Jen,
As you know The Great Global Warming Swindle has been available for sometime (on places like YouTube) and screens on ABC this Thursday evening at 8.30pm.
This documentary is seriously misleading about the science of climate change.
I thought you might be interested in a review* which has been published by the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. You can see a html version at http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm . Feel free to use this on your blog – I saw on your blog the other day that you invite contributions.
Kind Regards,
David Jones
Bureau of Meteorology
——————————————-
* The Great Global Warming Swindle: a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology
Downloadable and prinable at http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thank you, David.
The ‘Great Swindle’ is hilarious, it uses a graph that stops at 1980 to ‘prove’ correlation between Solar activity and temperature.
Could David provide some southern hemisphere temperature data please?
4 billion, I think the claim is that the correlation breaks down after 1985. All attempts at correlating 2 selected variables break down at some point. The 1940’s to 1970’s global cooling whilst CO2 kept on rising is another example. Rather than bin a hypothesis, explanations are sought to expalin it.
Armagh Observatory (NI UK) has also published a correlation between temperature and solar cycle length:
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html
Just like CO2/temperature – it could be a coincidence, but the reciprocal of the length of the solar cycle is a general indicator of solar eruptivity and magnetic activity — instead of plotting the reciprocal, charts often show the length decreasing upwards rather than increasing.
I look forward to BOM’s critique of Gore’s misleading AIT.
Malcolm try http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi?variable=global_t®ion=sh&season=0112 and associated links.
Regards,
David
Paul – “I look forward to BOM’s critique of Gore’s misleading AIT.”
Here is one from Real Climate. The problem from your point of view is that Gore got the science right.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Ender : “realclimate” is an advocacy group funded by an environment group that censors and restricts comments
It is hardly impartial!
RC don’t ‘critique’ anything that supports their purpose of defending the hockey stick and catastrophic CO2 induced warming.
Just for starters, Gore got malaria, Gulf Stream/THC, Hurricanes, 2003 European summer heatwave etc wrong, and failed to mention the lag between CO2 and temperature in ice cores.
Chrisl – and I’ve been gonged elsewhere as well. You would have to say they do try to keep debate “on topic” but there’s hardly a dearth of questions from the non-believing side. One isn’t totally locked out.
Who is their funding source incidentally. Which environment group.
And too right they’re advocating – there are few sites where you get an expansive behind the scenes discussion on the science – many sites mainly pseudo political ranting and endless conspiracy theories. Which there’s a place for – like plenty of places for.
Which is my problem with Climateaudit – torrents of abuse – and very little that’s positive. IMO of course.
Paul – RC did gong the THC alarm story.
They also weren’t bullish about tropospheric warming over Antarctica.
They didn’t go with the high CO2 sensitivity.
They may not be perfect but your over generalisation does them a grave disservice. I’ve yet to see any of the major anti sites concede a single thing. Or weed out the 100s of competing ideas that cannot all be right.
Anyway the topic here is the Australian Bureau’s critique of the “Swindle”. I’m sure David Jones would enjoy your considered reactions to their analysis above.
Of course solar may take more of pounding later in the week with the release of the Royal Soc A paper. So it’s a busy time.
Paul; You forgot the clanger regarding climate change refugees – to New Zealand and Australia
I’d love to see any advocate for or against AGW theory concede any piece of scientific evidence that doesn’t conform with their prejudices.
It’s precisely what’s so wrong with the way this debate is conducted.
“Of course solar may take more of pounding later in the week with the release of the Royal Soc A paper. So it’s a busy time.”
Let’s hope this single definitive paper explains over 4 billion years of climate change.
Well it probably does to some extent – but not the last 30 ! Whoops.
Paul, having just looked at this thread, you’ve come up with the excellent point. Where is the BoM’s critique of the “Gore Swindle”.
Guess what they don’t have one! Would not do one!
Why? Because the BoM is highly politicised in favour of AGW. They would not critique anything that promoted the nonsense.
Several months ago the BoM took part, along with the CSIRO and the NSW DPI, in a series of “Climate Change Roundtables” throughout rural NSW. At the event held in Muswellbrook, officers from the BoM and the CSIRO lauded Gore’s movie and urged those in attendence to see it.
Luke – only the last 30? – used to be the last 50.
Meanwhile, the IPCC still clasify the level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance as ‘low’, solar eruptivity as ‘very low.’
I’ll put a critique of BOM’s critique on my ‘to do’ list.
So the best Sid can do is look for an escape hatch to justify rampant b/s being promulagated.
Looks like you’ve done them like dinners David. They’re speechless again.
Perhaps Sid you need Morner to help you with your data analysis 🙂 And we’re still waiting for that rainfall analysis too.
Paul, having just looked at this thread, you’ve come up with the excellent point. Where is the BoM’s critique of the “Gore Swindle”.
To make it clear this is a review by climate scientists not one from an institution. The points we make are easy to verify. GGWS is deeply flawed and that is what the review is about.
