Hi Jen,
It looks as though ABC TV will be showing the UK Channel 4’s antidote to Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle in July:
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,21779177-10388,00.html .
Channel 4 defended the film, as has ABC director of television Kim Dalton, on the basis that all sides of the hotly contested global warming debate deserved to be represented.
“Currently the issue of global warming is being debated around the world,” Mr Dalton said.
“This documentary presents a controversial side to that debate.”
Expert commentators supporting the film’s claims include Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who has spent the past 21 years as a critic of the environmentalist organisation, and oceanography professor Carl Wunsch, who was interviewed but later claimed his views had been misrepresented.
The ABC bought the rights to the international version of the hour-long program which had previously been passed on by the Nine Network.
“There are people who still question the link between human activity and global warming. I believe it’s important that these views are heard and debated,” Mr Dalton said.
In the UK, the documentary attracted an audience of 2.5 million viewers and 246 complaints were made to the television regulator, Ofcom.
Channel 4 said, however, supporters outweighed the critics six to one.
Since we last discussed this on Jennifer’s blog, TGGWS has been under almost constant attack from the global warming industry, culminating in a complaint to OFCOM
led by Bob Ward (formerly of The Royal Society), now with Risk Management Services.
Steve McIntyre has some observations here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=49
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1519
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1517
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1513
An Inconvenient Truth is also causing controversy in schools.
I think that The Great Global Warming Swindle did a good job of presenting the alternative view that there is no man-made climate catastrophe outside of flawed computer models, environmental groups are often more red than green, the politicised IPCC is not objective, and the sun-climate connection is the most likely explanation for over 4 billion years of climate change. Watch it and apply the same critical standards to An Inconvenient Truth.
Regards,
Paul Biggs
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It is the least the ABC could do after their disgraceful “sea level rise” story on the Carteret Islands. But what about all the other ABC climate cretinous crappo?
Jennifer/Paul,
That first link to McIntyre is pretty interesting – I missed it originally.
It’s surprising that the deletion of inconvenient data hasn’t been picked up and condemned by the Rigorous-Science-Only-AGW school?
But the principle espoused by McIntyre seems to be valid – excluding a sub-set of data which is contrary to your proposition is wrong and should be exposed – no matter which side indulges in it.
I note with interest that the Channel 4 documentary is described as ‘controversial’, but Al Gore’s effort is not. Surely it is, even if only the Channel 4 doco questions its validity. In Western Australia we now have a Minister for Environment and Climate Change. I await the appointment of a Minister for Truth. Could be an opportunity for a couple of our past premiers.
Fascinating this idea that “equal time” is required from contrarians.
So if Al Gore has got some crappy bits such as sea level rise (OK – for purists implied crappy bits coz he never said when) all will be made equal by exhibiting the worst bit of dross ever to masquerade as science journalism – TGGWS. I mean doctoring multiple graphs – Wunsch having the biggest dummy spit – come on how dumb are you guys !
So the notion here is that utter crap neutralises some crap to produce no crap.
What crap!
We could bin both and start again and try for no crap.
It appears from the link referred to above Luke that the TGGWS crowd aren’t the only ones doctoring graphs?
I’d be more inclined to agree with your sentiments except for the fact that Gore wasn’t subjected to the same criticism with anything like the same vehemence.
If both are crap , then objectively , both should be denounced.
“Expert commentators supporting the film’s claims include Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who has spent the past 21 years as a critic of the environmentalist organisation, and oceanography professor Carl Wunsch, who was interviewed but later claimed his views had been misrepresented. ”
Wunsch supported the films claims, but didn’t? Which is it? According to Wunsch himself, he doesn’t support TGGWS at all, he was just subject to sneaky editing of an interview that completely distorts what he actually thinks.
SJT,
I understand that Wunsch’s comments have been omitted from this version.
I saw the original so it’ll be interesting to compare the difference the omission makes.
More nonsense from Luke, as expected. I suggest you follow the links to see who has been doctoring graphs.
If you read the original email sent to Wunsch about the programme, it is clear he knew what he was getting into. I’ll find my copy of it and post it later – it seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Wunsch’s website.
