did Jimmy call it? Blog science. Ain’t it rich.
James – as usual your insight is uninformed – embarrassingly the rebuttal of the reply by McLean et al denied publication at JGR as it was silly ! And of course you don’t even want to know why? Stop obfuscating. The problem for you is that the gentlemen you mention actually do know something about contemporary climate science and statistics – the point. The understatement in the Foster et al comment to JGR is seething.
The comment to JGR (un-rebutted) for your delectation.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D09110, 4 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2009JD012960
Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
G. Foster
Tempo Analytics, Westbrook, Maine, USA
J. D. Annan
Research Institute for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan
P. D. Jones
Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
M. E. Mann
Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
B. Mullan
Climate Variability Group, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand
J. Renwick
Climate Variability Group, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand
J. Salinger
School of Environment, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
G. A. Schmidt
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
K. E. Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, Boulder, Colorado, USA
McLean et al. (2009) (henceforth MFC09) claim that the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), as represented by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), accounts for as much as 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly and an even higher 81% of this anomaly in the tropics. They conclude that the SOI is a “dominant and consistent influence on mean global temperatures,” “and perhaps recent trends in global temperatures.” However, their analysis is inappropriate in a number of ways and overstates the influence of ENSO on the climate system. This comment first briefly reviews what is understood about the influence of ENSO on global temperatures and then shows that the analysis of MFC09 greatly overestimates the correlation between temperature anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2–6 year time window while filtering out variability on longer and shorter time scales. The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations.
However James – all that being said – let Bob have his interview with Robin.
And it would be good in this interviews to not be adversarial but to find out what he’s on about. Like Plan B !
Now given “adaptation” is a key part of Plan B – seems to me that adapting to inter-annual and seasonal variation i.e. El Nino, La Nina would be a major issue for eastern Australia. Which goes to the heart of the paper discussed above.
Luke’s loopeyness is always self evident. Good water storage is what normal people have been doing forever.
Plan B is what we have been doing for 10,000 years. It’s called civilisation. It’s mainly local and it works. Economically and ecologically.
There was a Plan B in place 100 years ago to control the Indus R flooding but people cutting down trees and allowing control dams to silt up plus a lot of other failings allowed known and expected disasters to happen.
Also some aspects of Plan B are naturally automatic. Frontal dunes are always the highest. Riverine deltas and coral atolls rise with SLs etc.
There’s always Monckton’s plan C – do nothing. That’s the one I prefer.
BTW Jim – I recently went back to my home town of Auckland NZ and returned to the beach I grew up on as a kid in the 50s. I specifically went at low tide and the same rocks stood out of the sea the same amount as they did 50 years ago. One area was only 4″ (100mm) out of the water then and it’s still 4″ today yet according to the claimed 3mm annual rise it should have been 50mm below.
Robyn William’s ego will never allow a reasonable debate on the ABC. I’ve never met a more arrogant individual.
Jennifer, Glad to see you back. I have been away from this site due people such as Luke who offer no sensible comments mainly because they have no understanding of technology and no grace to admit that science needs skeptics and hypotheses can be falsified.
Thanks for Bob Carter’s publication list. I have downloaded some of the early ones.
I heard part of a good interview of Bob Carter on the ABC – the commentator (can not remember who) and callers welcomed some facts.
I think Robyn Williams would be concerned about having Bob on a program because he would run rings around him and show up his lack of knowledge.
What we can say with absolute certainty is that none of the climate scum..er experts are an economists armpit. So why have they been allowed to pump out economic scenarios under the SRES banner that amount to nothing more than simplistic extrapolations from present data?
It must be remembered that it is only these totally fanciful, unpeer reviewed, projections, particularly the A1F1 “worst case” outcome, that get anywhere near a justification for urgent responses to climate change. Competent economists would shreik with hysterical laughter at any projection that assumes that economic growth rates, even in the most basket case economies, are going to miraculously achieve a continuous growth trajectory, with emissions to match, right out to 2100. No sign of any growth plateaus like the one that has followed both Japan’s and Korea’s “economic miracles”. No sign of any adverse economic impacts from the very climate extremism that every spiv and his dog is warning about. Just this magical growth trajectory that would see 50% more Bangladeshis enjoying a GDP of US$63,000 each, and emissions to match, right through the second half of the century when they are supposed to be already under water.
