I’ve been in Hong Kong two days now and I haven’t seen the sun yet.
My hotel room has a magnificent view over the harbour. I did see some sun beams early yesterday morning penetrating through the smog haze over the harbour – but no sun.
Photograph taken looking from Hung Hom (Kowloon) east to the island of Hong Kong from the top of the Harbour Plaza Hotel on 11th September 2006 at about 3pm.
It’s an eight hour flight from Brisbane to Hong Kong and I tuned the screen in the back of the seat in-front of me to Al Gore’s new movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and watched the movie a couple of times. I had already seen it at a cinema in Brisbane the day before, so I’ve now seen ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ three times.
It’s a mighty piece of propaganda in which Gore doesn’t let a single inconvenient truth get in the way of his thesis that the earth is already experiencing dramatic climate change as a result of extremely elevated carbon dioxide levels.
Early in the movie there is a cartoon depicting a ‘Mr Sunbeam’ marching down to earth only to be trapped and then beaten up by some ‘global warming thugs’. An analogy is made between the bodies of dead ‘sunbeams’ piling up within the earth’s atmosphere and planet earth overheating.
Gore is correct to indicate that carbon dioxide levels have risen dramatically over recent decades, but he is wrong to suggest there has been a corresponding dramatic increase in temperature. Global air temperatures have only risen by about 0.6C over the last 30 years – though more dramatically at the Arctic. He suggests sea temperatures have also risen dramatically as an explanation for the veracity of hurricane Katrina.
Gore was correct to indicate that with global warming there should be a corresponding increasing in rainfall and snowfall, but it is unclear to me whether this has actually been the case. I understand more snowing is falling on Greenland, but less on the Australian Alps.
Gore went on to claim more rain is falling in more extreme events giving the example of Mumbai (India) in July 2005. He also indicated that rainfall patterns are changing with places like the African Sahel experiencing more extreme drought.
In the movie, all of this was attributed to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There was no mention in the movie of global dimming, which a growing scientific literature* suggests has the effect of reducing global temperatures as well as potentially reducing rainfall and snowfall by affecting both cloud droplet coalescence and ice precipitation formation. There is also potential for this phenomenon to change precipitation patterns, with the pollution from Australia’s capital cities and industrial areas potential creating a downwind rain shadow.
Global dimming is a consequence of increasing levels of urban and industrial pollution with man-made airborne aerosols having the effect of sending Al Gore’s ‘Mr Sunbeams’ back into space, in effect saving them from the global warming thugs depicted in the cartoon in the movie.
So the haze that has been hanging over Hong Kong, can potentially counteract the increasing levels of carbon dioxide. This potentially explains why global temperatures have not increased dramatically.
Of course there are other explanations, but given the anticipated growth in the Chinese and other economies, and the likely corresponding increase in air pollution, shouldn’t Gore have at least acknowledged the issue?
Al Gore’s movie purports to present facts and information in a thoughtful and compelling way. But Gore so simplifies and exaggerates just one aspect of our understanding of climate physics that it would perhaps have been more honest to have called the movie ‘A Plug for Anthropogenic Global Warming Wthout All The Inconvenient Truths’.
——————————————————————–
* I was recently sent the following very interesting papers on global dimming and its potential impact on rainfall in Australia: Rosenfeld, D. (2000) Suppression of rain and snow by urban and industrial air pollution. Science, Vol 287, pp 1793-1796. Rosenfeld et. al. (2005) Potential impacts of air pollution aerosols on precipitation in Australia. Clean Air and Environmental Quality, Vol 40, No. 2, pp 43-49. Rosenfeld, D. (2006) Aerosols, Clouds and Climate. Science, Vol 312, pp. 1323 – 1324. ABC TV Four Corners did a feature on global dimming in March 2005, the transcript and reference documents can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1328747.htm
I’m hoping to publish a few blog pieces on the movie and invite guest posts from others: email your contribution to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well why not ask the experts what they think?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/an-inconvenient-truth-or-gores-opportunism-you-decide/2006/09/08/1157222329040.html?page=2
The experts above say it all for me.
On the dimming – Jeez I thought we’d been over this. Perhaps with some global dimming (i.e. less radiation reaching the surface in some areas)contemlplate that the warming will be even greater when the trend to fix pollution continues and clears the skies ?? Of course less radiation reaching the surface may mean a drop in evaporation which Roderick et al have shown.
The global dimming story is interesting but a bit of a sideline curiosity – and you hav eto have an intelligent audience who can hold multiple facts at the one time !!, the global surface temps are up, satellite temps are up, oceans warming yadda yadda. So the place is warming unambiguously. That’s the main issue surely.
Latest post today from our dear friends at RC says:
In total, at least four studies, two based entirely on analyses of observations, and the other two based on climate model simulations, independently come to the conclusion that warming tropical Atlantic and Pacific SSTs cannot be purely attributed to any natural oscillation. These studies do not conclusively show a hurricane/global warming link, let alone determine what it’s magnitude might be, but they do strengthen one pillar of that linkage.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/tropical-ssts-natural-variations-or-global-warming/
Of course I have a few weeks ago previously posted recent work by Trenberth who is now prepared to call a link between AGW and Katrina !!