Did Wunsch dupe himself into writing this:
“Sir — Your News story ‘Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure’ (Nature 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like “without the Gulf Stream.” Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new ice age in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream.
European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream’s existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both.
Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon — within tens of millions of years — has a probability of little more than zero.”
Carl Wunsch
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nature 428, 601, April 8, 2004
Dear Professor Wunsch,
Many thanks for taking the time to talk to me this morning. I found it really useful and now have the issues much clearer in my mind.
I wanted to email you to outline the approach we will be taking with our film to clarify our position. We are making a feature length documentary about global warming for Channel Four in the UK. The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative
theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the
apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.
We would like to do an interview with you to discuss the notion that there is a scientific consensus on the effects of global warming on the
Great Ocean Conveyor Belt, the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift.
It has been widely reported that Britain and Western Europe could soon be plunged into a mini ice age, and we would like to show that it is
simply not true that they will shut down. We would like to talk to you about the numerical models and whether they give us a realistic
perspective of the impact of climate change on the oceans. We would also like to talk to you about the ‘memory’ of oceans, and how it can take
varying amounts of time for a disturbance to be readable in the North Atlantic. Fundamentally, we would like to ask you whether scientists
have enough information about the complex nature of our climate system.
Do the records go back far enough to identify climate trends, and can we conclusively separate human induced change from natural change?
Our filming schedule is still relatively fluid at the moment, but we hope to be in Boston around the second week of November. Please don’t
hesitate to contact me or my producer, Eliya Arman, if you have any further questions, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Locke
Assistant Producer
WagTV
Look, this “Great Global Warming Swindle” is just as crappy as “Columbine,” ” Fahrenheit 9/11′ and “Inconvenient Truth”
I wont watch any of ’em, on principle.
Come off it Paul – as a self confessed emotionally committed solar-o-phile you have departed the realms of objectivity. Look at your statement for the hallmark checklist:
(1) portray alarmism as the dominant paradigm
(2) flawed computer models
(3) reds under bed
(4) IPCC politicised and corrupt
(5) the old “it must be the Sun” (just don’t ask me how today as I have 20 different theories)
(6)sun has driven climate over 4 billion years (appeal to ridicule based on the obvious)
TGGWS is the biggest load of crap and you know it. 100% crap in fact. Pure think tank generated bilge. Swamp water. Why waste any energy on this twaddle and move on.
3) reds under bed
(4) IPCC politicised and corrupt
exactly, just as silly as Exxon is the hand in the glove of the skeptics..
..and anyone who thinks that ‘junkscience’ et al has influence needs their collective heads read.
Couldnt pull the skin off a rice pudding!
Did you say “(1) portray alarmism as the dominant paradigm” Luke?
But but but
both you and Fill have been alarming for such a long time, you are both hanrahans of the 1st order.
ooooo Wodgey Woo – you’re sooo cruel. I warned you this drought would be severe and some have been rooned ! Give me 10/10 for prediction 🙂
Wonder how warm Aussie and the globe has been this year thus far?
The three Rs of propaganda are rhetoric, rebuttal and repetition. I am reading your posts with interest, Luke.
Let’s start with the ‘straw man’ argument against the Christy group Troposphere temperature data:
The ‘correction’ was 0.035C, which was within the 0.050C margin for error.
New paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2005JD006881.shtml
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D06102, doi:10.1029/2005JD006881, 2007
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
Temperature change of the lower troposphere (LT) in the tropics (20°S–20°N) during the period 1979–2004 is examined using 58 radiosonde (sonde) stations and the microwave-based satellite data sets of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v5.2) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS v2.1). At the 29 stations that make both day and night observations, the average nighttime trend (+0.12 K decade−1) is 0.05 K decade−1 more positive than that for the daytime (+0.07 K decade−1) in the unadjusted observations, an unlikely physical possibility indicating adjustments are needed. At the 58 sites the UAH data indicate a trend of +0.08 K decade−1, the RSS data, +0.15. When the largest discontinuities in the sondes are detected and removed through comparison with UAH data, the trend of day and night releases combined becomes +0.09, and using RSS data, +0.12. Relative to several data sets, the RSS data show a warming shift, broadly occurring in 1992, of between +0.07 K and +0.13 K. Because the shift occurs at the time NOAA-12 readings began to be merged into the satellite data stream and large NOAA-11 adjustments were applied, the discrepancy appears to be due to bias adjustment procedures. Several comparisons are consistent with a 26-year trend and error estimate for the UAH LT product for the full tropics of +0.05 ± 0.07, which is very likely less than the tropical surface trend of +0.13 K decade−1.