Ditto for 50% more Ethiopians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Congolese and sub-saharans who we are seriously led to believe are going to rise above their already parlous circumstances to achieve a carbon footprint capable of inflicting serious climate change. And ditto for the poorer 7 deciles of India and China’s population whose very poverty is absolutely essential for maintaining the lifestyles of their high consuming elites. As if the upper castes of both countries have either means or motive to allow their servant classes to price themselves out of their market. It is pure La la land.
And the moment we introduce just a small number of realistic assumptions into the SRES scenarios the emissions projections slow to whimper and the point where serious effort might be needed stretches further and further into the future.
It is no small irony that the only way that third world emissions could get to a point where CO2 might present a climate problem is if the IPCC gets its way and the entire OECD capital base is exported. But if that was the case then OECD emissions would fall to third world levels and the problem would be postponed further. Either way the IPCC is a serious crock of $hite.
I’ve just deleted a few comments that were off topic/encouraging the thread to drift. If you want to post general comments on sea level or AGW or something else there is still that long postscript thread. It would be good if new threads stayed on topic to the extent possible. Cheers,
Jen,
Apologies for waffling O/T.
Y’Know, Williams using Ward [or was it the other way round] to beat Carter with, Ward spouts the IPCC ad nauseum and is happy to use this questionable source [and getting questionabler by the day] when 30% of its references are student activist propaganda.
Quel science!
Its Mr Ward’s credentials that require some scrutiny. He has a record of four meagre publications. Two have a vague connection with climate change – something to do with the impact of climate change on the insurance industry. Seems to be yet another pompous economist following in the footsteps of Stern and Garnaut. This all makes about as much sense as asking an expert on kangaroo viruses to review the superannuation industry. Why can’t they find just a few proper scientists to help out – perhaps they have all left town and gone to the beach.
Dear Luke,
While it is interesting to hear your side of the argument I had great trouble in understanding what you were trying to say about the behaviour of carbon dioxide in air, about the geological history of climate and the relationship between climate and the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just prior to the onset of an ice age. Your views on the effects of solar variations together with changes in the dynamic orbital characteristics of the revolving and rotating earth would also be impotant to this discussion. Your comment regarding the key findings in the McLean et al. paper indicates that you may not have read it, but only perhaps extracts from Foster et al., who sadly misunderstood McLean’s argument and correctly criticised their own misunderstanding, while in the process showing that they were like you, unable to appreciate what was being said by McLean. The reason McLean’s rebuttal was refused by the newly appointed editor of JGR is well documented, but no where more clearly than in the CRU emails which refer directly to the techniques used to prevent its being published.
John Nicol
I advise Luke to think twice before supporting the nonsense critique of the paper that I wrote with Bob Carter and Chris de Freitas. It avoided the matter that we discussed in the Discussion and Conclusion of our paper – whether the SOI was a good indicator of global average lowet tropospheric temperatures 7 months into the future – but went into hysterics about the manner we used to estimate that period of 7 months, which incidentally is very similar to what others have discovered.
The critique also contained factual errors and internal inconsistencies (e.g. the Abstract and Introduction have almost identical sentences but the Introduction contains a vital extra word or two). Judging by Climategate emails in which it was mentioned, it was likely a case of “mates’ review” rather than peer review. On top of that the journal failed to abide by its own rules and description of process (e.g. the review of responses to comments is only to ensure that they respond to the questions – the reviews to our response in fact contained unsubstantiated criticism of the original paper)
For anyone with an open mind the full details are at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/agu_censorship.pdf. No Luke, I don’t expect you to read it.
The only thing “creamed” about the response to our paper was the reputation of JGR.
Luke obviously has a big crush on Jennifer. She shows up, and suddenly he’s posting like a madman. (Well, he always posts that way, but I have a different meaning of the term in mind.)
Luke says, ‘sceptics have denounced all climate science, climate scientists and all data sets’.
LOL I would have noticed that by now if it were true. Who’s the denialist now?
