“With understandable reluctance, Prime Minister Howard recently donned the political hair-shirt of a carbon trading system. On the very same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a USA radio interview that “I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with”.
NASA, of course, is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: “We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I’m proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change”. Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue, and especially so given that most Australian science agencies conflate these two things.
Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Dr Griffin’s other statements, which said that “I have no doubt …. that a trend of global warming exists”. Griffin seems here to be referring to HUMAN-CAUSED global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the IPCC show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this 8 year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 ppm (4%) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17%). (Note that the global warming trends of between 1 and 2 deg. C/century many people quote based on satellite temperature measurements have NOT been corrected for these non-greenhouse factors).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades. This cooling, which may already have started, could prove to be of damaging magnitude.
How then is it possible for Dr Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening right now? Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several western heads of state at the G8 summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who possesses a PhD in Physics, asserts that climate change (i.e. global warming) “is also essentially caused by humankind”. And US President George Bush in turn implies a human causation for warming when he says that “America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases”.
In actual fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human (or carbon dioxide) caused warming. For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates that something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.
In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations. As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget, and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of Australia’s government on the issue, and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.
Senior Kansas geologist Lee Gerhard commented that NASA administrator “Griffin’s statement focuses on the hubris that affects much of public policy (on global warming). It is great to know that someone out there besides geologists understands that humans do not dominate earth’s dynamic systems”. Not only do humans not dominate earth’s current temperature trend, but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one. Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system. The swingeing costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.”
by Professor Bob Carter,
An environmental scientist who studies ancient climate change,
@ James Cook University.
This is the unedited version of a shorter piece published today in The Courier Mail: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Wow bob, warming stopped in 1998, thats an oldy but a goody.
Lets kick back and enjoy the rays then.
All these replays – must be the silly season. I thought I was lost in the archives.
I’ll be sure to ask the accountant at CSIRO what he thinks of climate change too.
SJT You might as well he probably has more common sense than the scientists.
Oh well at least some things never change.
Funny that 1998 was “the hottest year in 1000 years” and the poster child of the IPCC a few years ago, now it’s an outlier only mentioned by denialists.
No-one has ever claimed humans dominate the climate system, but at present it’s changing due to us. The larger effects, such as the sun or Milankovich aren’t a factor at the moment.
As for commonsense, the scientific method is devised partly to conquer that.
Poor SJT and all the other reality deniers, they can’t face the fact that their AGW mirage is slipping away from them. So they do an ostrich.
Bob Carter is going to have more and more fun with them.
Sid
I don’t know where you get that idea from. Reality is that NSW is experiencing severe flooding, while the rest of us are only experiencing “average” rain, if that. Water restrictions are going to keep getting tighter. La Nina has been a big non-event.
There are few things that spivanthropus climatensis don’t like about 1998. There is the little issue of the 3.7ppm of CO2 that was added to the total that year when the EUPCC rorted anthropogenic emissions were only about 1.2ppm. Deduct the 0.2ppm in tree stumps and house frames that didn’t release CO2 at all and the 50% of the remainder that was absorbed by oceans and we are left with only 0.5ppm of anthropogenic additions out of a total 3.7ppm annual increment.
And as my calculator actually has numbers, where Luke’s has bananas, apples and cream buns, that means only 13.5% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2 in 1998 was caused by humans.
And oh yes, now that we are likely to have a La Nina event then we are unlikely to see many temperature records broken by end of next year and that will mean a whole decade with no warming. Lets spell that out for the plodders shall we.
A DECADE CHARACTERISED BY EXTENDED EL NINO CONDITIONS DID NOT PRODUCE ANY WARMING.
And that diminishing snow pack scarenario in the USA is about to get some serious contradiction.
Ian
if the temperature rose every year by the amount it did in 1998, we’d be living in a desert by now.
“”Global Warming stopped 8 years ago because it was warmer in 1998 than now.” This argument is clearly lacking in substance. 1998 was a record high year, and according to NASA GISS, it was elevated .2oC above the existing trend line by the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic inter-annual variability that exists in the annual mean. Looking at the NASA graph above you can see the smoothed line in red, which represents a 5 year mean (thus it stops in 2003 as we won’t know the mean for 2005 for two more years).”
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.html
Current GIS data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
The trend is still quite clearly up, with 2005 warming than 1998.
Dunno about you lot but I’m off to the snow.