Received 11 November 2005; accepted 10 August 2006; published 16 March 2007.
So, as TGGWS claimed, Troposphere warming is not behaving as climate models say it should.
Graphic illustration here:
http://climatewatcher.blogspot.com/#Errors
Prof Roger Pielke Sr’s Resignation from the CCSP Committee “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere — Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:14:59 +0000
Dear Dr. Mahoney — with copies to Richard Moss and the CCSP Committee
(emphases added)
I am resigning effective immediately from the CCSP Committee “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere-Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. For the reasons briefly summarized in my blog, I have given up seeking to promote a balanced presentation of the issue of assessing recent spatial and temporal surface and tropospheric temperature trends. The NY Times article today was the last straw. This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies.
Pielke Sr continues:
“The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skilfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive. This has major implications for the impacts community. Studies such as the U.S. National Assessment and Chapters and the IPCC which use regional results from the multi-decadal climate models are constructed on models which have been falsified in their ability to accurately simulate even the linear trend of the tropical zonally averaged surface and tropospheric temperature trends over the last several decades. Since almost all impact studies require regional and smaller scale resolution, the current generation of multi-decadal global climate prediction models is inappropriate to use for impact prediction for the coming decades.”
11-Year Solar Cycle Length Correlated with Temperature
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html
Global cooling from 1940’s to 1970, solar activity, and sulphate emissions:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1536
Shaviv:
“Solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940’s and 1970’s (as can be seen in the ion chamber data), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period. Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2 C out of the observed 0.6±0.2 C global warming.”
Nir Shaviv, 2005
There are two reasons why the temperature should rise from the 1970s. First, there is a decrease in the average cosmic ray flux*. If we look at the average of each cycle there is an increase in the average cosmic ray flux until about the cycle of 1970, and then a decrease in the following two cycles. The last cycle was not as strong, so the average CRF increased. This can explain why the temperature stopped warming from around 2000.
Second, one has to realize that the temperature response of Earth’s climate is a ‘low pass filter’ due to the high heat capacity of the Oceans. This implies that:
The temperature variations over the 11 year cycle are highly damped (but t hey are there at a level of 0.1 deg).
There is a delay time in the system’s response. This means that the 11-year cycle will lag the solar forcing (and it does by 1-2 years). Over the centennial time scale, the Sun’s activity significantly increased until the middle of the century, then it slightly decreased and somewhat increased from the 1970’s with a peak in 2004. If you pass this behavior through the climate “low pass filter”, you will find that because of Earth’s heat capacity, the temperature at 2000 should be higher than the temperature in 1950’s even if the decrease until the 1970’s is similar to the increase afterwards.
BTW – a new Hurricane paper:
So Hurricanes don’t come out of chimney stacks after all. To be corrected in AIT2 perhaps?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7143/abs/nature05834.html
Intense hurricane activity over the past 5,000 years controlled by El Niño and the West African monsoon
Jeffrey P. Donnelly1 & Jonathan D. Woodruff1
Letter
Nature 447, 465-468 (24 May 2007)
Paul
I could be wrong but I don’t recall the Gulf Stream issue ever being a part of their reports.
For the full meaning of what Wunsch is talking about. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/carl-wunsch-the-economist-and-the-gulf-stream/
realclimate is your friend, again.
The THC and Gulf Stream scares are dead. Go tell Gore.
It is great that the ABC is running “Swindle” just to make people question the litany of the IPCC and the AGW stalwarts.
Coming to this as a layman, you can read all types of opinion and argument.
Climate Audit and Real climate sites, as well as this one, force you to question the arguments.
In short to be sceptical.
And people like Clive Hamilton (Australia/Climate Institute) who are trying to change the word “sceptic” into a insult are arrogant to the extreme.
