The Courier Mail published a piece by Prof Bob Carter earlier in the week titled Keep a Weather Eye Open in which Bob has a bit of fun at the expense of ‘global warming believers’. Bob writes:
The subject of the report [by the Queensland Government], released last week, was climate change and, given its contents, it carried the unlikely moniker, “Climate Smart”.
In the second paragraph of the ministers’ introductory message we learn that “our climate . . . is changing”. This underwhelming message – for climate has always changed and always will – scarcely seems to justify the expense of distributing such a glossy booklet.
Go on, have a chuckle! I did.
Bob is skeptical about our ability to predict future climate.
I find it fascinating that we seem unable to accurately acknowledge current climate.
Following a documentary on ABC TV last week about the recent drought at Condobolin in central western New South Wales, Perth-based climate skeptic Warwick Hughes had a look at the long term climate record for that region.
While the documentary suggested Condobolin has just experienced the worst drought on record, Warwick shows that there is nothing particularly unique about recent years in terms of rainfall, click here.
Warwick also comments:
The high rainfall years post the 1940’s correspond with a period of cloud seeding experiments in NSW from post WWII to 1974. With cloud seeding “on the nose” due to Green opposition it is thus possible that high rainfall yearsover 650 mm may be rare in the future.
………………
For more climate related pieces by Warwick, click here.
Full Text from the Courier Mail follows. I have copied it here as the Courier tends not to keep the same URL for it’s opinion pieces.
Keep a weather eye open
Bob Carter
16nov05
Bob Carter can’t find any conviction in the latest climate talk.
If, could, may, might, probably, perhaps, likely, expected, projected . . . wonderful words.
So wonderful, in fact, that Queensland ministers Henry Palaszczuk (Resources) and Desley Boyle (Environment) are unable to resist using them more than 50 times in a 32-page report.
That’s a rate of almost twice a page.
The subject of the report, released last week, was climate change and, given its contents, it carried the unlikely moniker, “Climate Smart”.
In the second paragraph of the ministers’ introductory message we learn that “our climate . . . is changing”. This underwhelming message – for climate has always changed and always will – scarcely seems to justify the expense of distributing such a glossy booklet.
Read on. The next sentence informs us: “The changes observed over the last century cannot be explained by natural influences alone. Human activities are helping to change our climate.”
And then off the ministers go on one of their “could probably” runs, asserting that Queensland’s climate could be more variable and extreme in the future “with more droughts, heatwaves and heavy rainfall” and probably with “maximum temperatures and heavy downpours . . . beyond our current experiences”.
Really? How do the ministers know all this?
Well, read on some more, and on page seven you will be rewarded with the knowledge that “climate change projections are developed from a range of computer-based models of global climate, and scenarios of future global greenhouse gas emissions”. Ahaaah! So we are talking about computer predictions here. No wonder the ministers are in “could probably” mode.
For, as French military expert Pierre Gallois has pointed out: “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no one dares criticise it.”
But actually we are not talking about computer predictions at all, but, as the ministers rightly say, with computer scenarios. What a difference that word makes.
The dynamics of climate and its changes are incredibly complex and include abundant non-linear relationships between different factors, such as increasing carbon dioxide and temperature.
As Edward Lorenz, chaos theoretician and discoverer of the “butterfly effect”, knew only too well, tiny changes in marginal factors in such systems can dramatically change the outcome, since non-linear systems are inherently unpredictable.
No matter how clever our scientists or how big and fast we make our computers, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to predict climate accurately 50 years or more in advance. The scientists who produced the “predictions” of future Queensland climate for the ministers understand the non-linear nature of climate full well, which is precisely why they use the term “scenarios” to describe the imaginary futures painted by their advanced computer games.
Indeed, so keen are they to avoid being held legally accountable for their opinions that the CSIRO climate modelling team has inserted the following disclaimer in the report it prepared for the Queensland Government: “This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood.
“Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the Queensland Government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.”
You “could probably” say that the authors of the climate change scenarios being deployed by the Queensland Government on our behalf, though not for our benefit, seem a teensy-weensy bit lacking in confidence in their projections.
Swedish oceanographer Professor Gosta Wallin got it right when he said: “The Global Climate Models are nothing more than interesting toys to play with. In no other ‘science’ would it be possible to use predictions (from GCMs) with no prediction value – call them scenarios – which is only guess work, and be serious about it.”
But let us leave the last word with one of Australia’s most distinguished climate scientists, a founder member and long-time supporter of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a former chief of the Bureau of Meteorology.
John Zillman said (and he is right) that “the most important question – should global warming proceed as the IPCC reports suggest – is how will warming be manifest at the national, regional and local level, and what would that mean for each of us?” Zillman answered his important question by saying: “I believe this question is, at present, completely unanswerable.”
He is right again, for all competent experts in computer modelling agree with his assessment that regional climate prediction is impossible. How can it be that ministers Palaszczuk and Boyle, and the Queensland Government, know better?
If, could, may, might, probably, perhaps, likely, expected, projected …
Words of conviction? I don’t think so. Words of weaseldom? Let the reader judge.
* Professor Bob Carter carries out research at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University. He studies ancient climate records from deep sea core materials
Other newspaper articles by Bob can be found here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
As Einstein once said, “There are two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not certain about the former”.
Louis – and you seem to have a handle on most of the latter.
Warwick is just spinning. Cloud seeding is doing fine in NSW – plenty of media about in recent times, there’s even legislation to allow it.
See here for example:
http://www.nrc.nsw.gov.au/submodule.aspx?id=23
What is the name for phrases and titles like “Climate Smart”, where the true meaning is the reverse of the literal meaning? You can just feel the b/s rising up over your chin when you meet these pearls of wisdom dispensed by our betters.
My favourite at the moment is “WorkChoices”, where you have to work and your employer has responsibility for all the choices.
Thanks Ender,
Your colours are noted.
In Dawkins’ response to Prince Charles (ex John Ray) he says
“..Incidentally, one worrying aspect of the hysterical opposition to the possible risks from GM crops is that it diverts attention from definite dangers which are already well understood but largely ignored. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered. Unfortunately the warning voices have been rather quiet, and now they are drowned by the baying cacophony: ‘GM GM GM GM GM GM!'”
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/dawkins2.asp
From a recent article on TB titled “Long Time Due: Reducing Tuberculosis Mortality in the 21st Century” by Timothy F. Brewer and S. Jody Heymann
“..The beginning and the end of the 20th century were marked by great pandemics: influenza and AIDS. Medical journals do not describe any major tuberculosis (TB) pandemics in the 20th century. Yet TB likely was responsible for more deaths in the last 100 years than
influenza and HIV combined. Steadily, insidiously, millions of people die from TB every year. Even under optimal TB control conditions, it is estimated that more than 50 million people will die from TB between 1998 and 2020. Under current TB control conditions, the number is closer to 70 million.”