Of course, you are entitled to write a reply to the AMOS Bulletin if you have something constructive to add.
chrisl – “Ender : “realclimate” is an advocacy group funded by an environment group that censors and restricts comments
It is hardly impartial!”
Yes and rather inconveniently written by working climate scientists that actually know what they are talking about and can be regarded as authorities on climate science.
I admit this does equip them poorly to communicate the facts of climate science, they really should have studied mining engineering.
So you normally look to the Master Builders Association for information on Parkinson’s Disease?
David beware: There is still a few – very interested folk around trying to undo significant climate science with their pocket calculators.
Paul – “Just for starters, Gore got malaria, Gulf Stream/THC, Hurricanes, 2003 European summer heatwave etc wrong, and failed to mention the lag between CO2 and temperature in ice cores.”
No he didn’t actually and if you read the second link I posted he didn’t get the ice cores wrong either. The events that Gore used, nowhere did he say that categorically that they were caused by global warming – they were given as examples of the sort of extreme weather events that could become more common with increase global average temperatures.
Regarding ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and a critique from David … its my memory that he was in The Age newspaper when the movie first came to Australia suggesting it was a good movie and giving it a rating along the lines of 4 out of 5? I think he made comment along the lines there was very little that Al Gore got wrong. If that correct? David may have a link to the piece? I saw it as hard copy. Other Australian meterologists were also asked to comment and give the movie a rating … as far as I remember all their comments were positive.
All very positive Jen; I wonder whether David might have something to say about the probity of Officers of the BoM singing the praises of Al Gore’s junk science movie at a ‘Climate Change Roundtable’ (Muswellbrook)?
Also, David says, “To make it clear this is a review by climate scientists not one from an institution”. Well, the above posting lists the name of the scientists and then names the NATIONAL CLIMATE CENTRE, BoM. Well, well!
If they don’t want to critique Gore’s movie, that says a lot about their stance on “global warming”. Further, we have never seen a critique from these BoM scientists on the IPCC’s discredited “hockey stick”, or the equally shonky “hockey stick Mark 2”, which has risen from the ashes.
Well the BoM scientists have certainly nailed their colours to the mast.
The extremist left wing politicians have always tried to confuse the issue of CLIMATE CHANGE with the CAUSE of CLIMATE CHANGE because it suits their political agenda. This has been aided by “left leaning” journalists who see the suppression of Western technology and capitalism as a means to achieve “social justice and equity”. Gore’s film is just a product of this effort.
But within the scientific community there has always been scepticism! The UN IPCC scientists are only a small fraction of the overall scientific community and unfortunately many are the scientific equivalent of “Yes Minister” men.
There are several indisputable facts about climate:
1: The climate has always changed from Warm periods to Ice Ages.
2: The climate has changed (warmed and cooled) faster than any change happening at the moment and done so with monotonous regularity. In other words NOTHING that is happening at the moment is UNUSUAL!
3: In the past CO2 was not a driving force of climate change and CO2 concentrations of up to 10x the current levels appeared to have little or no effect on climate. The ONLY thing that suggests that CO2 has become such a driving force is a SINGLE type of computer model!
4: The type of computer model which is suggesting all the disaster scenarios is so primitive as to be considered no more than an interesting toy! Apart from the fact that it is based on a massive cell size of 10,000’s of square kilometres it does not “do clouds” and it does not “do turbulence”! But by far the most damning is that the biggest heat transfer events (like El Nino and Thermohaline flow) have to be parameterised in rather than as predicted outcomes. Further the absorption anomaly between reality and theoretical models of the atmosphere is 4-6x the whole contribution of CO2! To suggest that these models are “reliable and accurate” is a convenient LIE!
5: Finally the temp of the earth is very difficult to measure. Surface temps are troublesome because they are affected by human structures such as buildings, transport and even air conditioners. But satellites are a much better way to measure temps as they average over the whole globe. From the satellite recordings we can say the following:
a) The temp in the Southern Hemisphere has not changed in 25 years. All the warming has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere. This is in direct conflict with the predictions of the CO2 based computer models.
b) No matter which measure you use (surface, sonde or satellite) ALL temps have been steady or declining since 2000! This is also in complete contradiction to the dire predictions of the CO2 based computer models!
jon
What a lot of nonsense Jones’s critique is! His arguments seem to rest on comments like “…the latest scientific view …” (as if consensus mattered), “… temperature data matches the models” (as if models were accurate), “Carl Wunsch said he was misrepresented …” (so that absolutely refutes what TGGWS claimed he said?), ” Changes in solar irradiance cannot account for it … ” (try looking at magnetism and charged partile emissions), ” …scientific opinion is ignored …” (as if consensus matters – again!), and “… incorrect conclusions are drawn …” (by which he means an interpretation that doesn’t agree with his).
Then he has the gall to refer to the US Climate Change Program’s report that claims that tropospheric temperature trends match the thermometer based trends, which is probably correct UNTIL you remove the substantial natural effects of volcanoes and El Nino events. Problem is that the report was never peer-reviewed. (I know a researcher who raised the point about removing El Ninos and volcanic events with US CCP several weeks ago and is still awaiting an answer.)