The bit I don’t like about Gore’s words is referring to CO2 as a pollutant – which is it is not in the sense that carbon monoxide or sulphur dioxide are i.e. they are poisonous. CO2 is part of life, death and also a radiative gas. OK you would die if there was no oxygen and only CO2 but this is an extreme example.
Lastly – Woo hoo – here come the cloud seeding guys – Rosenfeld & Gingis. I was wondering when. The quick answer is that they need to demonstrate that macroscale changes are not involved. e.g. IOCI seem to have unravelled the SW WA drying story with a combination of greenhouse and natural influences without air pollution.
Gore’s not a scientist and the movie isn’t an IPCC report but surely it’s better than most of the contrarian bilge that passes itself off for science.
You could almost think that Luke is channelling Phil Done, all that spleen to vent.
AB’s link is disengenous.
Jen’s comment starting this thread was “Global Dimming”.
AB’s link summarised opinions about Al Gore’s movie, not Global Dimming.
Is it because we contrarians have to deal with the globally dimmed that communication is, shall we say, problematical?
Jennifer Morahasy was a silent first act in Andrew Denton’s interview of Al Gore on ABC TV last night.
Denton’s first line was to mention Jared Diamond’s parable about Easter Islanders chopping down their last tree, as narrated in his book Collapse.
No mention of Easter Island rats in the Al Gore interview.
As discussed in
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=true&print=yes#53337
which featured in this blog previously.
Urban myths never die. It’ll be on the Denton transcript.
Louis, talk about attention deficit disorder! The title’s post is more than two words, read pst them, and the content primarily about Al Gore’s movie. Jennifer calls it propaganda and claims that it is not scientifically sound. AB’s link is sufficient to demonstrate that Jennifer is the one pedaling propaganda. She presents a strong conclusion about the movie with next to nothing as evidence.
Global Dimming is an interesting phenomenon, and it is important for future predictions and understanding current climate dynamics. But all indications are that it may make the current understanding less dire than the reality. Warming may have been less than it would have been otherwise, and the future may warm more than previously thought as cleaner burning technologies are deployed. Surely Gore could have used Global Dimming to create more worry if his goal had been to propagandize.
Time to face reality, Jennifer.
As I understand it, the cooling trend from 1940 to 1976 is explained by the AGW proponents as being due to increasing aerosol pollution, and the sudden change to increasing temperatures from 1976 is due to a reduction in pollution due to “clean air” regulations coming into force, thus allowing the increased CO2 to work its dastardly effects on Mr Sunbeam.
For that to be the case, the forcings from aerosols would have to show an increase up until 1975/6, followed by an abrupt decrease and a continuation at a lower level or a continued decline. At least that seems reasonable to me.
Yet the aerosol forcings, as far as I know, don’t do that. There is a bit of a dip for about three years from 1980, then a continuation of the curve of increased forcings.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/trop.aer/
With the booming Chinese economy, it would not be a surprise if aerosol forcings are still increasing.
1998 was the warmest recorded year last century, but it seems highly unlikely that aerosol forcings were particularly low that year. I think we would have heard a bit about it if that was so.
I’m tipping that if global temperature starts to decrease, maybe due to some type of solar influence, the global dimming hypothesis will become the next big thing.
No mention of global dimming…hmm.
I guess Gore could have said that without particulate pollution, the rise in temperature over the last 30 years would have been greater than the rise that has been actually observed.
He could also have said that we are now in the diabolical position of needing particulate pollution (with its known adverse health consequences) to escape the consequences of CO2 pollution.
And he could have added that we will be really in trouble if China et al take action to clean up their particulate acts as they advance economically.
There’s an important place for healthy scepticism in the environmental debate, but this posting slips into reflex contrarianism. I’m disappointed.
Paul,
You might find this diagram interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
it shows observed temperature together with a model hindcast of global temperatures and the model results of the relative strength of the five major forcings over time. As you can see, volcanism, solar and sulphate influences all played a role in the mid century cooling and it is only in the last decades that GHG forcing has really risen head and shoulders above all the others.
Big Al goes 100% with IPCC’s Party Line. IPCC’s main weakness are: AYE ECONOMIC Its projected warming is underpinned by implausibly-high Third World economic growth. BEE SCIENTIFIC It invokes a self-contained climate on an autonomous Earth, which must therefore be travelling in an empty Universe. CEE NOSTALGIC It believes in a stable and benign pre-industrial climate, disturbed only now by humans burning fossil fuels. DEE PRACTICAL It proffers up only projections. Planners need predictions. When will the next Little Ace Age cold period come? When will the next Indian mega-famine come? EEE HABITUAL It is hooked on computer simulations – as if they could be a valid substitute for observational evidence.
The ice cores are crap because high historical readings (anything over 190ppm) were not just smoothed but eliminated and there is every indication that the higher the ice CO2 level the more likely the sample will shatter at atmospheric pressure and be discarded anyway.
Pre-oil (19th century)CO2 readings indicate levels of 320ppm to <3% error so the claimed increase is bunkum.
The modelling of Indian, Chinese and African development on totally inappropriate North American sprawl emission levels rather than much higher urban density Japanese, Taiwanese or Singaporean levels is blatantly fraudulent misrepresentation.