Really your NZ contrarians are a class act. Compared to the NCPPR dudes, Bob’s stuff is pure prose. No shouting into microphones at AGMs here.
Beautifully constructed and eloquent. Starts off by empathising with our PM’s predicament. Quickly moving into contemporary events at NASA and then then a rousing strafing of the current scientific position. Followed up by some detailed calculus bombs on CO2 increments. Finally a classic tirade at the established institutions, the internalised impropriety of it all, devastating use of appeals to authority and I have to admit I was in tears by the end with the impact on the underprivileged.
I felt abused (and not just by Mottsa). I threw my loosely bound copy of the WGI report onto the fire and for once didn’t care about the emissions.
It’s hard to objective with quality material like this. Beautifully written. Skillfully crafted and superbly executed.
Really wannabes like Mottsa should learn that crudity and vulgarity has no part in this debate. A lesson in the use of the rhetorical argument Ian. Don’t even try to emulate the style. Stick with the banalities and wise-cracks about sexual prowess.
But on the important issue of – dare I even say “Bob” – let’s be formal – more appropriately Professor Carter’s work here. – I give it 9/10. And a worthwhile addition to the pages of the Courier Mail. Bravo !
Get some evidence Luke.
Jen,
is Bob’s work published? Is he also using the MSU2LT or the stratospherically contaminated MSU2? How does he define trends?
The most recent MSU2LT data from Spencer and Christy http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/may/uah-lt-jan-may-global-land-and-ocean-pg.gif
or RSS http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/may/rss-lt-jan-may-global-land-and-ocean-pg.gif
do not support his case.
David
classic Ian, exactly where didn’t warming occur in the last decade? Greenland? Arctic? Your bathroom or your bedroom?
Jen, you posted this thing. It’s pretty clear its full of twaddle. What responsibility do you take? Don’t you owe it to your readers to pass comment on the legitimacy of the arguments presented here?
SJT. Is this the same scientific method that uses techniques that would be illegal in any other domain.?
Go and ask the CSIRO accountant whether or not, with hand on heart, publications by the CSIRO CMAR division would pass muster with the ASIC standards for a propectus. Go and ask an investor whether they would put money into documents that dont tell the full story and have no idea idea about risk/reward, or value for money.
No one in the right mind would pay any attention to predictions based upon models that project out 100 years and which have so many areas of gross deficiency.
But then for the CSIRO to meet a 30% target for external revenue generation, then any old twaddle will suffice, scientific or other wise. Even better if it is into labour dominated state govts.
Makes good fodder for political differentiation.
Malcolm
If you want a corporate style risk managment perspective http://blogs.theage.com.au/managementline/greenhouseliability.pdf
Looks as if we may be in for a good ski season this year! But then it seem to be heavy snow everywhere, S.H. winter and N.H. summer.
eg. 15/6, Six thousand trucks stranded by snow at Andes tunnel.
Heaviest May snowfalls in southern Africa in three decades.
Latest freeze on record in Denver, in June.
13/6, Snow ploughs clear Hail in Germany.
14/6. Snow falling in central Sweden.
And going back to March, Alaska had record snow dumps for that month, with some of the lowest March temps ever recorded.
Well yes, it’s “Global Warming”, and we sinners are the cause of it.
Bullshit Malcolm. It’s not a business investment proposition. What a load of utter crap. “Illegal” – ROTFL and LMAO. Gee you guys are up yourselves.
30% is probably too much. Have too much external funding and you end up with organisations being responsible to big business or R&D corporations not their core mission. If you don’t want any government research fine (you’re entitled to that view). But go and set up your private research e.g. what Monsanto and Bayer do – and then it’s in the shareholders interest not the national interest.
If CSIRO isn’t looking after the national interest go tell Johnny. But wasn’t he saying our climate science was top notch the other day – but of course maybe he’s misinformed hey?
You’re just having a bloody big sook because you don’t like the science message. As usual you’re just a having another big venomous spray at CMAR with no substantion. Would you like them to make something up to make you personally feel better.
Of course you would.
Gosh, Luke has switched to mild mannered mode, all sweetness and light. Pity about the substance. Pity about all the other invective in the other threads. Just live for the moment folks while Luke reinvents himself, again.
How convenient for SJT that the 5 year moving mean stops at 2005 and precludes any decadal conclusions. The simplest way around that problem is to do a lagging mean instead. And gosh golly, that does show a classic break of trend line in 1998.