Note that both Stern and Garnaut sidestepped the issue of the validity of the SRES emissions projections by making their entire papers reliant on a hugely pregnant IF. That is, they based their entire analysis on the assumption that the unpeer reviewed projections were valid and realistic. No credible economists have been invited to assess the validity of the projections and neither C$IRO nor Treasury has bothered to examine the question. So the chances that someone like Williams or Jones at the ABC might take any approach other than to mimic Nelson at Trafalga is minimal. When faced with signals from his commander that he did not want to see, Nelson placed his telescope in front of his patched eye so he could not be accused of disobeying an order he didn’t see or agree with.
This time worn device is the only way that the climate mafia can pretend there is any need for urgent responses to atmospheric CO2 accumulation. And the Luke Desk at DERM have taken it to high art.
The same old nonsense from luke about the McLean et al; this paper will turn out to be one of the turning points of this debate; natural variability has been shamefully dismissed by the Fosters’ of the world as trend neutral and incapable of producing climate variation; it is the hockeystick syndrome which assumes a stable climate without anthropogenic imput; just dumb. And for the record I reckon the Foster comment is one of the worst of recent pro-AGW papers:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/another-10-of-the-worst-agw-papers-part-3/
It’s not very day that a right or reply is rejected by JGR. That bad ! Cohenite’s back to internal oscillations adding heat forever – must be 1000 degrees by now. There’s always E&E guys.
I love Coho’s worst AGW papers list. The list is really “what Cohers is really worried about”.
I remind him of the right of reply by Eli – http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/10/believing-ten-impossible-things-before.html “incoherent denialism”
You’re a dill luke; I think it’s time to do another list of best anti-AGW papers; in fact I have 5 in mind which between them completely deconstruct AGW and reveal it for the entrails and dung that it is.
Luke,
Your notion of “oscillations adding heat forever” to the planet is due to ‘Can’t Find the Missing Heat’ Trenberth and the CAGWers’ claim that CO2 ignores the 2d law of thermodynamics and acts as a terrestrial ‘heat pump’ which, strangely, has the molecule very highly interested in radiating downwards.
Artificial Intelligence? Molecules can be darned clever, you know.
You’d think that Maxwell’s Demons would have shown up by now and explained their case.
Or maybe they have. Would one of them be named ‘Hansen’? The demons have taken control of Venus, and we are next….
Yeah right.
Well Cohenite – your utter pretentious and thoughtless list of the worst papers is part of the reason you guys wouldn’t be welcome on the Science Show. Goes to the heart of the matter. Random thoughtless denialism. In the end you were just ramming stuff together with tag lines. And after the Watts pensioner scaring tour and the embarrassing results of the Climate Sceptics party at the recent election – (did Graeme Bird score more votes) – who believes you anyway? So you will note that despite your best efforts – Sceptics vote a rounding error at best and Green Party votes through the roof. Would Williams want to interview some unrepresentative fringe movement?
Schiller – I see you’ve now devolved back into the primordial soup recanting all you previously said, as well as being sillier than usual.
The big problem for sceptics is despite everything they’ve thrown at it, a quiet Sun, illegal paid hacking of CRU by criminals, nothing has changed. Arctic is still melting. Records continue to be broken. Circulation systems continue to move.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/05/3030213.htm
Even when the ice is gone you’ll still be denying. Expect more paid-for criminal hacking by thieves before Mexico.
Luke,
What exactly did I recant about the behavior of CO2?
I am very much looking forward to your attempt to ‘verbal’ me.
And, of course, you will render a cogent account of what that gas does — our contribution = ~3% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~3.4 percent.
I fondly remember your claim that the atmosphere is like a halogen light-bulb with a reflective coating. That was quite precious. I would enjoy hearing it again. It bears repeating. Or at least, re-explanation. Glass barrier with a reflective coating, surrounding the planet, wasn’t it?
Yes, quite entertaining.
Please do go on. We do enjoy a bit of entertainment at times.
Comment from: Luke October 4th, 2010 at 6:36 am
The problem for you is that the gentlemen you mention actually do know something about contemporary climate science and statistics
Yes. They’re all skilled in the art of ‘hiding the decline’.
Poor Schiller – firstly back radiation didn’t exist – confronted with measurements of such radiation he came up with the ye olde bogus 2nd law of thermodynamics ruse which was defeated by a commercial Osram light bulb example -he leaves it a while – then returns back to square one pretending none of that happened.