Greenies are disproportionately concerned with non issues such as “saving-the-planet” whilst real suffering and death from easily curable conditions continue without mention.
So Rog how much then have you donated to medical research or these causes in the last year.
Sorry Steve but any spin is in the constant misinformation over years about drought and rainfall by ABC and the Oz media.
To say “Cloud seeding is doing fine in NSW..” Steve, implying that it is in widespread use, is stretching a point too far.
The Snowy Hydro trials are on only 1000 square kms using ground burners not aircraft, that started in 2004, opposed by Greens and Parks people, required complex legislation and are not remotely on the scale of the post WWII airborne missions that involved circa 6000 aircraft hours.
I think the Snowy Hydro site posts a 2002 pdf paper by Ian Searle which gives a synopsis.
My mention of CS was to draw attention to the circa 1950 peak in NSW rainfall which might have a CS component.
When I say, “With cloud seeding “on the nose due to Green opposition..” this is true Australia wide. The Snowy Hydro trials represent just a tiny chink of light through the barrier of Green / Luddite influence.
Warwick Hughes
Cloud seeding doesn’t work except maybe in Tassie in a very specific application with the hydro.
Or if it does, it could take you 25 years to get a statistical result. Sure you might alter cloud behaviour – whether it be silver iodide or South African hygroscopic salt flares. But does that translate into more rain on the ground. And would it have rained anyway. Hard stuff.
And you’ll probably have Monaro farmers saying you’ve taken their rain away (can’t win).
If its a drought (when typically cloud seeding, diverting the Clarence and Bradfield schemes get a run) – there’s usually nothing to seed anyway. If you’re going to seed you would probably try to improve the better years even more. Not use as a drought buster.
But if it makes you feel better – go ahead.
Instead of looking for 1950 peaks from cloud seeding have a look at the ocean instead.
Cloud seeding’s problems have got nothing to do with greenies or Luddites.
Like Jen, I had a good laugh with Bob Carter’s piece as well.
Bob should take up cooking. His Pavlova’s would be sooo light – almost imperceptible in content.
If newspaper circulation is down – pick up the red-phone and call Bob for a puff-piece.
Mother-earthism indeed – what tosh – “Gee man the Earth is hurtin’ – we need to be kind to the planet – pass the ganga!”
And unlike his article says – the Queensland report title is Climate Smart Adaptation.
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/sustainability/greenhouse_and_climate_change/climate_smart_adaptation/
I’ve just had a read – as a state with an already significant from climate variation and given current trends and level of knowledge I believe makes pretty good sense. And most of Queensland for those not living on the coast is drought declared.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/QueenslandDroughtMonitor/
But back to Bob’s funny review.
After some spruiking finally at line 9 where we rip into the computer models. So then we have from someone who’s never published on the topic, his considered position that if you put tomfoolery into computers you get tomfoolery out. CSIRO are devastated with this new information – nobody every told them that – I believe they all resigned on that news.
In terms of developing models, CSIRO actually spend no time comparing at all results with observed data and debating results. Funny – with their first computers runs the models validate perfectly first time. And their code even compiles and runs first time as well. These guys are good.
Then bizarrely we’re told it’s all very complex – and we have non-linear relationships (golly almost enough to drive you to modelling to understand it). BUT jaw-drop from Bob (maybe he’s loosening up) with have interactions with CO2 and temperature. Jeez I wouldn’t have put CO2 in here – looks like he’s actually saying it does something.
We then get introduced to Lorenz and butterflies. Gee bet CSIRO doesn’t know about that either. I wonder why they run all those ensembles with different starting conditions.
Then we talk about clever scientists (hey I thought they were into tomfoolery a minute ago?) and it is unlikely that we can predict climate 50 years into the future – yep – dead right as it not only depends on the models but what emissions profile humanity cares to take – low, medium, high. This depends on willingness to act (politics, perceived risk) and technology (not yet invented).
We then have the legal clause stuff. Which CSIRO are legally obliged to put in consultancy reports of this nature. Standard stuff – but let’s make it look like a conspiracy. Of course we could, maybe on this logic, we could hypothetically take a class action suit on James Cook Uni if their staff dissuade us from acting on climate issues in planning for some low lying new development in North Queensland – which is subsequently is wiped off the map with a large intense tropical cyclone. But that would be mean and we wouldn’t do that.
We’re then introduced to a Swedish oceanographer. I tried to read this with a Swedish accent but I kept thinking of Abba tunes. (Waterloo and SOS). Unlike what Bob says computer simulation is used effectively in a number of fields of engineering and science.
And then with a pretty significant appeal to authority (and it took all that foxing around to get down to this point) we introduce John Zillman who says you can’t do reasonable regional projections. (Side bar – bit of interesting hypocrisy here as he does list Dr Zillman as an IPCC supporter (which I’m sure Bob isn’t) and so we’ll just cherry pick this part of the argument. But hey doesn’t Dr Zillman believe in global warming so why would you trust him of this issue too. Obviously take support from anywhere if it suits you.)
But anyway Dr Zillman is a very respected meteorologist and he has made a significant comment on the accuracy of regional modelling. Of course John is a very clever scientist in a field of clever scientists. CSIRO with enormous expertise in the field and operationally active do believe there is merit in the regional studies and so does the Australian Greenhouse Office. That’s where the international effort is also heading.
Interestingly the Bureau of Meteorology, which Dr Zillman used to lead, develops atmospheric models to predict the weather around the nation (and apparently they do have skill despite comments from the peanut gallery) and they are also developing a seasonal forecast model – POAMA.
So yea – Bob’s piece was a bit of a rant. Content zero. But imagine it was popular nonetheless and good for the cheer squad. Do we find any specific useful information – nope. Any alternative explanations? Just a spray.
Anyway why the Qld government would be interested in future climate escapes me. Guess it wouldn’t be anything to do with on-off drought for 15 years, drying trends, heatwaves in 2004, cities with water supply problems, and international concerns over future flooding, storm surge, and changes to tropical cyclone climate. Combined with vastly increased coastal development and SE Qld growth.
Nah – couldn’t be.
And as Bob says climate has changed before so why worry – be happy. I’m sure it will all be OK. Just let’er rip.
P.S. I wonder how Bob’s track record is on climate change issues.. let’s see what Deltoid says
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bobcarter3/
http://timlambert.org/2005/06/bobcarter2/
http://timlambert.org/2005/06/bobcarter4/
hmmmm..
Phil, you accuse Bob of a “puff-piece” but where’s the substance in yours?