He is in the same class as Cardinal Pell, if your not with them, you are someone to be “saved”.
YAWN … are we still argueing whether the climate is changing? Hmmm wheat futures up AGAIN overnight. Damn those East European and Indian subcontinent droughts.
Allan
a sceptic is a person who depends on evidence to reach their conclusions. TGGWS does not present evidence, but deception.
What goes up goes down..
“U.S. wheat futures settled higher Thursday, shaking off a late session retreat to recapture earlier gains amid fears about unfavorablecrop weather, floor traders said. ”
http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?StoryId=fd95ca3c-ec08-4e53-a342-d9967482845f
Yes, its grate that the ABC are going to run “swindle”. Who ever made that decision will be in “Coventry” for a year or two.
However, I may not be able to predict climate change, but here’s a prediction of which I’m sure .
The ABC will have wall to wall B grade experts,[their favorites] refuting the program. I’ll bet the time given to these experts exceeds the time taken to run the program
I keep on wondering, if the case against AGW is so good, why all the lame rebuttals, like this, or the previous thread about Kininmonth. Surely if you are going to take on some serious scientific minds, you would want to present an argument with a bit of meat on it. As it is, we are just seeing the type of show the creationists put on. Snow the public with some ridicule and cherry picking, along with a good garnish of outright lies, ignore the actual scientific argument, and you can’t go wrong. Suddenly there’s doubt, two sides to the story, and a safe middle ground for cooler heads to follow.
SJT, just what does it take to show you that you are trying to put the boot on the wrong foot,
Its you, & your lot that want to change the world, not us. You want to make changes to how the western world, & much of the rest of it, live, work, & play.
It is there not up to us to put up any rebuttals, or any thing else. Its up to you to put up totally irrefutable PROOF of your theories, not just a pile of disjointed cherry picking.
It does not seem to matter to you, & your mates, in your zeal, that if your desired changes are implemented it will bring misery to millions.
That is a definite fact, whereas you,actually, have only a theory. You have not even proved that any warming would not be to human advantage.
So pick up YOUR burden of proof, & get back to work. You have much to do.
Hasbeen you’re a nitwit – bring misery to millions – what crap.
I know let’s wake up tomorrow and say ” hmmm – what can I do today – I know – let’s bring misery to millions”.
The whole friggin point is to do something about the issue without bringing misery to millions. That requires positive and careful action.
I assume you’re also willing to compensate society if you’re wrong. I think we should sue the arse off all those who delay action which ends up causing irreparable damage. So if inaction causes misery to millions we shoot all those who were obstructionists.
As for bringing misery to millions – well we do that every day in places like Iraq – it’s just that we prefer not to notice.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1940554.htm
What more records broken in Oz.
Oh dear and ho hum – just another one of those ever increasing warm anomalies. I wonder how the northern hemisphere is going. 🙂
Hasbeen
we are already committed to a future of huge changes and misery, it’s up to us to use our nous to manage it pro-actively and intelligently. As Luke pointed out, the trend is up, it’s been measured, not modeled, and it’s going to keep going up. That means huge changes in eco-systems, and those who depend on them. That would be us. Doing nothing is not an option.
Sorry Luke – now I’m really confused?
A single temperature record/anomaly IS or ISN’T indicative of global temperature trends?
I wonder what your reaction would have been to a post pointing to a record cold spell as evidence against AGW?
And BTW – I know it’s not particularly fashionable to actually examine the facts when it comes to Iraq but are you really saying that “we” – presumably you mean Australians – are “bringing misery to millions”?
Do you truly believe that?
And finally , there’s no doubt that one side or the other is going to be proven wrong in respect of AGW in the years ahead.
Presumably , you’re advocating that whatever side it is , should compensate the other for any loss or suffering?
If you were wrong , I assume you’d be happy to cough up?
Jim
the anomaly is as predicted. So far, the models are holding up very well, given the known issues with trying to predict future climate.
Jim – every hot breaking record proves AGW while every cold breaking record is merely background noise. (Yes I’m stirring – coz the thread was cold).
Actually the trend for cold events, even through Siddles loves to post them, is trending down.
I think you’ll find the northern hemisphere also warming up of late.