Maaaate !
And for your delectation Schillsy
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/27/the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
You’ll be back to trivia like temperature anomalies soon. Round and round go the sceptic arguments. Round and round. A cherry pick there. A quote mine here. A verbal often. And always remember to only tell half the story.
Luke,
Thank you for that link. Yet another author who has it right. You should consider reading what you recommend to make sure it’s in line with your narrative.
Schiller
You would have though that after all these years of people telling him this that he might have learnt something.
But then the climatariat is notorious for only doing half a job and then telling only half the story, which isnt the same half as the job they hadnt done in the first place.
Malcolm,
You would think that after all these years the climate distortionists would have thoroughly described the physical basis for the behavior of CO2.
It’s a topic that’s fundamental to their claims — and it’s highly instructive that they avoid that topic like the plague.
It’s almost like they realize the physical basis is indefensible. And, face it — if they can’t get the physics right, anything after that — literally, everything is a waste of time and money.
Or, as some would say, fraud.
Jen,
Since your posting of this travesty it has appeared all around the blogosphere [sometimes more than once a la the 10-10 rubbish].
Hopefully Williams will be shamed into giving Carter a right of reply but I’m not holding my breath.
Now Luke, The IPCC produced a video just prior to Dopenhagen which had poor old Desmond Tutu whipped into a lather claiming Africa will be devastated by climate change. So how come there is no sign of this devastation in the IPCC’s own SREs emissions projections? These projections fail to incorporate ANY adverse economic impact in Africa right out to year 2100. So which IPCC statement is the correct one? The one that claims that Africa will be devastated, indeed, is already being devastated by climate change? Or the one that has African economic growth and emissions on a consistent trend right out the top of the page?
There is a strong consensus among Wall St analysts that the OECD economies are entering a period of extended stagnation that could last as long as the 20 years stagnation experienced by Japan to date. And if this is the case then why would a body interested in making accurate projections of human emissions, like you claim the IPCC is, continue to apply a consistent growth rate to basket case economies, that are already vulnerable to climate variation, when the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that growth, and emissions, tend to plateau, even in economies that are not vulnerable to climate variation?
Even if the IPCC science is entirely correct, which it clearly is not, the economic assumptions behind the emissions projections are so bogus as to comprehensively debunk any claim for urgent action. The chances of atmospheric CO2 doubling to 540ppm by 2100 are substantially less than 10% because the chances of the average African, Indian, Chinese, Bangladeshi or Pakistani driving a hummer by 2100 is even lower.
NOTHING WILL REDUCE THIRD WORLD EMISSIONS LIKE A GOOD NATURAL DISASTER. Increasing severity of climate impacts, from either human or natural causes, will reduce the very emissions that the IPCC claims will create those impacts. A Bangladeshi cannot drive around his country in a hummer if his country is already under water.
luke linking to Science of Doom is indeed ironic since SoD has debunked many AGW shibboleths including the idea of a global average temperature. With the 2nd law the issue is what is causing the backradiation from the atmosphere to surface, and the answer of course is water.
I wonder if luke has got his yet:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yc-Lk62n49w/TKp9VZsR7pI/AAAAAAAAFWk/EK69JN5HHZA/s1600/1010+tag.jpg
In respect of the 10:10 controversy this may be of interest:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html
Just posted comment there, Tony. I wonder if it will make it through by next week.
Amazing isn’t it. They would have us believe that humans are bad, affluent humans are worst of all, but the IPCC wants to make certain our poorest humans all become affluent emitters so they can make the planet worst of all. The very social engineering they want to put the world through by decree and compulsion will make the claimed problem worse than ever. Go figure.
The fact is that people in rapidly growing populations have no moral right to aspire to the same per capita emissions that are enjoyed by cultures tha curbed their own birth rates decades ago. Rapid population growth produced exessive division of available resources and it logically follows that it should also mean substantial division of any implied right to emit CO2.
Thanks Mottie; some other people have remarked about some difficulty getting their posts up; we’ll see; at least the issue of the inherent misanthropy of green policies and the exploitation of children is out there; it’s about time the phony war of AGW was over and the real conflict between human progress and self-inflicted, misanthropic self-denial and human reduction and even eradication in the name of nature can commence.