For the CSIRO “vested interests” to fail to mention these highly relevant considerations in The Age piece borders on a serious breach of discipline.
Hong Kong Plaza, Jen? Sure beats the view from Chungking Mansions. If you get a chance take a trip out to Peng Chau (cheap island) to see a bit of the old honkers. It is a submerged crater forming circular harbour with fishing families and no vehicles.
coby, thanks fpr the link, however forgive me if I don’t mortgage the farm based on the results of a computer model. I was hoping for some actual data that might illustrate the changes in aerosol forcings that correlate to observed temperatures.
I haven’t seen any so far, I asked over at Real Climate, but no reply.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the as I understand the theory of AGW, the cooling from 1940 to 1976 is due to industrial aerosols, even to the point where a new Ice Age was suggested. (I have Stephen Schneider’s 1971 paper, and I’m not afraid to use it :)!
Then suddenly in 1976, aerosols stopped causing all that cooling, and warming began. That means the forcings from aerosols must have decreased, or at least leveled off, while CO2 forcings continued to increase.
I hope Ian Lucas accepts this as “healthy scepticism” and not ” reflex contrarianism” and is not too disappointed.
You guys don’t give up do you – pick a few small issues and ignore the avalanche of supporting information. But, but, but .. ..
Schneider schmider – who cares – we don’t have an IPCC report predicting an ice age and that’s that.
Motty – incredible if you are bleating about CO2 measurements being wrong and Jaworowski I assume. Get a grip.
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/
Sigh .. ..
Come on guys this is all very boring and we’re just re-insulting each other all over again – fun though it is – and hey welcome back Coby. We know what you’re gonna say and you know our come-backs by now. Boring.
Come on Jen – run the cloud seeding post – I reckon you anti-AGWers would be big cloud seeding advocates? Let’s argue about something different for a change.
Luke, sorry if this is boring you. You don’t have to respond, you know.
I promise I won’t be bored by an answer to my question.
There sure are some “inconvenient truths” around this subject of global dimming suppressing the global warming we would otherwise have.
Have a look at my blog post “Is massive UHI warming in China distorting Jones et al gridded T data ?” revealing the huge temperature increase over Eastern China from 1979-2005 in the Jones HadCRUT2 data, 1.16 degrees in 27 years, phew.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=45
How is the poor Sino air quality suppressing GW here ?
Note the NASA UAH satellites sounding up to 8 kms find a measly 0.2 degrees over the same period.
Interesting that contrarians like to use words like measly – based on what – give us a calculation to what it should be given greenhouse assumptions.
There’s no inconvenient truths if you’re a died in the wool contrarian. It’s all a big lie. And you keep accumulating misc factoids to that end whiule ignoring the BIG picture.
OK Paul – you’d like some empirical evidence and given you think it should be as simple as Temperature = a + B (Greenhouse gases) – and you reject all modelling thinking you can integrate all the interactions in your head.
Science 15 November 2002:
Vol. 298. no. 5597, pp. 1410 – 1411
DOI: 10.1126/science.1075390
The Cause of Decreased Pan Evaporation over the Past 50 Years
Michael L. Roderick, Graham D. Farquhar*
Changes in the global water cycle can cause major environmental and socioeconomic impacts. As the average global temperature increases, it is generally expected that the air will become drier and that evaporation from terrestrial water bodies will increase. Paradoxically, terrestrial observations over the past 50 years show the reverse. Here, we show that the decrease in evaporation is consistent with what one would expect from the observed large and widespread decreases in sunlight resulting from increasing cloud coverage and aerosol concentration.
Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting, Research School of Biological Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia.
Or the aircraft contrails story
http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf
We live in a global warming plus a global dimming world and but what happens if we take out global dimming
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news/2006/04_14_06.htm
The enhanced greenhouse effect is an observational fact, with a closing of the atmospheric CO2/NO/CH4/CFC emission windows (Increase in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
Nature 410, 355-357 (2001).
Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. INDEX TERMS: 0325
Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Evolution of the
atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere (0315, 0325);
1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309); 1640 Global
Change: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric
Dynamics: Radiative processes. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Du¨rr,
C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing –
measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing
greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/
2003GL018765.
ALSO
Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid
temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona and Bruno Du¨rr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 6 July 2004; revised 1 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004; published 25 November 2004.
[1] Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe
increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere
average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative
parameters measured in central Europe over different time
periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint
the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature
increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather
decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net
radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing
cloud amounts. However, high correlation (rT = 0.86) to
increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation
at the surface, and very high correlation (rT = 0.98) with
cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of
longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly
increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the
decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and
drives rapid temperature increases over land. INDEX
TERMS: 0325 Atmospheric Composition and Structure:
Evolution of the atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere
(0315, 0325); 1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309);
1640 Global Change: Remote sensing. Citation: Philipona, R.,
and B. Du¨rr (2004), Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing
solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937.
AND
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Durr, A. Ohmura,
and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and
strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.
Well that seems to settle the issue – Phil Done has returned under another nom de plume.
I wonder if the climate people actually understand the difference between intensive and extensive variables? I don’t think so.
Luke, thanks for your reply. Ignoring your usual slurs and irrelevancies at the start (do you really think it helps people to engage in debate with you?), I note that only the link to Lamont-Doherty actually mentions aerosols, which is what my question is about, and it says nothing about the cooling from 1940 to 1976.