Your piece is heavy on sarcasm, light on facts and still showing this blind faith in reputations and the hypothesis of AGW despite what the data may show.
I’ve been looking at the results of the CSIRO modelling lately and if you are impressed by predicted rainfall that is half of that which was recorded then it doesn’t take much to impress you.
Surprise Phil! I am not a climate modeller and I’ve never published on the subject but I can read data and understand graphs.
What came out of the models sure was tomfoolery and I’m pretty sure that you’ll find that tomfoolery went in to them too (unsubstantiated assumptions, incomplete understanding etc.)
When you’ve got something of substance to say – not just sarcasm or quoting others – it just might be worth discussing issues with you. Until that happens, I’m afraid not.
The difference is I’m not writing to a national newspaper as a notable academic. I’m not writing a column for a newspaper – this is a “letter to the Editor” in response to what I’ve read.
And you’re “pretty sure’ are you? “pretty sure” – mate – indicates you’re clueless. Your previous diswcussion of such some months ago indicates you don’t even know what you’ve just read.
And John – given your 3 points style stats ability I think we’ve seen enough.
Phil Done brings up the subject that the “..Bureau of Meteorology..develops atmospheric models to predict the weather..and they are also developing a seasonal forecast model”
The BoM produces every month a 3 month model “Outlook” for rainfall and for max & min temperature, in the form of maps of Australia with contoured percentage probabilities of exceeding averages.
Reality is that these “Outlooks” have a pathetic track record of prediction and frequently salient features of the model prediction turn out exactly wrong when the actual weather data is mapped.
I have web pages juxtaposing years of these “Outlooks” with the actual rain and temperature anomalies.
Rainfall Outlook critiques are at;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/drought/
Temperature Outlook critiques for 2005 are at;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool14.htm
Pre 2005 temperature Outlook critiques are at;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/cool8.htm
I emailed the Minister and Undersecretary last Friday suggesting that taxpayers money could be put to better use, or the BoM build skill with an Outlook period that might be predictable such as 15 or 20 days.
Enough for now.
Warwick Hughes
Warwick those 3 month *outlooks* had me fooled until I read the BOM saying they werent confident predicting past 4 days.
Phil will enjoy the latest BOM model, 50:50 chance of a wetter summer, just like what Don White said.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml
Wetter and hotter summers, must be the increase in cloud cover?
Octobers’ rain also brought higher temps;
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/rainfall/decile/month/colour/history/nat/2005100120051031.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/temperature/minanom/3month/colour/history/nat/2005080120051031.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/temperature/maxanom/3month/colour/history/nat/2005080120051031.gif
Rog – BoM can speak for their own forecast accuracy – but the 3 month outlooks are fundamentally different to weather forecasts. So that’s what the 4 day stuff implies. You may notice that the seasonal forecasts are not stating anything for a particular day – moreover the probability of attaining a certain amount in the outlook period. The various operational seasonal forecast schemes either derive from analysis of ocean temperatures or knowledge of the Southern Oscillation (SOI). The seasonal forecasts are also not deterministic – they are probabilistic and their skill varies at different times of the year and for different areas. It’s worth reading up on what you get before you “buy”.
There seems to be a fair degree of weather/climate confusion. But then there usually is.
For Zillman, I recommend his speech http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/johnzillmanlaunch.html. He’s having to be polite to the septics in that speech, but nonetheless makes many good points.
Carters piece is farily vacuous. Notice that he quotes “The changes observed over the last century cannot be explained by natural influences alone. Human activities are helping to change our climate.” but never actually addresses it. Does he agree with it? Is he aware of the evidence for it?
Wawick – perhaps the BOM could invest in a crystal ball – 15 to 20 days!!!!!!!
So what are you suggesting? Should the BOM be disbanded?
William,
Hed be aware of stuff like this I’d venture to guess:
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Article in Press, Corrected Proof
http://tinyurl.com/74od9
Regional sun-climate interaction
A. Kilcik,
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Akdeniz University, 07058 Antalya, Turkey
Abstract
It is a clear fact that the Earth’s climate has been changing since the pre-industrial era, especially during the last three decades. This change is generally attributed to three main factors: greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols, and solar activity changes. However, these factors are not all-independent. Furthermore, contributions of the above-mentioned factors are still disputed.
We sought whether a parallelism between the solar activity variations and the changes in the Earth’s climate can be established. For this, we compared the solar irradiance model data reconstructed by J. Lean to surface air temperature variations of two countries: USA and Japan. Comparison was carried out in two categories: correlations and periodicities. We utilized data from a total of 60 stations, 18 in USA and 42 in Japan. USA data range from 1900 to 1995, while Japan data range from 1900 to 1990.
Our analyses yielded a 42 per cent correlation for USA and a 79 per cent for Japan between the temperature and solar irradiance. Moreover, both data sets showed similar periodicities. Hence, our results indicate marked influence of solar activity variations on the Earth’s climate.
David Tribe – what’s the conclusion from the above paper. Bit hard to tell from abstract – work us through it pls.
If we are about to talk about solar influences and solar cycles also considering:
http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
Phil BOM probably rely on this mob http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/bulletin/forecast.html
and http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/index.html
They say that *ENSO-neutral or weak La Niña conditions are likely during the next 6-9 months*.
They do caution readers by saying *The CPC and the contributors to the Forecast Forum caution potential users of this predictive information that they can expect only modest skill.*
Makes you wonder why political advocates of AGW can be so defintive – I guess ya gotta give it your best shot, eh.
Rog – no BoM don’t “probably” rely on that mob.
There are a number of insitutions that attempt seasonal forcasts – 3-12 months ahead usually based on El Nino, Southern Ocillation or sea surafce temperature analysis – all 3 somehwta related (why – coz that’s where the signals are from science).
You are a sucker for the old can’t predict the weather therefore we can’t predict the climate line. You can’t predict the sea level at the Sydney Heads right at this instant (waves)but you can predict the tide can’t you. There is noise (weather) and underlying trends (climate).
Stoat does a better explanation than me:
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-cant-predict-weather-week-in.html
“skill” is actually a scientific term in forecasting of how good forecasts are – forecasts will never be perfect (chaos) and never let anyone tell you they are. But for some time and places we have better skill than a random pick, climatology (the average) or persistence (assuming things stay as there are now). You can mathematically test for it in hindcast analysis. Of course cynics might say that greenhouse invalidates your historical record
Finally AGW worriers (as opposed to warriors and political advocates) cannot make a “prediction”. Depends on what the world does about CO2 for a start – which is the Ian Castles SRES previous debate. They can only be “scenarios”. But those scenarios are based on best physics, current experience, model validation etc. That is the best shot of a lot of serious scientists.