No wonder they don’t want sceptics on the science show with loopy right wing nonsense like the above. More greenie bashing twaddle as the Arctic melts away. Anyway Motty will be happy that the property rights crowd hijacked the climate sceptics party. Some progress, except with the voters.
Anyway back on serious matters – free kick for sceptics.
New satellite data overturns understanding of sun’s cycle – http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6951T320101006
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-10/icl-ssn100610.php
Published in Nature not E&E of course.
Mike Lockwood said ‘that large dip would cause falling temperatures in the upper atmosphere, which could explain a twisting of the jet stream — a powerful wind in the high atmosphere which can drag cold air from the polar regions.’
I will need a second opinion, but it looks interesting.
el; its all about wavelength and filters
You still don’t get it, do you, boy wonder? With a sensitivity to doubling of CO2 of less than 1 degree C, combined with the gross improbability of getting anywhere near 800ppm CO2 by 2100, you are arguing about a quarter of 2/5ths of sweet FA.
Take the Ethiopian out of his IPCC assumed Hummer, and accept that there simply will not be enough room above water for twice as many Bangladeshis to live in high emission 240m3 houses in an urban sprawl and the chances of CO2 getting to 500ppm by 2100 are very low indeed. And gosh, there goes that whole catastrophic fantasy and there goes any credible argument for urgent action on climate onanism.
How can the third world make such a huge projected contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100 when the IPCC is busy telling us they will be continually devastated by a rampant climate from 2020 onwards? How can third world GDP per capita, and implied emissions per capita, post continuous growth when their GDP is not even keeping pace with their population growth?
Is overpopulation a key cause of poverty or not?
Does rapid population growth reduce the resources available to each individual, or not?
Are per capita CO2 emissions directly related to per capita access to resources, or not?
Is entrenched poverty the single most insurmountable feature of third world economics for the past century, or not?
So what sort of deluded morons have the IPCC relied on to produce emissions projections that fly in the face of such an overwhelming reality? And what sort of gullible drop kicks would believe such blatantly unrealistic projections and expect others to make substantial investment decisions on them?
Ian,
There’s all sorts of data that confound the Global Climate Distortionist narrative.
For instance, the experience of persons who live on Hispaniola. They recently suffered an earthquake. Those on the poverty-stricken side, Haiti, suffered massive casualties. On the other side of the border, in the Dominican Republic, managed quite well.
Take-home message: affluence alleviates the effects of catastrophe.
Then there’s the experience of Germany. Germans, being affluent, reproduce less than others; the disappearance of indigenous Germans has been forecast.
Take-home message: affluence reduces the birthrate.
Other take-home message: the best response to ‘looming climate distortions’ is affluence.
Everyone who doesn’t want to be affluent, raise your hand please.
G. Foster
Tempo Analytics, Westbrook, Maine, USA
J. D. Annan
Research Institute for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan
P. D. Jones
Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
M. E. Mann
Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
B. Mullan
Climate Variability Group, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand
J. Renwick
Climate Variability Group, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand
J. Salinger
School of Environment, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
G. A. Schmidt
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
K. E. Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Oh btw Prop 23, my little ballot initiative to scrap the global warming law in California, it’s leading in the polls.
Luke, just a thought, seeing as how you are so knowledgeable about back radiation and all. AND the uncanny way that you have infinite access to everything ever published.
Might the whole back radiation thing be proved once and for all by making a large quantity of heavy CO2, releasing it at an appropriate spot in the atmosphere and then taking spherical distribution measurements of the IR which would be radiated at a different frequency than normal CO2?
What are your thoughts?
Derek,
Luke has a terrible allergy. Anything that involves actual experimental research, he runs for the hills.
His freaky notion of back-radiation, for instance, utterly fails with the ‘solar refrigerator’, or the gig with the IR thermometer.
It’s good to have Luke around, though, to remind us of the shoddy science behind anthropogenic climate distortion.
So Derek our resident sceptic troll – Schiller, the great anti-science advocate of this blog – a veritable cherry-picking quote-mining blog-bilge recycling automaton now demands experimental data.