What does Jones say about AGW? “The anthropogenic greenhouse effect overlays other natural climate changes such as those associated with volcanic activity and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, as well as other human induced climate changes (such as the “dimming” or cooling effect of aerosols released by industry during and after WWII, and subsequently reduced in the 1970s amidst
concerns about acid rain).” In other words somehow – and don’t tell me it was with the usual dodgy models – Jones has decided how much warming is due to natural forces and how much to man-made.
What happens if his model is incomplete? Come to think of it, the IPCC admits that scientists don’t know much about many climate forces. What happens if the temperature figures are wrong (which seems very likely)?
And the warmest year ever recorded was 1998 nearly nine years ago, despite all the urban heat island effect distortions, fudging of temperature records and convenient cherry picking of figures. Pardon my logic but doesn’t that mean that it’s got cooler since then?
The day of reckoning is coming for the AGW crowd. Al Gore, Tim Flannery, James Hansen and their cronies will be signaled out by history as trying to pull off the biggest con ever. The skeptics will prevail!!!
And by the way what sort of weather was I suppose to be having today? I wish it were a bit warmer. The CO2 around here is crap.
Its time for jj n co to have a wish hey but it won’t help folks
Wow – look at em go. What a feeding frenzy. Letting go with everything they have – shooting at everything. Careful David they’re getting riled – they’ll chew your leg off. Keep out of the pond.
How about taking David’s review one bit at a time ning nongs. If you want to open up a 100 other diversionary fronts and laying smoke try thinking for 5 mins and construct a guest post for Jen.
(I loved Jon Jenkins – “In the past CO2 was not a driving force of climate change and CO2 concentrations of up to 10x the current levels appeared to have little or no effect on climate” – pls someone shut the gate)
And now we have a biblical “day of reckoning” ROTFL. And if you have rampant urban heat islands, cherry picking, and fudged temperature then you don’t know what the temperature is you goof-ball ! Jeez.
Who gets the ice cube this time?
Luke: While debate moves up a gear from pocket calculators to scribble pad, let’s take a break
Agree Gavin – a denialist may have said something intelligent by the morning but I doubt it.
Besides need to get your kip for a big read of Proc Royal Soc A later this week which should pretty well mop the floor with all this solar silly business. Better than watching contrarians on the Swindle. I suppose we could edit their bits out. It’s times like this I’m sorry I superglued my dial on the ABC.
They need Louis for support I reckon. Isn’t the same without Louis is it. He’d be right into us on the physics.
Wouldn’t hold your breath for anything approaching science coming from the Royal Society.
This once great and highly respected society has been taken over by green fundamentalists and AGW true believers.
The Societies President, Sir somebody or other, was recently quoted in the British press, with the incredibly stupid statement that in 50 yrs. time, Antarctica would be the only habitable continent left on earth!! At the same time, the Archbishop of Canterbury chimed in with the equally stupid statment that in the next 50 yrs. billions will die from global warming!
At the time someone made the commented…”How the great and the good become the small and the silly”.
Well, hang out for your ‘big read’ fellas.
David – shall we start with the continued attacks on Christy, Norris and Spencer troposhere data. The 2005 data correction was 0.035k, the margin allowed for error was 0.05k. Their latest publication is here:
Christy J. R., W. B. Norris, R. W. Spencer, J. J. Hnilo (2007), Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, doi:10.1029/2005JD006881
“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.”
“Given the results of the current versions of the data sets and experiments presented here, we see that all (except RSS and one RSS-adjusted sonde experiment) indicate trends for the tropical lower troposphere that are less than that of the surface (+0.125 K decade−1). This yields trend ratios of troposphere versus surface of less than 1.0, which is smaller than the ratio of 1.3 generated from climate model simulations for this time period.”
There is a graphic which depicts GISS Model versus UAH, RSS, and RATPAC at:
http://climatewatcher.blogspot.com/#Errors
Those who try to lend credibility to RealClimate because it is authored by scientists can put that argument away. Those “scientists” are located at ultra-liberal (U.S. liberal) Columbia University in NYC and depend financially on global warming studies funded through NASA, i.e., they suck off the American taxpayers to make a living and cannot disrupt that. They went ballistic when the head of NASA said that we were wasting money dealing with claimed global warming before higher priority issues. So, those scientists used political and media pressure to silence their boss. One has to resort to such low attacks when consensus science is a phony argument.
Woody – “Those who try to lend credibility to RealClimate because it is authored by scientists can put that argument away. Those “scientists” are located at ultra-liberal (U.S. liberal) Columbia University in NYC and depend financially on global warming studies funded through NASA,”
So you can’t trust any information from anyone that is left leaning or in Columbia – Hmmmmmm. Thats rational. I guess those guys living high off the hog on government grants (hah) really do want to distort the science so that their papers cannot get published and their reputations are shot. Mind you why would they want to double or triple their salaries working in corporate world or for the military when they can buy Porches with their grant money.
“Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York ”
“Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).”
“A physicist and oceanographer by training, Stefan Rahmstorf has moved from early work in general relativity theory to working on climate issues.
Since 2000 he teaches physics of the oceans as a professor at Potsdam University.”
and so on ….
Gee there are a lot of lefty plots taking over all the universities.
Dr Michael E Mann… Is he the one and the same totally discredited Dr. Mann of the Hockey Stick swingle?
Oppps, swindle !
Rise and shine – a day on the blog is like a day in the marines.
Let’s see – Paul had a science shot. Cool.
Sid unable to argue the science as usual and given his mentor is Morner (ROTFL) has slagged of his Archbishop. Wow.
Woody doing the heavy lifting for Schiller has done a version II neo-marxist commie plot line. We could speed things up for these guys – they could just say SNMSA I or SNMSA II. SNMSA being standard neo-marxist scandal accusation type I or type II. Although Schillsy is more your neo-marxist gladiator while Woodsy is anti any liberals (US style not John Howard).
Oh well maybe by lunch time.
Woody saying “consensus science is a phony argument” won’t wash with me since I generally just look for the practice.
Science Woody is only at its best after the event. Your concept of “phony” regarding a consensus defies logic.
When Paul tries to lift this debate over our heads I think he looses credibility too. Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 is hardly a big deal for us ground dwellers, let’s get back to ice and water hey.
Luke: They clutch very long thin straws here.
>David – shall we start with the continued attacks on Christy, Norris and Spencer troposhere data. The 2005 data correction was 0.035k, the margin allowed for error was 0.05k. Their latest publication is here:
>Christy J. R., W. B. Norris, R. W. Spencer, J. J. Hnilo (2007), Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, doi:10.1029/2005JD006881
>”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.”
Paul, the Christy data has been updated at least twice since this paper. The current tropical trend is 0.08C/decade – an 60% increase on the value you report. This is broadly in line with the tropical surface trend and substantially overlaps the surface trend within the error bars. Of course, there is an alternative MSU estimate from RSS which has not gone through dozens of corrections which has an even higher rate of warming.
On the global scale the two trends (MSU and surface) are +0.14C/decade and +0.17C/decade – again in agreement. The northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and tropical trends are all positive and substantially so. You are hiding behind multiplicity in picking and choosing increasingly vague statistics to disprove AGW.
Further it is false to claim that the enhanced upper tropospheric warming is a greenhouse signature. It is not (as all climate scientists should know). The enhanced warming is a result of the Clausius Clapeyron relationship which means that water holding capacity of air increases exponentially. This law will apply to warming caused by the sun, greenhouse gases, or whatever you care to name.
The greenhouse signature is a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere in the tropics. This is what we see in observations and is one of the reasons we know that the warming is greenhouse gas induced. In contrast a warming sun will warm both the troposphere and stratosphere which is not what we see (and besides the sun has cooled over the last 50 years). It is an irony that swindle completely stuffs this logic up. One doesn’t need a model to understand this elementry logic.
I cannot speak for the climate scientists who were interviewed in swindle, but they should have known these basic facts.
Sid – “Dr Michael E Mann… Is he the one and the same totally discredited Dr. Mann of the Hockey Stick swingle?”
Yes with Hughes and Bradley he wrote MBH98 that was an attempt to reconcile the very difficult and noisy proxy data from the past climate. It was a vast improvement on the graph from 1990 that was presented in the Swindle as it used multiple proxies and PCA analysis to try and sort out the noise. It has only been discredited in AGW denial land which is a strange parallel universe where mining engineers and economists are authorities on climate science.
In the real world MHB98 has been slightly modified to MBH99 and confirmed by at least 6 subsequent studies some of which use completely different techniques to get the same answer. AR4 uses a composite of all these studies to show the paleoclimate.
Will this swindle be the one with or without Wunsch, and with or without the fiddled graphs, and with or without a loner nutcase who proves his theories by betting on the bookies?
David,
I’m trying to download the PDF to read at home but it appears ther’s a problem with the link?
Re the vertical temperature profile, WOW! Its great that the naysayers are finally starting to think about climate fingerprints! Finally, perhaps, we can discuss science beyond mean temperature (and drag the discussion into the present decade of knowledge). To kick things off, how about one of you deniers provide a synopsis of how the fingerprints show that the warming is entirely natural? Or maybe a critical examination of the fingerprinting method? Everyone’s a climate expert after all. If that is beyond you, than I wonder what you have been basing your conclusions on? Any takers?
The BOM witchdoctors are really, really afraid, and went pre-emptive on Swindle. For an antidote to their whining, and for a fuller explanation of everything climate-related, I recommend my own paper at the Lavoisier conference. The Powerpoint presentation is kindly hosted on Warwick Hughes’ blog at:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/The_Past_and_Future_of_Climate_May_2007_Lavoisier_Presentation_June_21_2007.ppt
The pdf version is on the Lavoisier website at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
My conclusion is that increased atmospheric CO2 is wholly beneficial.