Are there unknowns – yes quiet a few – we sure don’t know everything but I think we know enough to know it’s an issue and speed up the research on climate and CO2 reduction. We don’t want to leave it too long.
Don’t get weather, seasonal forecasts and global warming all tied up together. Some very different components and philosophy.
So despite your insults you still get a considered answer don’t you!
As I understand it, that solar intensity variation is correlated with global temperature variation over the time period. My point was that solar variation is at least one major non anthropogenic forcing that Bob Carter is alluding to. I think that a moment of scrutiny of Carter’s scientific publications demonstrates that several of the comments made about him here are wrong.
By the way, whats Tim Lambert’s publication record on climatology Phil?
Phil
“Bit hard to tell from abstract – work us through it pls”
Why didn’t you try the URL I supplied?
Here it is again:
http://tinyurl.com/74od9
David – yes I did and can only get the abstract or pay $30USD for the full article – I cannot therefore know what they’ve done – except to say looking for solar patterns is dangerous statistical stuff. Asking you for some more on the full paper if you have access through academic or private resources.
Kilcik 2005:
The Earth climate system has shown irregular changes during the second half of the 20th century, especially for the last three decades. Interest to this subject is therefore continuously increasing. Since the climate system depends on many parameters, such as evaporation, wind, pressure, rainfall, temperature, etc., climate change phenomenon is a very complex problem and the contribution of each parameter to this change is not clear. This change is generally attributed by many scientists including Hegerl et al. (1997) and Lean and Rind (1996) to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases (GSGs) and aerosols in the atmosphere due to human activity.
Among others, Santer et al. (1996), and Wigley et al. (1997) claim that solar forcing and anthropogenic forcing together are enough to explain overall warming trend. Another point due to Crowley (2000) is that the Earth climate system would have been controlled by the Sun before the pre-industrial era, but later anthropogenic effects began to dominate. To show the Sun–climate connection, many indicators have been used in the literature. For the Sun, these are sunspot numbers (Chambers, 1878), sunspot areas (Nordo, 1955; Dixey, 1924), sunspot decay rates (Hoyt, 1979), solar rotation rates (Sakurai, 1977), solar cycle lengths (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991), geomagnetic aa indices (Cliver and Boriakoff, 1998), solar irradiance changes (Pap, 2002; Floyd et al., 2002; Douglass et al., 2004), solar radius through solar irradiance (Rozelot, 2001), long-term solar activity data obtained from 14C, and 10Be isotope concentrations (Beer et al., 1988). These data sets are compared with climatic parameters such as surface temperature, rainfall, lake level, and air pressure. Amongst these, “temperature is the most commonly, and presumably the most accurately, measured parameter” (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). Some of these solar activity data sets have shown good agreement with climate parameters, such as the length of the solar cycle and geomagnetic aa index.
I was unaware of Bob Carter’s work on contemporary climate modelling and knowledge of modelling processes. I am aware of his paleoclimate studies.
Solar variation is built into climate modelling but my advice is that there have been no significant changes since the 1950s to explain the warming trend. And David as you would know correlation is not necessarily cause and effect – and especially with solar cycles – see Inigo Jones.
With respect to Tim Lambert – big difference – Tim is not writing a feature article for a major newspaper mocking a major piece of CSIRO research – he is simply responding to some of Bob Carter’s assertions on the public record. Do you disagree with his assessments?
From the above posted realclimate urls
Astute readers will notice that there is a clear problem here. The widespread predisposition to believe that there must be a significant link and a lack of precise knowledge of past changes are two ingredients that can prove, err.., scientifically troublesome. Unfortunately they lead to a tendency to keep looking for the correlation until one finds one. When that occurs (as it will if you look hard enough even in random data) it gets published as one more proof of the significant impact that solar change has on climate. Never do the authors describe how many records and how many different smoothing methods they went through before they found this one case where the significance is greater than 95%. Of course, if they went through more than 20, the chances of randomly stumbling onto this level of significance is quite high.
The proof that this often happens is shown by the number of these published correlations that fall apart once another few years of data are added, cosmic rays (which are modulated by solar activity) and cloudiness for instance.
Sometimes even papers in highly respected journals fall into the same trap. Friis-Christensen and Lassen (Science, 1991) was a notorious paper that purported to link solar-cycle length (i.e. the time between sucessive sunspot maxima or minima) to surface temperatures that is still quoted widely. As discussed at length by Peter Laut and colleagues, the excellent correlation between solar cycle length and hemispheric mean temperature only appeared when the method of smoothing changed as one went along. The only reason for doing that is that it shows the relationship (that they ‘knew’ must be there) more clearly. And, unsurprisingly, with another cycle of data, the relationship failed to hold up.
The potential for self-delusion is significantly enhanced by the fact that climate data generally does have a lot of signal in the decadal band (say between 9 and 15 years). This variability relates to the incidence of volcanic eruptions, ENSO cycles, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) etc. as well as potentially the solar cycle. So another neat trick to convince yourself that you found a solar-climate link is to use a very narrow band pass filter centered around 11 years, to match the rough periodicity of the sun spot cycle, and then show that your 11 year cycle in the data matches the sun spot cycle. Often these correlations mysteriously change phase with time, which is usually described as evidence of the non-linearity of the climate system, but in fact is the expected behaviour when there is no actual coherence. Even if the phase relationship is stable, the amount of variance explained in the original record is usually extremely small.
This is not to say that there is no solar influence on climate change, only that establishing such a link is more difficult then many assume. What is generally required is a consistent signal over a number of cycles (either the 11 year sunspot cycle or more long term variations), similar effects if the timeseries are split, and sufficient true degrees of freedom that the connection is significant and that it explains a non-negligible fraction of the variance. These are actually quite stiff hurdles and so the number of links that survive this filter are quite small. In some rough order of certainty we can consider that the 11 year solar cycle impacts on the following are well accepted: stratospheric ozone, cosmogenic isotope production, upper atmospheric geopotential heights, stratospheric temperatures and (slightly less certain and with small magnitudes ~0.1 deg C) tropospheric and ocean temperatures. More marginal are impacts on wintertime tropospheric circulation (like the NAO). It is also clear that if there really was a big signal in the data, it would have been found by now. The very fact that we are still arguing about statisitical significance implies that whatever signal there is, is small.
In addition, the cross-correlation method was applied to calculate the correlation coefficients between the temperature and solar irradiance for each country. We used the cross-correlation equation given by Paul Bourke (1996)SNIP Our results indicate a considerably high correlation coefficient of 0.79 for Japan and a lower value of 0.42 for USA.
To investigate the periodicity of the solar irradiance and surface temperature of each country, we have used the Fourier analysis technique Scargle periodogram (Scargle, 1982) applied to the smoothed annual mean temperature and solar irradiance data. The computed periodograms show coincident periods as shown in Fig. 4.