Funny that he rejects measurement by a radiometer in clear sky night as evidence. Look Mum – no hands !
And Schillers’ logic also sez that the Osram IRC light bulb violates the second law of thermodynamics. (obviously Osram in on the BIG fraud – ho ho ho)
And of course there’s always Roy Spencer solar box…..
It’s always great to have Schiller around to remind us of the sceptic mind at work.
Affluence will reduce the world’s population, I agree with Schiller.
el; for a decent outline of the poverty (v affluence) issue, see “Eliminating poverty in our lifetime” via the Drum
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30118.html
“So Derek our resident sceptic troll “………..um Luke, you must have gotten sidetracked before you had a chance to answer my actually serious question. If anyone can find out if such an experiment has been carried out, you’re the man(or men?, whatever) but seriously, please see if you can find anything.
Gavin, interesting piece. I was also quite impressed with what Noel Pearson had to say on counterpoint the other day. You can here it here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/3026903.htm and even follow the link down the page to his full speech.
Cheers.
Luke,
Cleverness is a poor substitute for understanding, something you exemplify in abundance.
I accept the IR thermometer readings as conclusively destroying the notion of CO2 ‘back-radiation’ as an important factor in climate/weather.
I utterly reject your claim that the Earth is like a light bulb with a silvery coating, the claim is so goofy not even Hansen would put it forward. And clearly you don’t understand Spencer’s solar box.
I suspect you’re a victim of the Trenberth syndrome… If the data don’t fit the model, the data are wrong. Sorry, bub, that’s totally backwards.
Schiller – mouthing off with no content – rhetorical bluster – is a poor substitute for understanding, something you exemplify in abundance.
I didn’t say the earth is like a silvery bulb – I said the bulb illustrates why your 2nd law of thermodynamics theory ruse is bunk. The bulb can’t work given your claims that nett radiation doesn’t exist.
And don’t just mouth off – DO TELL how a pyrgeometer “destroys” the notion of CO2 back radiation – this should be good.
And do explain Spencer’s box ! DO TELL why the box doesn’t get incredibly cold.
Failure to step comprehensively here – and any obfuscation will be a sure sign of you copping out (again). Chicken !
Derek – the resident sceptic troll be Schiller Not you.
Anyway – what do you mean by “heavy” CO2. Over what area. What thickness. What height. How do you propose to position the 3D sphere of measuring sensors in mid-air? Simply asking !
Are you measuring during the day and/or night. What do you expect to see? Why?
You would have then make calculations as to the back radiation contribution received from the atmosphere above and below the measuring point.
All good questions Luke.
Heavy CO2 is like heavy water, doped with heavier nuclei of oxygen, say O18. The difference in mass changes the rotational and vibrational frequencies of the CO2 molecule thus moving the IR spectrum of the heavy CO2. This would give a clearly detectable fingerprint signal for the target gas in the atmosphere.
As for your other questions, smarter people than me would have to figure them out.
What I would expect to see is a definitive measurement of the spherical distribution of re-emitted IR from the target molecule.
What I would like to know is; has anybody, anywhere tried it yet?
On reflection, this could probably be set up in a lab, even with normal CO2.
Derek,
I can give you the results of three experiments regarding back-radiation: the directional IR thermometer, the Spencer box, and the solar oven.
All three experiments yield the same result: when aimed at a clear night-time sky, they result in lower-than-ambient readings/ results. The directional IR thermometer registers lower than ambient; the Spencer box goes colder than ambient; and the solar oven — directed at a clear night sky — actually acts as a refrigerator.
The basic message: CO2 and whatever else there is out there that’s alleged to be a ‘greenhouse gas’ is not raising temps above ambient. The sole important source of back-radiation is from the surface — terrestrial solids and the oceans.
As for that goofy bit about the light-bulb: It uses a silvery surface (which does *not* behave like non-silvery, non-reflective CO2) to re-direct IR onto the bulb element, raising the temperature of the element above what it would be without the silvery bit. This results in more light for the same amount of electricity. The silvery-bulb/CO2 argument only works for people who are desperate and will accept even the most broken model if it fits their narrative.