David: given your last comment regarding the troposphere and warming signatures I went to wiki for a general perspective on Paul’s question and the nature of interaction with the stratosphere during this change-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
but I wonder now what is the most significant indicator that all is not well up top from your climate science point of view.
David: What is the bottom line in all these signals and is it finally the oceans?
Calling David Jones………
Just following up gavin’s comment.
“David: What is the bottom line in all these signals and is it finally the oceans?”
IF you are taking about warming signatures in relationship to the ocean. One of the clearest ways to look at the ocean’s influence is to check the relative rate of ocean warming compared to land. You find that the land has been warming more rapidly than the ocean throughout the last century. (check any global data set with urban stations removed- the land masses are warming more rapidly). This indicates that a radiative process is driving the change rather than some thermal memory in the ocean. In fact, all the major signatures are consistent with changes in atmospheric radiative chemistry. Still waiting for those fingerprint synopses….
Space: not convinced yet – what drives your polar ice shedding?
Woody says:
“Those who try to lend credibility to RealClimate because it is authored by scientists can put that argument away. Those “scientists” are located at ultra-liberal (U.S. liberal) Columbia University…”
Not even one Real Climate scientist works at Colombia University. In fact, many of them are not even in the USA.
Why do the denialists deal in brazen lies and conspiracy theories. Is this all they have left?
Space – you might as well tell us. You might be waiting forever otherwise.
David Archibald – a global conclusion based on 5 weather stations. Wow ! Also your logarithmic CO2/temperature ruse is nonsense. And that’s just a start.
– perhaps instead of slagging off BoM you might ask for some peer review. Man you need it.
Actually the fact that you’re here commenting on BoM after your paper is really really funny. But don’t ask me – ask the collective wisdom here.
David Archibald’s psychotic contribution to the AGW debate is dealt with here: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
So far we’ve had the ugly, the stupid, the psychotic and the dishonest turn up for a free feed at Jen’s denialist diner. Who’ll be next, I wonder?
Are you talking about sea ice or permanent polar ice? Two different things. Sea ice reduction in the Northern Hemisphere is driven by rising ocean and near-surface temperatures. Both the oceans and the near-surface atmosphere are warming significantly, its just that the land masses are warming faster than the oceans- its a clear signal that occurs not just at the global scale- for instance North America is warming more rapidly than the surrounding ocean. You have to jump through hoops to explain how the ocean might lag large-scale land mass temperatures and still be forcing them. Its entirely consistent with radiative forcing changes to have the land warming faster than the ocean- that means atmospheric chemistry (greenhouse gases and aerosols) or solar radiation. To further add weight to this (the most obvious) explanantion, is that you can reproduce temperature variability over the 20th century using just volcanic, solar, greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosol changes- you don’t need to explicitly force sea surface temperature (SST) in a fully coupled climate model to reproduce the 20th C- you can let the model decide what the ocean should do based on atmospheric forcing and you still get the observed result. This is no way suggests that the ocean has no thermal memory, or that that there is no thermal memory currently in the system- it just means 20th C changes are unlikely to have anything to do with that. BTW- changes in permanent polar (or near) ice is much more complicated- it depends on local changes in rainfall and things such as ice dynamics. Hence warming can cause more ice in particular locations. While green groups throw ice (both sea and permanent) around as evidence of global warming, its actually not the best indicator (its more circumstantial evidence), its just visually appealing for brochures. Much better to stick to large scale spatial patterns for robust statistics.
On the fingerprints- The AGO has a new booklet on “Detecting Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”- it doesn’t seem to be on their website but I will post it when it appears (I am an infrequent visitor to this site). Taking the discussion away from a single index of temperature (for example regional or global temperature) is beneficial for both sides- after all, the criticisms naysayers throw at GHG detection (ie the limitations of correlating two timeseries) apply equally to, say, solar detection if you stick to just the one line of evidence (ie. a temperature timeseries). This is also why comments such as ‘lets stick to the surface and forget about the upper atmosphere’- are plainly misguided- the spatial patterns are what is used in the detective work.
Thanks Space: Now can you please point me to the hockey stick?
>Thanks Space: Now can you please point me to the hockey stick?
Gavin the hockey stick has no real role in attributing recent warming to AGW. It simply provides the context for the recent warming trend. It tells us that the current rapid warming is unusual; but then again you don’t need a hockey stick to know that.
The hockey stick is touched briefly in our review, but only in-so-far as Swindle uses a very old IPCC figure with a changed time-scale and which never was a global reconstruction of temperature in the first-place.
David: On the hockey stick issue I was hoping we could further discuss the appearance of that smooth curve in Fig. 3 Northern Hemisphere temp reconstruction (from IPCC 2007) given the controversy over that odd step in Fig. 5 (NASA). I think we need to define where the jargon starts and ends.
BTW I’m pretty comfortable with BoM on all this.