As seen in Fig. 3, there is general agreement between temperature and solar irradiance for both countries. Japan data show better agreement, while USA data show acceptable agreement. This difference is reflected in the calculated correlation coefficients between the solar irradiance and surface temperatures for both countries (0.42 for USA and 0.79 for Japan). There is also disagreement between solar irradiance and surface temperature for both regions in the interval 1965–1975 as seen in Fig. 3. In the same time interval, stratospheric volcanic aerosol concentration and sulphate aerosol concentration show increasing trend (Robertson et al., 2001; Mitchell et al., 1995). It is known that the sulphate aerosols tend to cool the Earth’s surface (Shaocai et al., 2001; Robock, 2002) as opposed to the GHGs. In addition, within this time interval, the solar activity (19th cycle) was lower compared to the other cycles (Sakurai, 1977). The surface temperature decreased in both regions by about 0.06 °C in Japan and 0.31 °C in USA compared to the interval from 1945 to 1964. These results show that there is a cold period which covers about one solar cycle and this cold period may arise from lower solar activity.
The observed lower agreement for USA data might be the result of factors such as complex topography, land-use characteristics, inland bodies of water, ocean current distribution, etc. (IPCC, 2001). One might expect more non-uniformity in USA temperature data: Japan is isolated more compared to USA since it is an island. For this reason, the contribution of neighbouring regions to atmospheric composition of Japan is less than the contribution of USA’s neighbours, and this might limit the clearance of observation of long-term incoming solar radiation effect on climate in USA.
Investigation of periodicities in the temperature and solar irradiance data used in this study gave similar periodicities as shown in Fig. 4. The well-known solar activity period of about 11 years exists in our temperature data set but the most significant period in our study is about 33 years for the solar irradiance reconstruction and Japan temperature data sets. This period was detected as about 35 years by Charvátová (Charvátová and Str˘es˘tík, 2004). This period was obtained for USA data as well. However, it is not as pronounced as that encountered in Japan data. Charvátová and Str˘es˘tík (2004) investigated shorter-term periodicities (6–16 years) as well which are quoted in Fig. 6. These results show good agreement with our results.
Conclusion
We know that a great deal of effort has been put to determine the effects of solar variability on the Earth’s climate, and that, to explain the effects of all relevant factors in climate change, one needs to consider a model on a scale of decades to centuries. For the time being, proposed models are not yet of sufficient accuracy to permit any verification (Rozelot, 2001). This study is more a “heuristic” guide to the determination of the principal factors controlling our climate system. We obtained different correlation coefficients between temperatures and solar irradiance depending on the region considered, although we obtained almost identical periodicities for all data sets. Despite the fact that we only used the three-step running average smoothing technique, we obtained a fairly high correlation. On the other hand, our results suggest that atmospheric aerosols have more dominant effect on the Earth’s climate than GHGs. Moreover, the existence of similar periodicities for all data sets point out that periodicities in the solar activity manifest themselves in periodic variations on the Earth’s surface temperature with almost identical periods. However, prominence of this influence is suppressed by increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.
Hey Phil,
*Don’t get weather, seasonal forecasts and global warming all tied up together. Some very different components and philosophy.*
The fact of the matter is, we will most likely see an increase in rainfall in 2006.
Whilst it is a pleasant for some to philosophise over the weather the rest of the world has to battle with real life and death issues, like HIV-TB
http://www.who.int/tb/smear_neg_tb_callforcomments/en/index.html
Hey Rog
Well go the world disease blog then. Or ask Jen to open up a post on world disease or relative worthiness of environmental issues. You may have noticed the sign on the post on the way in?
And how much have you donated recently to these causes following your role model and adulation of the Gates’s. Care to inform us ?? Wouldn’t be zero I hope.
You might also contemplate the standard of living in many areas will be related to disease incidence and control – and that will be due to how successful their agriculture is – and what drives that in say sub-Saharan Africa??
“The FACT of the matter is, we will MOST LIKELY see an increase in rainfall in 2006” – this is your definitive forecast then??? Most likely – most likely MOST LIKELY – surely Rog after all you’ve written you’d be more certain. You’ve been up us on lack of certainty. You’re sounding like a forecaster.
And what if we indeed get more rain – so what ? Are you claiming a trend?
***********
David – interesting that the USA and Japan have such different correlation values.
David – also interesting in that they appear to have not tried any other factors like El Nino, PDO or NAO?
Phil Done,
Would you mind identifying your position in the climate community as well as detailing your scientific qualifications?
Please assume that you are requested this under the standard requirements of the JORC which we in the mining industry are legally obliged,
My scientific qualifications are public.
No thanks Louis. You don’t let any comments on your blog so don’t preach. I’m just an amateur dabbler and interested member of the public. I am not employed by CSIRO or BoM so don’t worry. And frankly I don’t care what you qualifications are.
rog – “Whilst it is a pleasant for some to philosophise over the weather the rest of the world has to battle with real life and death issues, like HIV-TB”
While for us urban people the weather is perhaps less life and death. For subsistance farmers it takes on a whole different meaning. There is very little benefit from curing HIV-TB if the person then returns to his/her farm to starve. Surely we can do both in a holistic manner.
Thank you Phil
PLease present yourself to the surgical ward for your injury of shot-in-foot trauma. We will do as best we can but cannot, as you understand, be seen to show affection to your, honorable, albeit theoretically superifical, position.
You seem very much like Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin and others in your methods.
Except that in these times of honesty you hide.
Louis – all you need to worry about is the quality of the argument.
Louis don’t lecture me about honesty when you pour out pages of eccentric quasi-political rhetoric on a daily basis on your own blog and don’t even allow the right of reply !
I can see you interest in the dialectic – behind the image of a pseudo-intellectual you hide –
I’m just talking about AGW in the end.
So each to his own.
On a daily basis?
My days must be long – weakly almost
“With respect to Tim Lambert – big difference – Tim is not writing a feature article for a major newspaper mocking a major piece of CSIRO research – he is simply responding to some of Bob Carter’s assertions on the public record. Do you disagree with his assessments?”
Well, Tim Lambert is in fact running a public internet commentary targeting Bob Carter, so it’s relevant to ask what his science credentials are.
As for me, apart from being interested in the solar variation aspect of climate change and associated hypotheses about the atmosphere, I’ve got no particular reason to comment much about Tim climate opinions.
As far as Bob Carters bouncy style in newspaper articles, its quite good journalism. If it were boring they would never run it.
RE Bill and Melinda Gates’ charity activities; in my view they are really great too. Especially the Grand Challenges. There are some great scientific projects being supported by them, hopefully improving nutrition and health in the third world.