Jim – let’s look options – do nothing and if AGW turns out be more severe than we think we’re stuck with it. However if we prudently move our energy base to clean coal, renewables and nuclear we will have merely sped up what would have happened anyway.
I don’t think any moderate AGW advocates are suggesting turning the lights out. It will be a test to see how much “an interested” public is prepared to move on the issue.
Do you think we should do absolutely nothing ?
Yes I seriously think the Iraqis’ lot (and there is a lot of them) is much much worse from our western intervention, the real enemy who “was” in Afghanistan not engaged, and the world a much unsafer place. But let’s not get diverted.
Malaria
Malaria expert, Paul Reiter, who resigned from the IPCC over the alarmist claims about Malaria and global warming, has poured scorn on Gore’s Malaria claims:
Present global temperatures are in a warming phase that began 200 to 300 years ago. Some climate models suggest that human activities may have exacerbated this phase by raising the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Discussions of the potential effects of the weather include predictions that malaria will emerge from the tropics and become established in Europe and North America. The complex ecology and transmission dynamics of the disease, as well as accounts of its early history, refute such predictions. Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperate regions, with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle. From 1564 to the 1730s-the coldest period of the Little Ice Age-malaria was an im portant cause of illness and death in several parts of England. Transmission began to decline only in the 19th century, when the present warming trend was well under way. The history of the disease in England underscores the role of factors other than temperature in malaria transmission.
From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age
Paul Reiter, CDC, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2000.
There is more scorn and warnings of the dangers of disinformation from Reiter (who appeared in TGGWS), January 2007:
“I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So let’s talk malaria. For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims that climate change is causing the disease to spread. We have failed miserably.
I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore’s film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place ‘above the mosquito line’ but is now infested with mosquitoes — naturally, because of global warming.
Gore’s claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer.
We have to hope that the new ‘Malaria No More’ campaign is based on sound science, unlike the UN’s catastrophic current ‘Roll Back Malaria’ scheme, which has presided over a marked increase in victims since 1998.
Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria.”
International Herald Tribune — Dangers of disinformation
2003 European Summer Heat Wave
Gore claimed that 35,000 people died as a result of the 2003 European summer heat wave, due to man-made global warming. Equally pertinent but not mentioned by Gore is that there are around 100,000 excess winter deaths in Europe each year, and 25,000 to 45,000 in the UK. Contrast this with the estimated 2000 UK deaths during the 2003 heat wave. Recent peer reviewed science casts doubt on the claim that heat waves are the result of man-made CO2:
Contribution of land-atmosphere coupling to recent European summer heat waves
Fischer E. M., S. I. Seneviratne, D. L¸thi, C. Sch?r (2007), Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L06707, doi:10.1029/2006GL029068.
Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? [pdf]
Chase, T.N., K. Wolter, R.A. Pielke Sr., and Ichtiaque Rasool, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L23709, doi:10.1029/2006GL027470
Paul – so cherrypicking something entomological in return we have pine beetle munching its way through a vastly greater area of the North American conifer estate because of increase in the suitable temperature range. Molecular biologists may not realise that insects are poikilotherms and so will directly respond to temperature. However that’s simplistic of course.
How about a wider review as to what species are doing in general as a result of changed conditions.
So Paul selectively reviewing the literature may also be hazardous to your intellectual wellbeing.
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
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937, 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.
What – solar radiation decreasing over the study period?
And surely Paul you of all people aren’t going to trust models to prove a point?
Paul
WRT to Paul Reiter – this is always worth a read
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-01/paul.htm
cheers
Arnost
Luke ,
My argument isn’t that AGW is bunkum – I’ll rely on the experts – or that we should do nothing ; we have to make rational decisions about reducing carbon output.
But if AGW advocates such as yourself are going to carry the day then you have to be Caesar’s wife and to be very frank , it’s hard to distinguish genuine pursuit of the truth from any side more and more often these days.
As for Iraq – agree it’s OT but like AGW theory it isn’t black and white ( evil old neocons versus enlightened lefties ) and it’s always disappointing to see intelligent people presenting it that way.
I suggest everybody read the link above from Arnost.