The maker of the documentary recently said in the Australian
“I urge readers to look at the evidence themselves. (We have assembled many relevant papers on a dedicated website, http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com.) The global warmers try to discourage a close examination of the data. They say the time for debate is over, that there’s a consensus of scientists who say it’s definitely true.”
see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22029942-28737,00.html
Might be worth a look!
It is seriously misleading. It puts doubt in the minds of the faithful, who might as a result falter in the course of executing the true mission of their neo-Marxist masters.
There is a consensus that gorebal warmingers are seeking to establish a choke-hold on the world’s free economies by punishing the production of energy.
People who deny this are denialists.
Yes indeed a classic SNMSA II. Say no more, A wink is as good as a nod to a blind bat. Say no more.
Hi there.
It is an interesting comment- “I urge readers to look at the evidence themselves.” Do you think the ordinary individual would be the best judge of whether what they are watching is credible? Do you think the ordinary individual would be more than capable of evaluating what is causing changes to the climate system. Do you think such a judgement can be passed on viewing a short documentary? Is this what public policy should be based on? This is a joke right? Would you apply this logic to advice given to you by the medical profession? I bet you all use sunscreen without the faintest clue HOW solar radiation causes cancer. No, you would most likely follow your doctors advice- because you trust them. What you cannot get your heads around is trusting the scientific body and the scientific process when it comes to global warming. After all, the scientific body has shown themselves to be such an untrustworthy bunch right throughout history- haven’t they? Its not even like the climate scientists are simply saying ‘trust us’- they have set up one of the most comprehensive scientific review processes ever attempted to disseminate the information to all. They even, in their naivety, have attempted to engage with the climate sceptics and provide them with information. If scientists were more savvy, they would have realised that this engagement was a futile exercise.
This faux argument that is being carried on in this forum just goes to show that evaluation of science has nothing to do with denial of the science when it comes to global warming. The whole facade of denialism is predicated by the assumptions of Schiller- its part of some neo-Marxist plot to establish a ‘choke-hold’ on the worlds free economies. The statement doesn’t even make sense. And what are those neo-marxist climate scientists trying to ultimately achieve exactly? Come on tell us, don’t be scared, you are obviously amongst those partial to lunatic paranoia. You might as well cut to the chase in this forum- give up on the illusion of trying to understand the science and provide us with the interesting story-lines that underpin your theses. Its strange how the denialists constantly use the terms ‘marxist’, ‘lefty’, ‘green’- perusal of the scientists comments here show they do not resort to politics, they are patently trying to use science! The fools.
Has Greenland been warmer in the near past?
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
“Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the pre-1955 temperature average”.
“To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930.”
Has the Arctic been warmer in the recent past? From page 50 of the 2004 Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment (ACIA 2004).
“Recent Studies in Siberia have established conclusively that trees were present across the entire Russian Arctic, all the way to the northernmost shore, during the warm period that occurred about 8000-9000 years ago, a few thousand years after the end of the last ice age. Remains of frozen trees still in place on these lands provide clear evidence that a warmer arctic climate allowed trees to grow much further north that they are now.”
Fourtanier E and Barron J.A, 2000, . Data Report: Intra-Annual Variability
of the Diatom Assemblages; Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program,
Scientific Results, Vol. 169S 3AT HOLE 1034B (SAANICH INLET) NEAR 9 KA1
Bornhold, B.D., and Firth, J.V. (Eds.),
During the hypsithermal warming of the early Holocene (~10–6 ka),
climatic conditions throughout much of northern North America were warmer and drier than those of the present (Pielou, 1991; Hebda and Whitlock, 1997), largely as a result of increased solar insolation, which peaked between 10 and 9 ka at 65°N (Berger and Loutre,1991). Temperatures are estimated to have been 2° to 4°C warmer than today for most of this interval, reaching a maximum between ~9 and 7 ka (Hebda and Whitlock,1997). According to Heusser (1983) and Heusser (1985), rapid warming occurred at ~10 ka in southwestern British Columbia with summer conditions that were drier and as warm or warmer than today lasting until ~6 ka.
Clague and Mathewes (1989) report that treeline elevation in the
southeastern coast mountains of British Columbia reached elevations that were between 60 and 130 m higher than today between 9.1 and 8.2 ka.
Thompson et al. (1993) argue that the driest conditions (period of maximum summer drought) of the Holocene were reached in western North America at 9 ka. The warmer and drier conditions of this Holocene thermal maximum were gradually replaced by cooler and wetter conditions (Hebda, 1995; Hebda and
Whitlock, 1997).
G. James West, 2003, A Late Pleistocene-Holocene Pollen Record of
Vegetation Change from Little Willow Lake, Lassen Volcanic National Park,California, 2003 PACLIM Conference Proceedings.
Between 13,500 and 12,500 14C yr BP, the climate at Little Willow Lake was more seasonal, similar to the climates of high elevations within the Great Basin today. Conditions were warmer than today between 9,000-3,100 14C yr BP, with the warmest period between ca. 9,000-7,500 14C yr BP.