And full marks to the Gates too. I have made comments to this point in othe threads.
I don’t think appeals to authority work. For example realclimate doesn’t say buzz off we’re scientists – they argue a fair bit of material out in the trenches of the comments. With science and factual reasons.
Bob Carter misrepresented the document’s title. And then did not offer any significant scientific critique – only mockery with figures of history and a final appeal to authority.
Is this good investigative material ? – it’s a puff piece.
And David I imagine you would be happy for a similar silly attack by an “equivalent” green rhetorical commentator on your GMO research. I imagine you could pen one if you were in the mood. It might sell newspapers too. I see a number of posts on this blog about GMO not getting a fair run and illogical opinions abounding.
While the press sees these issues as “good stirs” I don’t think we’ll get anywhere.
As someone said recently on the issue – “circulation down – break glass and call puff piece writer”.
Got you Phil,
Thanks,
Louis – the answers to your CO2 band questions have already been given. Bottom comment of
Nov 4 Tony Blair.. . thread:
And also personally to you on another thread – but the above will do instead of searching.
I,
I, have to do the searching?
Imperious of you perhaps?
Phil,
you remain unfnished business.
Ender disease in 3rd world countries strikes the breadwinners down rendering the population unproductive. Without increasing GDP countries remain poverty stricken, politically unstable and therefore more subject to war.
There is no “maybe” or “likely to be” there is solid data;
*The economic losses suffered by victims of the diseases of poverty and their families add up to a massive drain on the resources of communities and nations where these diseases are prevalent. The World Bank estimates that the developing world loses $20 billion a year to TB alone. A study by a leading microlending organization, the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, found that illness was the main cause their borrowers defaulted on loans. And the World Health Organization’s Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, chaired by leading economist Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, then at Harvard University, found in 2001 that widespread poor public health is squelching the economic development of impoverished nations. The world must invest far greater resources (a modest percentage of our overall resources) in improving global health. The Commission wrote, “Timely and bold action could save at least 8 million lives each year by the end of this decade, extending the life spans, productivity and economic well-being of the poor.”*
http://www.cmhealth.org/
Puts Kyoto advocates to shame.
The ideas that are being generated on Jennifer’s Blog are just outstanding.
Disband the BoM !!! Ender, you could go far.
If parts of the BoM were “disbanded, life would go on.
A major waste of money here is duplication between the BoM and CSIRO and my personal preference would be to take a red pencil to parts of the latter first.
But Ender, while you are on the subject of disbanding Government departments, just put the red pencil through the AGO, overnight. The expenditure saved could benefit us all. If ever a body contributes absolutely zero.
Warwick Hughes
Re the earlier references to the ex BoM Chief Dr John Zillman, some readers might get a chuckle out of his ill informed reply at a National Press Club lunch in 2000 stating that global warming trends are based on data from a “..thousand or so stations..” worldwide when in fact the number is circa 3,500 in the 1994 Jones update.
See; http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/pressclub.htm
Having shown himself to be out of touch with the nuts & bolts of the issue, nobody could assume that he is well informed when puffing about the UHI influence that, “All the contamination has been removed.”.
This just illustrates the detachment from the reality of the data in people at a level in science that they are providing advice to Govt.
A classic case of how the media is misinformed but believe what they are told.
Warwick Hughes
Detribe: PD has mostly answered you. But let me add that the quote you provided shows the woeful state of the solar-climate type stuff: they are still at the level of asserting correlation is causation, which the detection+attribution stuff (e.g. the IPCC TAR) left behind quite a while ago.
Warwick: your attacks on Zillman are pathetic, as your own page demonstrates: you relied, as most septics did, on the satellite and sonde records as a crutch. But that was all kicked away this summer, when Mears pointed out Spencer and Christys errors, and Sherwood found spurious cooling in the tropical sonde trends. See RC as ever.
I am interested in William’s comment that “weather” and “climate” are being confused in the discussion.
Meteorologists define their climate normal as a 30-year long period, and it is also generally accepted that we have about 100 years worth of reliable thermometer measurements to play with.
That means, of course, that meteorologists have only 3 or 4 data points against which to test their theories of climate change. Little wonder that they are floundering to say anything sensible about the matter, out of context of the magnificent climate records from the ice and deep sea cores.
Cathy
Quick Cathy – email the IPCC – this will be a showstopper. For heavens sake do the most basic bit of reading.
William
“the level of asserting correlation is causation”
My reason for citing The solar varience paper was to show that there is factual material that the original Carter statments were probably based on, in light of remarks that Bob Carter was ignorant ofof them or words to that effect.As hes published one Science paper in which they feature prominently thats patently absurd and shows comments about Bob were made without reading his paper.
As far as asserting causation, Kilcik uses the word “heuristic” prominently, and it is obvious that they were trying to interogate observations that relate to solar-variance effects – eg “On the other hand, our results suggest that atmospheric aerosols have more dominant effect on the Earth’s climate than GHGs.” The issue is whether the increase in solar irradience, small as it is in percentage terms, has a more than usually appreciated effect on temperature via aerosols.
If you dont want to use these observations heuristically, doesn’t worry me.
rog – I completely agree with you on helping Third World country’s health problems. There is great tragedy going on and it needs action. I contend however that action on climate change is not mutually exclusive. Helping these people’s environment, helping to grow food sustainably, supplying them with sustainable electricty AND helping their health problem will benefit them more than just one of these things.
Warwick – so which parts of the BOM would you disband? The parts that don’t agree with you? I am sure the Australian farmers would be a bit upset with Warwick Hughes vetted weather forcasts.
If Dr Zilman is so wrong then why did your collegue , Mr Kinninmonth select him to launch his work of descriptive fiction? Dr Zillman gave a very stirring speech that I am sure that you are aware of. Just in case you are not I wrote about it at my blog.
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2005/05/climate_change_.html
On the ABC news of 22nd May 2005, it was forecast by BOM that SW Australia was in for a drier than average winter. In fact, it has been wetter than average. I know this was only a long range weather forecast, not a climate forecast. However, I assume it was based on a model.
I am sure modelling is a useful exploratory tool, but I agree with Bob Carter on the danger of accepting models as oracles.
In my field of research, I am in conflict with two colleagues, who say my field observations must be wrong, because they contradict the findings of their model. Yet my observations cross-check well with local history. They say that is ‘anecdotal’.
We may note that the word ‘model’ is close to the word ‘muddle’. Having said that, I still think modelling is useful, as long as the modellers stay humble, and point out their limitations to people such as politicians and journalists, who may be overawed by mathematics.
Davey – I really hate to say “but”.