The rest of the basic message: if the climate distortionists can’t get the physics right, it’s scarcely worth listening to anything else they have to say.
Schiller if that is you understanding you’re even dumber than I thought.
The bulb simply demonstrates the principle of net. The reflector is cooler than the filament – so on your understanding it cannot increase the temperature of the filament but it does. Schiller goof #1
Of course the pyrgeometer measures less than ambient. But Schiller sez back radiation doesn’t exist. So here now by this comment you admit it does. Goof #2
Spencer’s solar box proves the point – of course it gets cold as it can pick up not retained warmth from rocks, soil, trees as is contained in the real world. . But not that cold. Does get to making dry ice. Doesn’t get to absolute zero. NO – WHY – back radiation. Schiller Goof #3
So Schiller here claims to have overturned the entire knowledge of greenhouse theory. Isn’t it AMAZING that he knows this – yet it isn’t published – a Nobel Prize awaits our Schiller.
And if you’re sure – ask Roy !
“can not pickup retained warmth” – erratum
Derek – well yes it can be setup in a lab – and the fact you can talk about rotational and vibration frequencies, and dipole moments are the results from that spectroscopic investigation.
There is a very simple experiment that shows CO2 acting as an absorber.
So the question for you is where does the energy go once absorbed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
BUT for Schiller – an intelligence test – what’s wrong with these
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY&feature=related
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=ai4idlxhjo0&feature=related
Luke, yes, nice video. I did my own IR absorption experiments when I was at Uni but I haven’t seen anything on re-emittance. If you could direct me to a youtube video that demonstrates that I would be grateful.
Luke, as for the other 2 videos, what’s wrong with them is this: the specific heat capacity in kJ/kgK of atmospheric gases at 300K are as follows; N2 1.040, O2 0.918, water vapour 1.864, CO2 0.846.
This means that CO2 has a much lower capacity to store energy than the other major gasses in the atmosphere. In both of the experiments shown, the increase in CO2 concentration was dramatic, possibly into the 10’s of %. All that those videos show is that with high enough concentrations of CO2, there is a direct warming effect on the immediately surrounding air. There is nothing in either of those segments that demonstrates the so-called “greenhouse effect”.
Top marks on specific heat Derek – but you should have left it for Schiller’s education. Remember Schiller denies everything.
Re-emittance – one would have to resort to spectroscopy.
Finally got Luke to fess up on the behavior of CO2, back-radiation and AGW.
If CO2-induced warming via back-radiation worked as the distortioners claim, the three experiments mentioned above would yield ambient temperatures at least. They do not, and in fact demonstrate a net cooling cooling instead. Absolutely fatal to the distortioners’ claims.
Also utterly fatal to the claim that CO2 acts like a piece of glass with a silvery coating. It’d be interesting to know who dreamed that one up.
Huh? No they would not. Schiller you lose for failing to step up. I asked you a question and no answer. Of course the temperature will drop in the solar box – it’s called lack of sunlight. And you seem to have forgotten the role of everything in the surroundings that was warmed by the sun during the day.
AGAIN Schiller – why is the temperature drop so low !!
And Schiller – wouldn’t you think this would be Nobel prize winning stuff? Wouldn’t you think Watts and Nova would be going crazy with it? Spencer himself would have published.
And from your comment you didn’t even understand what Derek said. (LOL)
And I did not say CO2 acts like a piece of glass with a silvery coating.
You clueless clown.
Luke,
You’ve gotten things confused. Here’s your dead give-away: “Of course the temperature will drop in the solar box – it’s called lack of sunlight.” So you’re admitting the primacy of insolation? “drop in the solar box” — the temperature should go up to ambient or above if back-radiation was being the big element in GW. So you don’t get that, either.
“the role of everything in the surroundings that was warmed by the sun during the day.” — Exactly. The significant ‘back-radiation’ is from the ground up, certainly not from the atmosphere down. Unless you’re talking about clouds, but that’s water vapor. Dude.
This is not Nobel Prize stuff because it’s commonly known and proved by persons too numerous to nominate.
Derek’s observations are obviously subsumed by current observations regarding the behavior of CO2, so exactly what is your problem?
And yes, you actually did say that “CO2 acts like a piece of glass with a silvery coating.” That’s why you said it was a model for climate dynamics.