It also says that both aerosols and a warmer temperature increase the residence time of water in the atmosphere, which sounds like an endorsement of a negative feed back role for water vapour.
Further it says we are removing the global dimming, presumably by reducing the aerosol forcing. Do you know of any data which supports this? If it also showed reduced aerosol forcings since 1976 that would be a bonus!
Paul, you don’t trust computer models? I’d say most scientific fields make quite extensive use of them, since a couple of decades now. You may not wish to mortgage your farm based on one, but I guarantee your bank sets its terms with one, and all the machinery you will use to work your farm was engineered with the aid of computer models, etc etc. Anyway…
If you want to know about the data, just follow up with the referenced papers. Though I am not quite sure how you would go about attributing portions of observed change to the various factors without a model of some sort. After all, all we have is observed temperature change, observed aerosol data, observed GHG levels etc. How can you look at the data and know which W/m^2 comes from which factor? You can’t. You need to construct a model based on sound physical principals and internally consitent theories that is capable of accounting for all the various observations.
Sorry, but that is pretty much the only way to do it, do you have an alternative?
Dim sim, dim sum, its all ping pong to me.
Not sure if it is the done thing to reincarnate as a skywalker.
Rog – relax and feel the power of the force – err forcing that is. The beautiful interplay between positive and negative factors – golly Rog isn’t it all so exciting.
But I’d still rather have a rhetorical stoush with you guys on cloud seeding.. ..
Look – poor Louis is back to recycling his selected repertoire – this time on intensive and extensive variables. Louis – David has previously sorted you on that one – you’ve forgotten in all the excitement.
Seriously to Paul – yes looking on aerosol time series issues. Issue is that you also need a spatial view. And the papers provided were seriously to address the issue of empirical evidence.
coby, computer models are fine in their place. I’m not convinced that place is predicting climate change so as to direct future policy, not yet anyway.
I don’t have a farm, it was a figure of speech.
Perhaps someone could explain how we get a change in aerosol forcings (in 1976) when, according to the data I linked to above, there appears to be no change in aerosol forcing?
As I understand it, the cooling from 1940 to 1976 has been attributed to aerosols masking the forcing of increased CO2. Is this not correct?
If it is not, what caused that cooling?
Cloud seeding….feel the power of the force….they looking after you Phil, food OK?
Rog – Phil signs “hi” – he is in the next cell.
He misses Joe and Thinsky very much. And Taz. He says it’s not the same without them and that you have mellowed but have aged and seem shorter on televison. He is very concerned about Louis though as he is showing signs of becoming lucid.
Phil now believes that global warming is a big mistake and that Warwick was right all along about UHIs, Antarctica getting cooler, and water vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas. He thinks Ken Lord if way out though – it’s Jupiter that’s causing our weather. Phil’s basket weaving skills have improved since his admission.
Luke and Phillip – split personalities ? At least I got the source right – Luke seems to write that he knows what Phil is thinking, so both are in BOM in Southern Queensland.
And I wonder when Luke, or Phil, will pontificate about the errors made when intensive variables are subject to statistical analysis.
I have caught some fool PHD student at the Uni of Tasmania with an AIG News comment – probably a mate of John Hunter – hook line and sinker.
AIG News incidentally is available in Pdf on http:www.aig.org.au/news.htm and click on the month for the issue.
I just want to make sure I have this straight, certain contributors are now claiming that we ‘need’ pollution (and lots of it) to control the weather and that a shorter time span of human (and human introduced ‘alien’ species) interaction with the environment, resulted in Rapa Nui’s current impoverished biodiversity, which has not recovered, despite all the wonders of modern technology.
This is meant to be re-assuring?!!!!!!!!!
I remember David Icke and so will not be indulging Al Gore’s attempt at a cult of personality.
Lamna nasus
just what, precisely, is the debating point you want to make here?
Hi Louise,
Just what, precisely, did you find confusing.
Lamna Nasus
Once you get the spelling right, focus on the question.
Hi Louis,
My apologies, lets hope you never make a typo eh?
Now that we have got your hissy fit out of the way, perhaps you would be kind enough to focus on my question, since yours gives a new meaning to the word ‘vague’.
Louis – you’re not even close – and don’t bother lecturing us about what you learnt at uni in the 1940s gramps – tell us why my cited empirical evidence of greenhouse forcing is incorrect (focus!).
Luke, are you able to answer my question, what caused the cooling from 1940 to 1976? If it was aerosols, do you have a reference for the changing aerosol forcing?
And Warwick raises an interesting point about the Eastern Chinese temperature. It couldn’t be UHI, as these are accounted for in the modelling, I believe. That’s if you trust models, of course.
Thanks.
Luke
I never said your cited empirical evidence of greenhouse forcing is incorrect. As for your slur about my education you are categorically wrong on that one too.
Lamna Nasus
You dismiss it as a typo? As you answered my question with a question, no further debate is needed.
Well well – so you’re in the AGW camp then Louis. Major transition. How’s it feel.