BUT you realise that was a seasonal climate forecast with a probabilistic basis. You can get minority odds and it may not turn out the way of the majority probability. They would have put a probability on it. It would not have been a deterministic forecast like most of the weather forecasts are portrayed. In fact you should expect that they actually would get a certain % wrong. You would be suspicious if they didn’t.
However if they get them all wrong – say over 7-10 years – then you can say their system is faulty.
The technology is nothing better than a 60-70% thing at best. If you went to the casino with those odds you would make money long term – BUT not every single throw of the dice.
Of course if its a statistical forecast it will be based on the last 100 years of so of rainfall records and analysed with respect to southern oscillation index or sea surface temperature patterns.
And if the past is not a representative sample of the future then we also have a problem. Climate change might invalidate one’s statistical seasonal forecast. This is why they’re developing a full supercomputer climate model – POAMA. But don’t expect the new model to be 100% correct either.
All farmers “forecast” or guesstimate weather and climate all the time. There are lots of schemes and notions besides gut instinct. But how many write their hit and miss rates down. Most of us remember being spectacularly right and discount our misses.
Davy Gam Esq – Ok so the models got it wrong. Nobody sensible should regard them as oracles. They are research tools at best.
If your observations were questioned then this is a difficult area as unless they are instrument records then it is hard for scientists to include them. Are they records from instruments?
I do agree that modellers should be humble. There ARE qualified people who think models are exact analogs to reality and they are just as wrong as the people that think they are rubbish. I do agree that some of them get too involved in the math to look at the real weather.
Hey Phil
no BUTS about it
Forecasters, modellers got it wrong.
No blame really, they are just doing their job. Well funded too.
In the future *we* will not make the same mistake ie. if *we* have learnt from the past.
Ender the big problem in 3rd world is disease and it is happening NOW not maybe in the future with a phildo *probabilistic basis* with a *60-70% thing* sort of scenario.
Rog – no the problem’s not disease at all – you don’t have any evidence for that. Name 2 people with TB.
Latent or active?
Pulmonary or non pulmonary?
http://www.stoptb.org/Scan001.pdf
As I expected site doesn’t work – you don’t know anyone with TB do you?
How much have you donated to the cause Rog?
See climate forecasts have their humanitarian uses too:
http://iri.columbia.edu/impact/project/MalariaEarlyWarn/
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/story03-29-05.html
By the way forecast cynics – see how the IRI global consensus forecast goes
http://iri.columbia.edu/index.html
*you don’t know anyone with TB do you?*
I do.
FYI WHO estimate 1/3rd of the world has TB (latent and active)
You don’t know anyone with climate change syndrome do you?
Well what are their names then ?
WHO – they’re United Nations you know – run by lefties and pinkos – on BIG salaries, wasting aid money and making up statistics. A lot of the information is modelled data. What serious studies do you have to prove your point.
1/3 of the world – sounds like doomsday stuff.
See Rog instead of pretending to worry about stuff you can’t control with fake concern should keep yourself productive in the nursery.
Dear Ender,
Glad you agree that modellers should be a lot more open about their assumptions and probability of error. Perhaps these should be mandatory,like the health warning on a packet of cigarettes. My scientific instrument was a simple tape measure, but this is not the place to go into the sordid details of my present squabble with colleagues. Suffice it to say that they are trying to alter reality to fit the model, and are unlikely to succeed. The butterfly will always stamp, oh best Beloved.
Phil,
Have you considered the possibility that that publicising personal medical information (eg TB status) is unethical? Especially since many people with TB may have HIV infections.
Sorry Ender,
I was trying to quote Rudyard Kipling from memory. It should be ‘o my best beloved’. In checking, I read the story again after some years, and enjoyed it once more. In the Global Warming debate, who are the Djinns, who Suleiman-bin-Daoud, who Balkis, who the butterfly and his wife, and who the ninety-nine vexatious wives?
Davey – the wonderful thing about this blog is the wide ranging formal education that one gets. Pls expound some more.
Also be pleased to hear your tape measure vs model argument in some more detail. Would you care to share the topic under debate?
David Tribe – but if there are all these people affected – surely Rog would know of some 🙂 We might take his solemn word for it.
David Tribe – but if there are all these people affected – surely Rog would know of some 🙂 We might take his solemn word for it.
Phil, what was your point? Are you trying to imply that TB is not a serious global problem because Roger doesn’t respond to personal details that he has every right to keep private? Ditto for charity donations. IMHO you are actually weakening your own good credibilty here.
David – I’m just following Rog’s own established guidelines for discussion.
Davey – No probs – I am interested in the tape measure bit – how does it relate to temperatures and climate?
The point is that there is a known situation which is preventable and curable yet is proceeding for the most part unchecked whilst climate change, a hypothesis that is based on probabilities and simulations, is attracting and utilising badly needed resources.
Multi drug resistant TB is growing in alarming numbers in many countries, typically “resource poor” countries, Lee Reichman calls it “ebola with wings”, a disease you catch by breathing.
Trivialising the issue is unconscionable.
http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=238
More on solar influences ex John Ray
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1017&category=Science
WOULD YOU SAY RIGHT NOW, FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW, THAT THE SUN IS ACTING ODDLY?
(laughs) That’s an excellent question. I would say the Sun always acts odd because we have such limited knowledge about it. What is normal for the Sun? During the 17th Century, almost 400 years ago, the Sun’s magnetic field output was extraordinarily low for almost a century. That happens every few centuries. Is that odd? But it’s not rare. The Sun right now is probably averaging over several decades is the most active it’s been in 400 years. Is that odd? Yes. Is it rare? Probably not. There are indications of the Sun’s magnetism going back through time and maybe 800 to 1200 years ago, the Sun might have been more active. So, what’s normal for the Sun? I don’t know.
COULD IT EXPLAIN GLOBAL WARMING IN AND OF ITSELF?
How does that look against the temperature records? It matches up pretty well with the beginning of the 20th Century. But it does not match up so well now. The surface temperature (of Earth) seems to have risen a little more dramatically than the Sun has in recent decades.
So, in terms of a straightforward link between the two, an association between the Sun and Earth, it looks like the Sun has not been the cause of most of the late 20th Century warming. It could have made a contribution.
Well go the disease post then. Rog you spend your whole time here making barbed useless comments and making personal attacks. Frankly I doubt your sincerity on the TB issue.
Or ask Jen to open an appropriate post – email her some suggestions – I’m sure she’ll indulge you. Don’t play one-upmanship.
P.S. I think there is ample evidence that we already have climate change without probabilities or simulations. And you have zero clue how one might even investigate such a problem.
I dont need to substantiate my sincerity, its not an issue of personalities, the facts speak for themselves.