“I replied with a question about the two Lead Authors that had been selected: “It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered “Lead authors” with experience, representative of the world’s top scientists and specialists in human health?”
These confident pronouncements, untrammelled by details of the complexity of the subject and the limitations of these models, were widely quoted as “the consensus of 1,500 of the world’s top scientists” (occasionally the number quoted was 2,500). This clearly did not apply to the chapter on human health, yet at the time, eight out of nine major web sites that I checked placed these diseases at the top of the list of adverse impacts of climate change, quoting the IPCC.” Doesn t sound like they are experts to me?
“It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit, and direction.” not politically driven?
Come on Toby – – the IPCC is politically driven? The USA has vast science representation because of its size. Yet the USA government executive hitherto big league anti-AGW but has no significant control over the report’s direction. A report that portrays AGW as a hazard. Surely they would have blocked it if it was all political?
Perhaps it’s just a science committee doing the best it can and it will get a few things wrong. However poikilotherms do have thermal limits and their metabolic rate/life cycle are temperature dependent. Check any basic entomology book.
Also there is no discussion of the range and adaptability of various races of Anopheline mosquitos. What is the current distribution of the mosquito fauna. How adaptable are current races to cooler environments. All unanswered.
Stuff-ups are often more common than conspiracies IMO.
So Luke wants a cold quote from ‘siddles’. Amazing that he is so quick to quote the “record” hot May, (I put in italics because the politicised BoM & ACC only take their “records” from 1950, conveniently), and he puts this hot May down to climate while he berates any cold records as merly ‘weather’.
Today the BoM went further and predicted that because of AGW, this winter will be unusually warm…Sounds familiar, last November they boldly predicted an extremly hot summer for the same reason. The BoM March review then admitted (in very small print) that the summer had been cooler then usual. Ho hum, will they ever learn!
Well Luke, I can fill you in on Europe to date, having just returned from there yesterday. An unusually cold May, with many May (long term)low records set across Europe. eg.
>Coldest UK Whitsun Bank Holiday weekend since 1772, with arctic winds sweeping across the country.
>Freak snow and freezing temps across europe, incl 10cm of snow in Spitzing and other parts of Germany.
>Heavy snow in Swiss non alpine areas, where schools were closed, and some 3000 people were trapped in hotels with rail and road closures.
Even in Sicily, where we spent the last 10 days, it is normaly quite hot in May, but it was cold cold cold, except for two days which could be best described as cool! Yes Luke, that’s only weather, not climate! Maybe they will yet have a hot summer…and then we can put that down to AGW.
Well, it’s always worth a look at the daily record high and low temps. printed in The Australian, in this case the weekend number, (Don’t have today’s yet , but it will tell a similar story.
ACT. High 20.0 – 1957
Low -5.1 – 1997
Sydney High 26.6 – 1923
Low 5.4 – 1955
Brisbane High 28.3 – 1962
Low 5.9 – 1933
Melbourne High 22.4 – 1957
Low 0.7 – 1956
Adelaide High 25.4 – 1957
Low 2.8 – 1986
Perth High 27.6 – 1914
Low 1.2 – 2004
Hobart High 18.9 – 1900
Low 0.4 – 1959
Darwin High 35.3 – 1905
Low 13.8 – 2000
So, if you want an honest unbiased account of weather records, read the good old Aussie.
So Luke wants a cold quote from ‘siddles’. Amazing that he is so quick to quote the “record” hot May, (I put in italics because the politicised BoM & ACC only take their “records” from 1950, conveniently), and he puts this hot May down to climate while he berates any cold records as merly ‘weather’.
Today the BoM went further and predicted that because of AGW, this winter will be unusually warm…Sounds familiar, last November they boldly predicted an extremly hot summer for the same reason. The BoM March review then admitted (in very small print) that the summer had been cooler then usual. Ho hum, will they ever learn!
Well Luke, I can fill you in on Europe to date, having just returned from there yesterday. An unusually cold May, with many May (long term)low records set across Europe. eg.
>Coldest UK Whitsun Bank Holiday weekend since 1772, with arctic winds sweeping across the country.
>Freak snow and freezing temps across europe, incl 10cm of snow in Spitzing and other parts of Germany.