Paul –
http://www.ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~agcmadm/papers/nagashima.doc
Luke, surely you’re not still flogging that bojums stuff as an authority are you. It has the bare attributes of detailed refutation without the substance. And the examples he uses of so-called misrepresentation were nothing more than the kind of syntax mistakes that are common for english speakers of non-english speaking background. And as for the rest of the litany, it oozed political prejudice.
Look at the original paper at http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ and back to bojums. Did IPCC cherry pick the data or not? Yes.
Did they or did they not exclude all CO2 readings in the cores with values in excess of 290ppm as “contaminated”? Yes.
Why 290ppm instead of some other value? Because 290ppm was the number they wanted to see.
Does the probability of a shattered core layer at surface pressure (and hence discarded reading)increase with a higher suspended gas volume? Yes.
Did the bojums site give any credible comment on the risks of contaminants from the drilling process? No, nothing but shimmy and shake.
Do the extensive records of chemical CO2 analysis since the 1820’s (at 97%+ accuracy) put pre-industrial CO2 levels at 320ppm, not 290ppm? Yes.
And I note that you have made no comment on the realistic probability of an LA style sprawl developing in Calcutta and Beijing as IPCC would like us to believe.
Thanks for the link Luke, not sure of the impartiality of the National Institute for Environmental Studies. Do you know if their publications are peer reviewed?
I’ll comment again once I’ve read the article. Thanks.
Motty – Jabberwock is a kook ! Get real.
Paul – it does not appear to be peer reviewed IMHO. But an interesting study nonetheless.
Luke, a couple of points about the paper,
– It describes the results of GCM runs. Interesting, but not necessarily a true explanation of the observations. If the raw data can only be interpreted via the results of complex computer models, then such models need to have very stringent verification before being used to drive policy.
– It uses climate sensitivity of 4.0K (to doubling of CO2). This is near the high end of IPCC estimates, and up to ten times that derived by Sherwood Idso in 1998.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/idso98.htm
– The experiment with the best fit to observed data (SC-INCR), failed to detect the large scale warming trend over Eurasia. Call me picky, I would like to see things like that picked up. Maybe there are factors missing from the model?
Yes I agree it’s imperfect. An interesting piece of evidence but not the full story (maybe full story isn’t possible). I have not as far found anything that fully suits your question and I agree the cooling period is not as fullsomely discussed as one might expect.
Not directly related to your question I hope you do take the time to ponder the empirical evidence papers I have sent you. If access is a problem I can email through Jen or directly.
Luke, is “Jabberwock is a kook ! Get real” your idea of an intelligent, reasoned response? Surely you wouldn’t stoop to defamation in trying to discredit a contrary view, would you?
I could point out any number of competent people in CSIRO who could be dismissed on the basis of their unusual ethnic name. One could even slur them with terms like “slope, jungle bunny, or wog” but that would diminish the protagonist more than the target.
So tell me, do you actually claim your time on this blog as part of your departmental duties?
And still no word on “Gwong Dung does Dallas”?
So please, explain to us again how it can be that a city that lives on the 24th floor, works on the 12th floor, shops on 6th floor and eats out on the 2nd floor, can seriously be “modelled” to produce the same greenhouse emissions as the dude stuck in the 3 tonne SUV in a traffic jam just west of San Bernardino?
We all know you would never dream of allowing your reputation to be associated with bull$hit, don’t we Luke?
Motty given the amount of dirt, abuse, satirical comments and implied violence that you throw on this hallowed site I can reiterate “Get real”.
Remember “Bullocky’s daughter !”
So if you want to adopt a more calm scholarly approach to debate here lead by example.
Nice try at the diversion, Luke. I found no dirt, abuse or implied violence in my posts above so can we all conclude that you refuse to respond to “Gwong Dung does Dalllas”?
And what about 290ppm vs 320ppm? that is a 10% error, isn’t it? Funny how the models using the very latest technology seem to come up with a 10% error when chemical analysis of CO2 has been producing only 3% error margins since the 1820’s.
Luke: What did happen to Joe?
Perhaps he sniffed something from the Mexican Gulf a while back.
Just in case; Mate, hang on to your hat out on the rigs out there.
A bit of history without reference:
We started fuel conversions down south under Andy the local electrical engineer in the late 50’s. Andy was the Australian consultant for Foxboro control systems, imports from the US via Foxall in Melbourne. As I recall Andy was about the first to use O2 smoke stack analysis instead of CO2. We were burning black coal shipped across before using fuel oil in our Babcock and Wilcox boilers.
Melbourne was still on brown coal everywhere mid 60’s except for the refineries and had real yellow smog as seen from Seymour on the Great Divide most still days. We added O2 analysers there only after engineers were convinced of their effectiveness in fuel sayings. Excess oxygen is the only true indication of complete combustion.
Boiler men confessed to their old industry practice; dumping soot overnight from their heat exchangers as late as the 1970’s. Excess O2 analysis failed to pick on soot blasting but opacity meters sure would. The Vic. EPA was about to have a field day. Lots of well meaning chaps asked me how to fudge their 24hr charts.
Other well meaning company managers asked complaining housewives to change their automatic washing powder. Given Babcock & Wilcox had the world wide super heated steam market sewn up for decades and Brown Boveri or Stall had all the big generator turbines everywhere, smart manufacturers like Lever & Kitchen developed some fine leading edge technology of their own.