Andreev A, P Tarasov, G Schwamborn, B Ilyashuk, E Ilyashuk, A Bobrov,
V J. Kaiser 2005, A 70-kyr sea surface temperature record off southern Chile (Ocean Drilling Program Site 1233) Paleoceanography, Vol. 20, PA4009,The SSTs reach a maximum of 15.6 C in the early Holocene (~11 to 9 kyr B.P.) and generally decrease thereafter, reaching the modern SST (~14 C) in the late Holocene (Figure 3b). A warmer and drier-than-today climate over southwestern South America in the early Holocene was also recorded on the adjacent land [e.g., Massaferro and Brooks, 2002; Moreno and Leo´n, 2003; Abarzu´a et al., 2004], and even in the low latitudes, e.g., in the Huascara`n ice core [Thompson et al., 1995].
So it seems to me temperatures have been higher in the not too distant past than today.
Schiller – “There is a consensus that gorebal warmingers are seeking to establish a choke-hold on the world’s free economies by punishing the production of energy.”
No we are trying to get across the revolutionary notion that a finite system has limits. Producing energy has consequences ie: there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is not a lefty conspiracy so you cannot have your third plasma TV but a recognition that, enormous the Earth’s systems may be, they do have limits and we are pushing on one of them. We cannot simply externalise the cost of energy and imagine that if we ignore it it will go away. The greenhouse gas from producing our energy is changing the climate.
Another limit is the supply of the fossil fuel. Even an body such as the IEA
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/iea20070707.pdf
” Much rests on the definition of which segment of global oil production is deemed to be at or approaching peak. Certainly our forecast suggests that the non-OPEC, conventional crude component of global production appears, for now, to have reached an effective plateau, rather than a peak.
Having attained 40 mb/d back in 2003, conventional crude supply has remained unchanged since and could do so through 2012. While significant increases are expected from the FSU, Brazil and sub-Saharan Africa, these are only sufficient to offset declines in crude supply elsewhere. Put another way, all of the growth in non-OPEC supply over 2007-2012 comes from gas liquids, extra heavy oil, biofuels (and, by 2012, 145 kb/d of coal-to-liquids from China). As overall non-OPEC liquids capacity increases, this plateau reduces the share of non-OPEC conventional crude supply from 77% in 2000, to 74% in 2006 and 67% in 2012.
While there might be a temptation to extrapolate this trend, citing a peak in conventional oil output, a degree of caution is in order. Firstly, the concept of ‘conventional’ oil changes with time, technology and economics. In the early 1970s, much offshore production was deemed unconventional, but this portion of global supply has since grown to account for 30% of the total. Evolving economies of scale and infrastructure development could do the same for GTL, oil sands and ultra-deepwater reserves in the future, shifting today’s unconventional resource into tomorrow’s conventional supply category.
Moreover, rapidly-growing condensate and NGL supply is scarcely ‘non-conventional’ in a technical sense now. We also note that for certain regions, notably the FSU and West Africa, the turn of the current decade is likely to mark a hiatus in crude supply growth. Strong growth is expected to resume here towards the middle of the next decade. Whether this will be sufficient to offset the declines expected for mature OECD crude supply, preventing overall decline for non-OPEC, is less easy to predict.
Finally, we note that focussing on non-OPEC crude alone is a rather selective way of considering the sustainability of global oil production. Peak or plateau production is frequently taken as shorthand for impending resource exhaustion. While hydrocarbon resources are finite, nonetheless issues of access to reserves, prevailing investment regime and availability of upstream infrastructure and capital seem greater barriers to medium-term growth than limits to the resource base itself.”
is saying Peak Oil in anything but those terms. There are limits despite economics attempts to imagine them away.
Jeez Tobes – it’s good to see a bit of the ol’ cut & paste. Since Rog & Davey have had me on the paste diet I’ve been pining away.
The bit you missed though was that the sea level rose 5 metres in that period and the authors themselves say it firmly puts the emphasis then on Antarctic ice sheet instability.
Also CO2 levels and therefore temperature hasn’t peaked yet by a long shot.
David – the 2007 Christy paper suggests that models and data are not the same. Furthermore, there is a warm bias in the near surface temperature data, which would help the models, but wouldn’t do anything to help the alarmism derived from the surface data. The stratospheric cooling is at least partly the result of Ozone depletion, rather than CO2.
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
“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.”
There was a fall in solar activity during the global cooling of the 1940’s to 1970’s, followed by a small rise. Depending who you talk to, the sun is as active as it has been for 1,000 or 8,000 or 11,000 years.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Second Draft chapter 2, page 30, says:
However, over the same period SO2 emissions have been increasing significantly from Asia which is estimated to currently emit 17TgSyr-1 (Streets et al., 2003) and from developing countries (e.g., Boucher and Pham, 2002). The net result of these combined regional reductions and increases leads to uncertainty in whether the global SO2 has increased or decreased since the 1980s (Lefohn et al., 1999; Van Aardenne et al., 2001; Boucher and Pham, 2002),
The above was changed for the final version of AR4.
Nir 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.”
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.”