Rog – I had not seen your above comment before commenting myself. The solar aspect and pitfalls therein has been discussed at length in realclimate urls posted in last few days. And I know you don’t like statistics and probabilities but spurious correlations abound in this area. One of the first lessons of statistics is that correlation is not NECESSARILY cause and effect.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)
I now understand your point Phil: when I’m treated in an inappropriate way I make sure that the source of angst knows I’m not bullied by anyone. However repetition can get tedious for the rest of us.
Can I suggest a new acronym to solve this problem.
TINAESP- “This is not an elementary school playground and bullies dont rule the roost”.
ie put TINAESP in responses and continue on as if nothing happened.
Then when we get a new contributer that doesn’t behave, somone can type TINAESP – just go Google it mate ,and they can read this post. With any luck we’ll create a new wiki and can repeatedly ROTFLOL.
rog – Have a look at this site
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=3
Sallie Baliunas
DETAILS
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Board member, Chair of Science Advisory Board and Senior Scientist, George C Marshall Institute, Environment/Science Editor, Tech Central Station. Visiting Professor at Brigham Young University. Adjunct Professor at Tennessee State University. Past contributing editor to the World Climate Report, a publication of the Western Fuels Association. Advisory board, UK Scientific Alliance. Former expert, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Institute. National Center or Public Policy Research expert on global warming and the ozone layer (1996) Robert Wesson Endowment Fund Fellow(1993-4) at Hoover Institution
A darling of the anti-climate movement, Baliunas has been a central scientist in the fight against action on climate change. She is used by virtually all of the Exxon-funded front groups as their scientific expert.
Baliunas’ principal areas of interest include solar influence on climate change, the ozone layer and global warming. Baliunas views sunspots at the cause of climate change rather than carbon dioxide. Her articles are often tagged with the caveat: “[Baliunas”] remarks represent her own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.” Baliunas wrote “The Ozone Crisis” , “Are Human Activities Causing Global Warming?” and “Ozone and Global Warming, Are the problems Real?” for the George C. Marshall Institute. In the mid to late 1990 she also worked with the Global Climate Coalition, a special interest group of coal, oil and utility companies, set up to lobby against international action on climate change. (NCPPR expert guide, 1996)
Nuff said I think.
BTW this is almost what real climate say:
“The surface temperature (of Earth) seems to have risen a little more dramatically than the Sun has in recent decades.”
Yes and this is because of greenhouse gases.
Ender;
this Exxon smearing-by-association only works with the converted; the rest of the world knows that money doesnt grow on trees and most are gainfully employed by companies or institutions. Just because you are employed by John Hopkins does not make you unbiased, quite the reverse as institutions line up for their annual budget. This is why the FDA uses the double blind test, to eliminate personal bias in scientific studies.
It’s like the Bushlied campaign or the BushMcHalibutonChimp thread. You guys might find it amusing with the silly cartoons and slogans but it doesnt fool the majority.
US senate vote 400/3 against pulling out of Iraq.
Thats quite a statistic.
I deleted comment from Phil which Rog is responding to here (on Wednesday). I deleted comment from Rog in response to Phil from here the next day, on Thursday. Jen
One disturbing feature of lobby-group NGOs is maintenance of lists and personal smears like the one that Ender quotes about Sally Balunas.This is like the Catholic church’s list of censored books, and McCarthyism and Communism.
I discovered that I am on one of these lists because of the magazines where I’ve published articles (they are apparently EVIL like Exxon – nuff said). The list keeping website which names me didnt ever bother to check with me about the accuracy of their entry.
Thank goodness they don’t know that I’ve taught courses in communist countries,with UNESCO, and in South Africa during Apartheid and after apartheid else they would have added all that to their lists. It would confuse things though because I’ll talk with and to any group on issue I see as important, and especially talk with those who have different views to myself. When I talk with those groups they’ve often been very nice and even very sweetly apologise to me because I’m the odd one out. Its those nice people (often sweet vegetarians who wouldnt harm a flea, dressed in knitted leg warmers and op-shop clothes)that make life worth living.The very best activity was an interview with a Greenpeace member who realised that perhaps she had been a little biased in selecting speakers for Greenpeace dominated radio shows, and needed to interview me to be “less biased”. It restored my faith in human nature.
I’d happily publish articles in the NGO’s magazines provided they didnt censor what I said, but the more seriously political groups never take up my offer.
Well I can only conclude by saying that after the ongoing barrage of insults from Rog – how precious and biased is that. From your own behaviour you have to be joking with your mock indignation. A small amount of return fire with your antics and you protest. Anyway I agree on one thing – enough is enough.
rog and detribe – no-one is saying anything about earning money or whatever. You are quick to point out falsely that Mann et al falsified research to gain research grants however when links are shown from your star scientsts to big oil you shrug them off.
You cannot give an objective scientific opionion when you are connected to fossil fuel companies.
Hello Phil & Ender,
Them tape measures is very interesting – Feathers McGrath used one to good effect. I use one on old grasstree stems to estimate how often Aborigines burnt the bush before whitefella arrived. It seems to have been much more often than we burn now. As a result, fires then would have been much milder, patchier, and less smokey.
A possible connection between climate change and the decrease in world-wide hunter-gatherer burning is discussed in a paper by Dave Packham & Nigel Packer (1998)Climate Change & Biomass Burning. Proceedings of 13th International Fire & Forest Meteorology Conference, Lorne, Victoria. Volume 1,p.21.
Davey – yes I agree aboriginals burnt the countryside more and more thoughtfully in an ecological sense.
How do they say it relates to climate change??
Similarly perhaps Scientific American March 2005 says human being inventing agriculure some 8,000 years ago may have influenced the climate.
Phil,
David & Nigel suggested that the amount of smoke put into the atmosphere by widespread hunter-gatherer burning up to a couple of centuries ago may have had a significant cooling effect. The cessation of such burning, due to European invasion, violence and diseases, may have contributed to recent warming. They also discuss effects of smoke on UV radiation. Another factor that occurs to me is raindrop formation (aerosol nuclei).
The conference at Lorne in 1996 (published 1998) was organised by the International Association of Wildland Fire, so you may be able to get an electronic copy from them. If not, and you are really interested, I will photocopy and send it to you as a Christmas present.
Davey – will try our library first then come back to you. Interesting – so I guess how does it all balance out – deoforestation over 8000 years of agriculture (warming), hunter-gatherer burning (cooling), 20th and 21st century emissions (warming), and now Asian aerosol clouds and also USA and Europe pollution (cooling).
One of the interesting papers at the moment is more work by Philipona http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=212#more-212
Interesting how water vapor feedbacks, clouds and pollution are intercating. Europe’s temperatures are increasing 3x rate of northern hemisphere in general.