It took us at least another decade to clean up the act in big smoke. The application of modern instrumentation was the key everywhere.
Ian – nice try at a diversionary diversion – you know what posts I’m talking about.
Lordy me – I’m working again tonight (unpaid of course but we’re a selfless lot – although planning greater enviro restrictions on the now politically isolated minority is a great temptation – gee what could policy shonk central ban next) so I’ll have to attend to Jabba the Hutt later. Meantime enjoy some excellent discussion on http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/jabberowski.html
Hi Taz !
Luke,
no I am not in the AGW camp.
I must apologise for thinking you might have been Phil Done returned – reading your posts shows that error perfectly. Phil Done was never that stupid.
Exactly Louis – but you agree with the empirical evidence above but are not in the AGW camp. Curious logic. Or perhaps you don’t agree/nor disagree, meaning you refuse to accept any new logic or perhaps you have trouble reading. More curious.
Obe wan phildo?
For a minute I thought you might work through the Apostles, I see the attraction of playing at being a Jedi Knight was too hard to resist.
No Louis, each time he blows his credibility he has to reinvent himself under a new name. Never mind Gwong Dung, Luke, even a casual attempt at “Da Nang does Dallas” would be helpful. Luke?
Oh Luuuu-ooook?
I can see gentlemen that you are consumed by the dark side of the force. So much anger. Do not feel bad that your science knowledge has been found wanting and that you have worshipped false idols and grasped at straws – I forgive you. You must let go of your AGW hate and feel the true forcings.
Anyway – back to issue, enjoyable though the jocular invective is with you guys. J-boy’s CO2 numbers are all over the shop – can he seriously expect us to believe the range. They’re implausible. Note that it’s all unpublished – (not that that is everything as we have well discussed before on this site)and it isn’t a science paper – it’s a quasi-political rant. If you read Boojums and Lambert’s incisive analyses, J-boy has some serious issues. I believe he’s into solar cycles too. Sigh.
But all a diversion from Jen’s topic. We live a global warming world and also a global dimming world (recently). The outcome is the balance between the two factors. Once air pollution is cleaned up we may see a greater warming. And it appears that circulation changes caused by the aerosols may have had an impact on Sahelian droughts.
I agree with Paul that there appears to not be a totally comprehensive view of the mid-century cooling but that does not invalidate everything else we know.
Now – do we do the cloud seeding stoush ?
Viva, Da Nang. Oh, viva, Da Nang. Da Nang me, Da Nang me. Why don’t they get a rope and hang me?
Luke, I’ll just pop my head over the parapet to ask you to forward those papers through Jen.
Thanks.
Paul – sent!
That must be Barff Vader, surely. So he cuts and runs with a totally substanceless statement accusing Jarowoski of writing a political piece and then refers to the bojums stuff as if it was a detailed critique that “did the job”. It didn’t. Bojums was the political rant, replete with straw men to cut down and conspicous in its use of an argumentary line that completely avoided the need for any semblance of a refutation. Mr J exposed a blatant cherry picking of data.
And still no word on how Mr Cheng might fit his SUV into the elevator, let alone burn up as much gas as the commuter from Long Beach.
Ian – are you able to READ. Do you find Jabba the Hutt’s CO2 levels as credible. And get it straight I ask the questions and you respond not the other way around. This is how this blog works. What’s the China/USA price of eggs issue anyway?
Go back to inciting violence at the Awards Dinner. Pls don’t be near my table when you cut loose.
Ian – you have soiled your panties baaad on this one. If you had read what I sent this ream out would not be necessary – obviously your ability to operate a web link while holding semtex, a samurai sword, a 303, the Dummies Guide to Property Rights and the ABC home address list has limited your typing skills.
So I’ll SPELL it out for you .. ..
However, if you examine Jaworowski’s graph, it is clear that most of the CO2 measurements shown on the graph are inaccurate. The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million. It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year—the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world. The red line I added shows the measurements of CO2 concentration taken at Mauna Loa since 1958. Notice how there are no huge year-to-year fluctuations.
So given that many of the measurements are wrong, it makes no sense to average them as Jaworowski suggests should be done. The correct procedure is discard the inaccurate measurements. Callendar discarded (Tellus X (1958 p 244):
(a) Period mean values 10% or more different from the general average of the time and region.
(b) Air samples taken in towns, because these often give 5 to 20% more CO2 than uncontaminated air.
(c) Averages depending on only a few samples, or made within a short period, because real fluctuations may exceed 10% in such cases.
(d) Measurements intended for special purposes such as biological, soil air, atmospheric pollution, etc
Jaworowski claims that rather that selecting the most accurate values, Callendar made an arbitrary selection to produce the result (increasing CO2) that he desired. Jaworowski has not a scrap of evidence for his claim and all other data supports Callendar. The green line shows measurements of CO2 concentration from ice cores at Law Dome. Notice how it agrees with the values Callendar chose and the red line of the Mauna Loa measurements. Jaworowski has an answer to this. The ice core measurements are fraudulent, as are the Mauna Loa measurements. Multiple independent ice core measurements agree with those from the Law Dome, so presumably Jaworowski believes that these are the product of a huge conspiracy as well. It should come as no surprise that Jaworowski’s theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche, renowned for his belief in various conspiracy theories.