And stop flogging that so called “corporate style” risk management perspective, SJT. It is nothing but generalised legal-speak for insurers. It has little to do with real risk management.
And your link to the NASA temp series is the same one that had serious discrepancies between our own BoM data and NASA’s global data for the same locations. And you never did get around to explaining how this was so, did you?
And if they got Australian data wrong then how reliable is NASA’s data for Africa, central Asia and parts of the Americas?
Ian
Insurance is all about risk management, hence the inability of growing numbers of people around the world to get insurance where they live, especially Americans. The risk is just too high now.
Wrong politics leads to pointless economics:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/greenhouse-project-funds-unspent/2007/06/18/1182019030461.html
Well Ian – given you’re an intellectual giant – is the temperature decrease statistically significant El Nino adjusted? Flash your stats.
And tell us how do the various other proxy data sets compare. You know satellites, SSTs, glaciers, polar etc. Would you say the bulk of evidence tells us anything.
No of course not.
Anthony: I don’t know how old you are or where you are coming from but your question “What responsibility do you take? is an old one of mine.
Hey I have worked with some pretty funny professional people in very odd places over the years and my best guess is Jennifer supports purely provocative stuff on here for private amusement. There are others around who think some of us should be punished for the very idea of perpetuating AGW in scientific terms.
Beware toe cutters abound in professional circles. Last night’s 4 corners was a good example. In our communications industry I worked with them and against them at various times. Free trade and national security each become curious objectives depending on the drivers. Natural efficiencies are hardly ever a party guest, when some one is stacking the chairs.
Our best perspective comes from listening to the most practical people. Today it was Paul Perkins former head of ACTEW on ABC 666 talkback commenting on our delayed water restrictions where he emphasized over and over; these are unprecedented times in terms of inflow numbers. I recall his thoughts: don’t blame the governments or the corporations, lets get on with it.
Back to 4 corners; I grew up in the technician era when the network was king. Targets are at best ideals complex life is something else. US style corporate admin is to be avoided.
By the time I got here, Luke was already off-topic. For those who prefer the topic our generous hostess has offered, I present the following:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2104395,00.html
The inconvenient truth about the carbon offset industry
The Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Saturday June 16, 2007
“The problem with offsetting is twofold. First, these schemes are unregulated and wide open to fraud. There is nothing but the customer’s canniness to stop a company claiming to be running a scheme which does not exist; claiming wildly exaggerated carbon cuts; selling offsets that have already been sold; charging hugely inflated prices.”
“Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.”
wow, thats deep Schiller.
there are companies out there trying to rort the system and make a buck.
why don’t we just just roll over onto our backs and let them tickle us with a feather. That seems an appropriate response.
Oh, hang on. People are actually trying to deal with the problem through regulation and controls. Pah, waste of time hey?
Anthony,
Creating imaginary commodities is not the same as regulation and control.
What troubles me is that many, like you, apparently equate the two–and rather gleefully.
Gavin, I think you do Jen a disservice suggesting she puts up provacative stories for her own amusement.
Schiller,
what do you call money? It’s mostly just variations in a magnetic field on a comupter device that’s spinning around in a darkened room in a concrete building in an industrial suburb somewhere.
Schiller: on “imaginary commodities” I was once asked to survey the available info post Dick Tracey on the impact of our new fangled digital comms. on sensitive VIP brain cells. Spectrum space and energy at any freq is hardly tangible but we soon found out we could auction spectrum rights in the new management process.
I also grew up in the era of big dams and power schemes, hydro and thermal. As I see Bob Cater he is neither water man nor forecaster. As Steve Bracks announces a Victorian scheme that links the Goulburn to the City and vice versa we can ignore the potential for the forth big storm over coastal NSW in a month and look at practical options under climate change. Mass survival is about building flexibility in major infrastructure.
Governments may be slow to spend our money but they are not entirely foolish as a few would have us believe. The technology that grew during our postwar boom was largely intact until economic rationalism destabilized its natural growth. Discontinuities came about after academic studies and revisionist programs took off. But practical people remain because the public at large demand it.
Academics in this country were never put out of uni to build roads but the truly clever could work with any level of enterprise. They helped me understand our progress in many fields of engineering.
Toby: Respect and responsibility is something I learned from working directly with our best technical experts in power and chemical engineering, also food processing, water treatment, mining, refining and so on. I have the greatest respect for people who plan then implement resource development, education, and tourism etc warts n all.