Oops! You know, it’s very possible, being Luke Desk, that another Luke said something about light bulbs that you weren’t aware of. Yet another failure of conspiracy theory.
Good article from David Evans on the long history of climate change at Jo Nova’s.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-4-past-temperatures/#more-10966
Neville,
Good link. If there’s anything obvious from the climate records, it’s that, the warmer things get, the more likely they are to cool down, and vice versa.
“And yes, you actually did say that “CO2 acts like a piece of glass with a silvery coating.” That’s why you said it was a model for climate dynamics.”
NO NO NO
What I said Schiller is that the light bulb is a simple example of why your 2nd law ruse is a STUPID. That’s it. Net radiation. Conservation of Energy.
I’m sorry Schiller you’re fun to play with being such a dope. Not even your beloved Roy Spencer agrees with you and in fact fully supports my position. LOL
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Note the effect of clouds on Spencer’s graph. Come in spinner Schiller and thanks for coming out on the end of plank. What a sucker.
Luke,
The reflective light-bulb coating is reflective. The coating doesn’t absorb and emit, it reflects. I doesn’t do convection. If you regret bringing that up, so be it. If not, admit you don’t understand the 2d law.
Spencer agrees completely with my refutation of your bogus climate model. Clear-sky back-radiation is net negative, not net positive, so it’s not ‘baking the planet’ and so forth. If this planet relied on CO2 back-radiation for our warmth, we’d be entombed on an iceball.
And of course clouds do the back-radiation boogie. You are not the first to notice that.
So, are you going to abandon the CO2 narrative and protest against water vapor? That’s about all you have left.
I sent a version of the above to the ABC as a complaint and also as a letter to the Chairman. Response follows:
From: ABC Corporate_Affairs13, Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 10:42 AM
To: Jennifer Marohasy Subject: FW: Complaint Re. ABC Science Show
Dear Dr Marohasy,
Thank you for your email to the Chairman of the ABC regarding the 2 October broadcast of The Science Show. Your comments have been noted by the Chairman and forwarded to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs for our records.
I understand you have also written directly to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs through the ABC Contact online page. I can advise you that your concerns are being investigated and you will receive a substantive response in due course.
Following is a link to the ABC’s Code of Practice for your information – http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.
Yours sincerely, Kirstin McLiesh, Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs
Well done Jennifer; and good luck with the “Kafkaesque” machinations of the ABC complaint system.
Actually, looking at Bob’s publication record, I wonder if it is complete; I couldn’t find this excellent paper listed:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
No Schiller – your logic sez the cooler reflector can’t warm the filament. Sorry it does.
No Schiller – not net negative or the box would be extremely cold.
And you have no problem with water vapour being a greenhouse gas but you do with CO2. Same physics principle my friend. So clouds are allowed to do back radiation – coz Schiller thinks than can but nothing else. Selective physics.
Amazing Schiller. Amazing. Which is why we treat you lot with derision.
Gosh Schiller it seems your EPA estimates that the restictions on GHG’s will reduce the temp by a massive 0.006 of a degree over the next 90 years.
How many trillions of $ will it take to record this massive non measurement of temp I wonder?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-s-own-estimates-say-greenhouse-gas-r
Jennifer; you are going to enter the lion’s den [Q&A] next week; good luck!
Luke,
Check the physics of reflectors.
Meaningless attempt to escape Schiller – you say it’s not about nett – colder can not have any impact on warmer – yet it does. No escape from your own logic.
Luke,
If you understood the 2d law you would notice that it’s about absorption and emission — and not reflection.
A reflector changes state only to the extent that it’s not an efficient reflector.
Now, once you’ve sorted that out, you’ll have to retract your suggestion that a shiny light bulb has something to do with climate modeling.
Nope – you’re just squirming – tripe. The simple comment you have consistently said is that cold can’t warm. And it’s not about nett. You’re dreaming when you also feel that extra warmth coming from a brick wall (non-reflective too).
Schiller if the back radiation was not there Spencer’s box would be making dry ice.
“Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory” – sounds like you’ve gotten confused between the colloquial use of “theory” and the scientific theory. Not a good look for someone who touts their scientific credentials.