So Ian write 100 times on the blackboard “I will not be a numb nuts” and off to bed early with you.
Phil, Luke or whoever you are, Just what is it that I agree with that contradicts by position as a sceptic?
In your own words please.
My position as a sceptic 🙂
Louis – it’s Luke – Phil is not this stupid – you said above “I never said your cited empirical evidence of greenhouse forcing is incorrect” – check your own words. Then follow the trail from there.
Logically your words either mean (a) you agree my evidence is correct or (b) for a variety of reasons you have no opinion. But if you have no opinion then why do you argue when you’re unwilling to consider new evidence. SO if you were willing to argue without any consideration of new evidence someone might think your are (i) a bigot (ii) politically driven (iii) on a anti-AGW jihad (iv) you’ve forgotten what you just thought again (i.e. dementia) or (v) about half past 3 and can I have sauce with that pie.
Phluke, “Notice how there are no huge year-to-year fluctuations” is just the point. Any site can produce large year to year fluctuations. So you and Callendar might prefer all ice cores to show a smooth line but, if they are accurate, they are unlikely to do so.
The chemical methods analysis of CO2 has been well within a 3% error margin since the 1850s and they showed CO2 values of 420ppm right through the 1940s over sites from Europe to Alaska. So why didn’t this show up in the ice cores?
Either they were inaccurate or highly relevant data that demonstrated the true natural range of variation in CO2 levels was discarded.
And your claims that Mr J could only get his stuff published “in a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche, renowned for his belief in various conspiracy theories” is loaded with irony. For foremost among those conspiracy theories is the well documented IPCC conspiracy to mislead the community on global warming.
Stunning logic you have there Phluke, ‘there could not possibly be a conspiracy to mislead the public because no-one with evidence of the conspiracy can get published in journals that are part of the conspiracy’. Yeah, right.
And just to remind you, the IPCC projections assumed that Mr India and Mr China would increase their emissions to the same levels as Chuck Budweiser. But for that to happen it would need an LA style sprawl to be re-created in Beijing.
A more credible, and honest, attempt at modelling would have assumed that development in asia would follow the Japanese, Taiwanese or Singaporean development model with much lower percapita emissions.
And that “mistake”, and the failure to correct it, betrays an intention to mislead that puts the entire process under suspicion.
Ian : “And just to remind you, the IPCC projections assumed that Mr India and Mr China would increase their emissions to the same levels as Chuck Budweiser. But for that to happen it would need an LA style sprawl to be re-created in Beijing. ”
Ian, you’re the one here with the number master skills… Surely you must have seen the stats that indicate that China will have the same emissions as Mr Budweiser within 10-20 years with this economical growth that shows no signs to cool down and with all that almost unlimited supply of brown coal.
We also get those scary info from China everyday on how the chemical industry release chemicals straight into the rivers that cause heavy pollution and fish death.
I am returning to this topic since we have discussed the fate of the Chinese river doplphins here earlier.
No conservation efforts can ever save the dolphins in my opinion as long as the industries release all their poison into the rivers.
I think it will take a long time before the Chinese will adopt Japanese standards , who actually are quite good at environmental improvements as I have heard…
Ian – your slavish to this issue is now bordering on moronic. Have a look at any of the Mauna Loa, Cape Grim or other CO2 records – do they jump around like all over the place from year to year. Answer – no ! Take a hike.
Meanwhile how long does it take China to replicate the whole of Australia’s emissions. How many months?
As for well documented conspiracy by the IPCC – hehehee – you’ve been reading too many property rights and gun mags.
Louis got you again. U should know by now he never aschually says nothin. and whenever he occasionally aschually does say somethink concrete, you laugh so hard u wet ya pants & it’s impossibile to type a reply
Another sidestep, Phluke. Most of the really scary bits in the IPCC models don’t just assume 1 or 2 equivalents of Australian emissions, they assume multiples of US emissions. They wrongly extrapolate from the high emissions involved in the early parts of an economic take-off.
And if you take a look at EG Beck’s data on chemical methods of determining CO2 at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=64 you will see a very large set of readings, done by leaders in their fields, including a couple of Nobel Prize winners, that show quite a significant range of variation in readings. And 90% of it was ignored by Callendar with no valid reason.
And please explain to us all, why it is that Mauna Loa, or Vostock, would not have a natural variation in readings like any other site in the world?
The IPCC and their moronic minions would have us believe that they just happened to do CO2 readings in the two or three places that, by some magic, constitute a perfect surrogate for an average of numerous sites all over the world.
Now correct me if I am wrong, Phluke, but I thought that the only way you could get a true idea of what world CO2 levels were would be to follow the same methodology as is used to calculate mean world Sea Surface Temperatures. That is, take the sum of a very large number of site readings and divide by the number of sites.
Vostock and Mauna Loa do not constitute a world mean for CO2 so they cannot be used as a surrogate for world atmospheric CO2. And the fact that Vostock did not show the 1940s peak at 420ppm, or the similar peak in the mid 1800s, makes it clear that either the data was doctored or the method is not accurate.
But by the change in your language I detect a bail-out on your part is pending. Go on, prove me wrong.
Baiter – another bail-out – mate we’re on your manor and rumbling your game Motty boy.