I have the greatest regard for Jennifer who runs a decent weblog on alternative subjects where people on the environmental fringe can have their say.
alright Schiller, lets step through this.
When is an offset an imaginary commodity and why? Please remember, saying it is so, doesn’t make it so.
Bob Carter is a misrepresenting the data, pure and simple.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/04/bob_carter_claims_its_not_warm.php
“What on earth could be going on? Well, if you look at the fine print on Carter’s graph you find the data set he plotted was “uahncdc.mt”, and “mt” stands for mid troposphere. His “Global Average Temperature” is the temperature 6 kms up in the sky, where nobody lives. And what does that silly greenhouse hypothesis predict for the mid troposphere? Well, it says that the lower troposphere will warm (see second graph above), the stratosphere will cool (Look!) and in between them, temperatures in the mid troposphere will not change. Yes, far from the greenhouse hypothesis failing the test, Carter’s graph shows that it passed with flying colours.”
Anthony,
Investing in an imaginary commodity means that there is no underlying substance.
If one invests for the purpose of global cooling, one expects global cooling to ensue. When the money goes instead to consultants, or to buying stock in a corporation that builds nuclear submarines (Al Gore), that’s an imaginary commodity.
It would make more sense if I sold real estate on the moon. At least, we know the moon is there.
The Earth has reached a plateau on temperature and is set to cool in 20-25 years, but by then, investments in global cooling will be worth a penny on the dollar at best. (Anyone’s dollar.)
Hope that helps you.
Schiller
what substance is there to money?
SJT,
Money is worth what you’ll give me for it. Would you like to buy some CO2? I’ll sell you as much as you want, and wish you the enjoyment of it.
Ok Schiller, you have said it is so… now all you have to do is prove it!
The floor is yours…
Schiller
it’s worth what people will pay. That goes for everything from paintings of a soup tin by Andy Warhol to CO2.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/nuclear-not-solar-power-is-brown-coal-alternative/2007/06/19/1182019115990.html
Jen, how does it feel to be associated with stuff like this coming out from the IPA? Do any of you take responsibility/ownership for what you publish?
Wow – away for a couple of days and it’s like I’ve never been gone!
Luke , as you’ve acknowledged before , there are actually credible scientists who hold contrary and informed views to the establishment on AGW.
We now know from your comments that in your opinion Carter isn’t one of them.
Can you actually name a single credible scientist sceptic?
Anthony, there are literally hundreds of rabidly pro AGW web sites not to mention the vast majority of mainstream media that feature on balance far more pro-AGW perspective than anti.
Isn’t it in fact a positive that Jen features minority opinion so regularly and encourages a free and open debate?
Do you really want a monotone?
Jim
(1) from observation Nir Shaviv, Paul Reiter, Roger Pielke. You’ll smile but I’ve also seen Realclimate hose down some issues. They’re not totally indiscriminate and go to some pains to explain a position. Steve McIntyre would be good if he disassociated himself from the creeps and was less political.
(2) “free and open debate” – well far be it from me to tell Jen what to write – jeez it’s a libertarian blog is it not, but on the other hand she is inviting commentary too. So is it free and open debate or promoting a viewpoint. See my comments about differences in approach to topics on GM milk – AGW treatment vis a vis GMOs. However if we don’t like the style we can always decamp the blog. But I suspect we opinionated pugilists love it.
Yea give us the monotone Jim. I enjoy your posts.
Frankly it would be good if people opened up a bit more.
And while I’m raving – the thing that disappoints me is that we don’t ever try to move to a solution of find a path through. Mottsa a major disappointment here as you have a fairly intelligent advocate (can’t believe I’m writing that !) you could work with. But you don’t get past the brawling stage. Which reminds I need to clock him one again (rhetorically of course).
Jim, there is a difference between open, honest intelligent debate – which is healthy, and the kind of ‘lets hear all opinions’ debate which generally results in those who shout longest and hardest winning at the expense of quality outcomes.
My point is that if people like the IPA and Jen have both self respect and and understanding of the issues they write about, they wouldn’t be putting out complete and utter rubbish. Did you read what Alan Moran wrote?
I can only conclude they do not have one of either self respect or knowledge of the issues they write about… which from where I am sitting is not a good thing.
How quaint. Anthony does a psych 101 unit and boorishly applies it to every thing he can see. Tell it to the bimbo with the starsign, boyo, you might even get lucky.
Ian, ouch…
methinks you are too quick to partake in insults, too slow to engage in substance.