>Heavy snow in Swiss non alpine areas, where schools were closed, and some 3000 people were trapped in hotels with rail and road closures.
Even in Sicily, where we spent the last 10 days, it is normaly quite hot in May, but it was cold cold cold, except for two days which could be best described as cool! Yes Luke, that’s only weather, not climate! Maybe they will yet have a hot summer…and then we can put that down to AGW.
Well, it’s always worth a look at the daily record high and low temps. printed in The Australian, in this case the weekend number, (Don’t have today’s yet , but it will tell a similar story.
ACT. High 20.0 – 1957
Low -5.1 – 1997
Sydney High 26.6 – 1923
Low 5.4 – 1955
Brisbane High 28.3 – 1962
Low 5.9 – 1933
Melbourne High 22.4 – 1957
Low 0.7 – 1956
Adelaide High 25.4 – 1957
Low 2.8 – 1986
Perth High 27.6 – 1914
Low 1.2 – 2004
Hobart High 18.9 – 1900
Low 0.4 – 1959
Darwin High 35.3 – 1905
Low 13.8 – 2000
So, if you want an honest unbiased account of weather records, read the good old Aussie.
“BoM take their records from 1950” on temperature – WRONG !
“berates any cold records as merly ‘weather'” – ummm – tongue in cheek or joke – do AGWers have more fun? Are contrarians a sour lot??
And here Siddles is doing his fav and quoting cities again – the last place you’d quote.
Sid – mate – when are you going to get fair dinkum?
Thanks for the Reiter link, Arnost.
The ‘enhanced greenhouse effect,’ has a very small effect:
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
The non-CO2/temperature correlation and Sulphates from the 1940’s to late 1960’s is breifly examined here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1536
Nir Shaviv again:
Temperature variations of 4 degrees give rise to CO2 variations of about 80 ppm, or typically to a changed forcing of ln(80/240)/ln(2)*4 W/m2 ~ 2 W/m^2. If climate sensitivity is larger than 2 deg/(W/m^2), or 8 degrees for CO2 doubling, then Earth’s climate would have been totally unstable due to CO2 feedback. We would have ended up as either Venus or a cold Earth. Luckily, the sensitivity is more like a 1 to 1.5 deg increase for CO2 doubling. This implies that CO2 has at most a ~20% amplification effect.
There are two reasons why the temperature should rise from the 1970’s.
First, there is a decrease in the average cosmic ray flux. If you look at the average of each cycle, you will see that there is an increase in the average cosmic ray flux until about the cycle of 1970, and then a decrease in the following two cycles. Note that the last cycle was not as strong, so the average CRF increased. This can explain why the temperature stopped warming from around 2000.
Second, one has to realize that the temperature response of Earth’s climate is a low pass filter due to the high heat capacity of the Oceans. This implies that:
– The temperature variations over the 11 year cycle are highly damped (but they are there at a level of 0.1 deg).
– There is a delay time in the system’s response. This means that the 11-year cycle will lag the solar forcing (and it does by 1-2 years). Over the centennial time scale, the sun’s activity significantly increased until the middle of the century, then it slightly decreased and somewhat increased from the 1970’s. If you pass this behavior through the climates “low pass filter”, you will find that because of Earth’s heat capacity, the temperature at 2000 should be higher than the temperature in 1950’s even if the decrease until the 1970’s is similar to the increase afterwards.
Paul, Nir has ’em nonplussed. And isn’t he one of the newer converts to ‘contrarianism’ they keep asking us to produce?
Nir is his own man. You wouldn’t convert him to anything. He believes in AGW but challenges the extent of additional CO2 effect compared to other factors. Of course he has a vested interest in his own research and that’s OK.
But Sid does raise an interesting point – do we have “serious scientists” who have been “converted” to contrarianism. A handful ? Hundreds? And that was “serious” climate scientists or relevant domain experts like Reiter. Not geologists, economists or administrators.
The Jig is up Pad, the ABC has finally come to their senses and is showing “The Great Global Warming Swindle” in July sometime, nothin like a bit of vindication. How can you weight up the truth if you dont listen to both sides of a story. Oh Happy Day, Dom