So you don’t think that Mauna Loa and Cape Grim where the air blows half way around the world giving that old atmosphere a good old mix is not a good measurement. Note how these sites don’t vary that much year to year (like 100s of ppm). You can detect annual cycles etc and how they move steadily upwards. So give it a rest eh.
Although perhaps you are a genius – we know you can write well enough (well rhetorical b/s at least) and can drive a spreadsheet – so get together with Louis, Jabba and Warwick and get published.
Or maybe you do some really novel first – actually ring the dude in CSIRO who does the measurements and get an opinion. Put your theory to him. But whooooo – dealing with reality and real people – could be scary.
1940s CO2 peak at 420 ppm .. hehehehehe – oh I’ve just peed myself.
Single point testing is valid in a few cases. Atmospheric gas mixing both sides of the equator is turbulent enough. I suggest doubters check on the direction and drift rates of strontium 90 after the French Pacific atomic tests (banned about 1963 after a new treaty was endorsed).
Kodak was the first place in Australia to quietly alert authorities on dangers to our milk supplies. Weather men missed it.
Surface and water mean temperatures are different though. A lot of averaging is required.
Cape Grim hardly ever gets Easterlies and that’s not too far from Melbourne considering the above.
Here’s your contact info
http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/pps64,,.html#1
And here’s all you need on the CO2 measurements – some VERY interesting background papers – tell me when you’ve finished the 100 times on the blackboard.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/pns_main.html
Mr Mott should think about the practical difficulties in measuring CO2 with a strong ocean breeze plenty of mixing not too many problems, but stations are on land where CO2 fluxes are quite variable at low wind speeds or winds not comming over the ocean, you can get some quite high CO2 levels especially at night when there is no drawdown by photosyntheis and inversion layers stop mixing and all soil and plant respired air accumulates close to the ground so data has to be filtered to be useful.
You should also look at the C14 record see data attached to the CALIB package for C14 ages http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/manual/ it shows a nice smooth curve for C14 moving from the atmosphere into the vegetation and soils, pre-bomb dilution from fossil fuels etc and no funny spikes.
Further reflection on gas mixing; the note on strontium 90 apparently found here after the ‘French Pacific’ (my assumption) atomic tests has no base in info on the www however that incident was most likely about March 1963.
So what they cried.
I have claimed many times on this blog that AGW sceptics have no idea of the difficulties involved in taking direct measurements and making decisions on the spot based on personal experience with modeling various conditions.
In the 1960’s Kodak commissioned a series of huge new processing laboratories and bulk film storage in Melbourne. This outpost of modern technology from the US had the best of all instrumentation available in the world. It also had the largest refrigeration plant ever built in the southern hemisphere. I was sent in there to quickly learn the latest in technology regarding things like air conditioning for highly sensitive stock. But the whole place was shrouded in secrecy.
At this time who tested what A-Bomb where was not common knowledge and we can guess who else Kodak routinely tipped off on changes in our local atmosphere down under. Our science of all things atmospheric was very very young then.
There were a lot of things I never got to see however reading between the lines, drifts, trends and whole processes becomes a highly developed art when you want to know something important in the dark. Guess who was sent home minus a note book with sketches based on a boy’s vivid imagination.
Effective measurement and instrument calibration is only part of a solution in a turmoil.
How can you believe that the environment is not a moral issue? If we do not clean up our act now then the world will not be safe to live in for much longer! Face the facts, I do not see you presenting any of your own, you only criticise those which other people present. You seem to have a grudge against Al Gore, because you have criticised him and his movie before you have even seen it!
I don’t think you understand the way in which society relies on fossil fuels. In your ‘monologue’ here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1751872.htm, you say that we will simply ‘switch over from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources’. This cannot be done ‘simply’ at all. Almost EVERYTHING in the entire world is made with reliance upon fossil fuels, and so far alternative sources cannot produce enough electricty for us to switch. Yes, soon advances will be made that will allow us to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. But it will be by no means simple, and will not just happen.
Coral reefs are some of the best natural indicators, along with frogs in a natural ecosystem. The temperature of the water greatly affects their health. Just because the warmer is getting warmer does not mean that the reefs will grow, that is similar to saying that the more rain a plant receives, the healthier it will be. They are both false, it is well known that plants can be over-watered and die, and reefs are the same, if it gets just a little bit too warm they will die. Simply look at the Great Barrier Reef, it is already dying.
It is not simply the cyclones which endanger us either, a far greater threat is the icecaps melting. And if you think it is good that the oceans are getting warmer, think again. Didn’t you hear Gore say, if an amount of ice the size of half of Greenland melts, (a realistic amount in the next 20 years) then the sea-level will rise around 18 feet. 6 metres! A significant portion of populated land will be under water! How can you dismiss something as seriious as that? Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, why do you fail to mention those facts in your attack upon the movie? Shame on you!
I cannot beleive that you are playing down the seriousness of our situation. At the moment it is the single-greatest threat we have ever faced, and there needs to be as much awareness about it as possible. I find it disgusting that in your position of influence you are spreading this false word. I don’t know what else to say… I feel betrayed.
Tristan O’Brien 17
Adelaide
ionolsen23 May we exchange links with your site?
1edb79f8cc5c Very good