The Hockey Stick:
In their summary of the change in consensus over the hockey stick, von Storch and Zorita (VZ) at first did not mention our work, then, in light of criticism, they dismissed our contributions as minimal and largely irrelevant.
We note with some pride that the NAS took a very different and more favorable view of our work, even crediting us with a revival of research on fundamental methodological issues, saying :
“A second area of criticism focuses on statistical validation and robustness. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies. These and other criticisms, explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter, raised concerns that led to new research and ongoing efforts to improve how surface temperature reconstructions are performed. (p.110)”
While we are pleased that some of our observations, in particular, about verification statistics and non-robustness, have attracted academic interest (e.g. from Bürger), it was not our intent to develop methodological innovations or tell paleoclimatologists how to do their job.
Our initial objective was simpler: despite the prominence of the MBH98 reconstruction, no one seemed sure how it was done, and nobody had verified the results. Did the reconstruction possess the claimed “statistical skill”? Did it have the claimed “robustness” to the presence/absence of all dendroclimatic indicators? Had the proxies been “rigorously” selected according to objective criteria?
Notwithstanding claims in the MBH papers (e.g. verification r2 skill as shown in MBH98 Figure 3), we showed the answer was, in every case, No. Early segments of the MBH reconstruction fail verification significance tests, a finding later confirmed by Wahl and Ammann and accepted by the NAS Panel. Far from being “robust” to the presence or absence of all dendroclimatic indicators, we showed that results vanished just by removing the controversial bristlecones, a result also confirmed by Wahl and Ammann and noted by the NAS Panel. We showed that the PC method yielded biased trends, an effect confirmed by the NAS and Wegman panels. We showed that pivotal PC1 was not a valid temperature proxy due to non-climatic contamination in the dominant-weighted proxies (bristlecones, foxtails). Here again the NAS panel concurred, saying that strip-bark bristlecones should not be used in climate reconstructions.
The VZ Comment did not refute our research, as we explained in our published Reply and here .
VZ criticize us for supposedly only publishing one peer-reviewed study; however, the IPCC AR4 cites five peer-reviewed studies by us, one of which contains the requested discussion of bristlecones.
While we believe that VZ’s views are unjustified, we believe that they hold them in good faith. Almost uniquely among climate scientists, they have been cordial to us both publicly and privately and we would have no hesitation in requesting either of them as a reviewer. However, we deserve more credit than they give us and we do not agree that their GRL Comment overturned our results.
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
Still no takers on why 1998 was the warmest year on record nearly 9 years ago as CO2 keeps on increasing by 2ppm a year. A bit too tough to answer huh?
Ender, At the time that Hughes, Bradley and Mann got to work, an email was circulating within the IPCC community which said ‘we have to get rid of the MWP’.. And they did.
Australia’s Dr. David Evans is very experienced in computer modelling, and is a very ethical climate scientist. In his presentation at “The Rehabilitation of CO2” he made the following very telling comment.
“The incident of the hockey stick graph is instructive here……Skeptics asked to see the tree ring data and the computer algorithm that produced the graph…..But the scientist who produced the graph (Mann?) would not make the computer algorithm public. “Confidential” he said. After two years of pressure and controversy he finally relented and made the algorithm public. It turns out that the algorithm INHERENTLY MADE A HOCKEY STICK GRAPH, DUE TO THE ASSUMPTIONS PROGRAMMED INTO IT. People found they could use any reasonable data, even RANDOM data, and the algorithm would always produce a hockey stick graph. The hockey stick was built into the algorithm, and has nothing to do with the input data! THE TREE RING DATA WAS IRRELEVANT!”
In the above extract, I have highlighted the words in upper case, not David.
Seem like gossip to me Paul (and Toby) just chit chat behind the main channels.
In radio engineering it’s called noise, however we learned to live with it and developed a term; signal to noise ratio (SN)
These days digital techniques filter much of it out
“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” etc
Hey we could be on home ground here
Renzo,
I’m largely in agreement with your proposition – to a point.
I concur that the real layman ( definitely my category ) does have to trust and rely on the experts. I can’t possibly hope to make an academically informed judgement on this one way or another and I’d guess that applies to most of those who’ve posted on this thread – with the obvious exception of David Jones.
However , this isn’t some arcane discussion of an obscure idea which by and large won’t have any effect on me.
If AGW theory is correct then whether we act or not, there will be a significant long term impact on the economy and our living standards.
If so , then I think it’s incumbent on those proposing change to meet the following tests;
1. Explain your reasoning clearly and simply – accept you have a responsibility to inform rationally not emotionally.
2. Welcome dissent. It may be uninformed or incorrect but no-one has the right to expect that their views should be beyond challenge
3. Freely acknowledge the inconsistencies and doubts. I keep hearing vague references to uncertainty and paucity of information about climate change by those I suspect are eager to advance their rational bent. In that case , let’s hear about them. I’ve rarely heard an AGW proponent accept that not everyone questionning AGW is a crank or a “shill” ( amazing how that word is never applied to Gore ) . Some of those featured in TGGWS are experts in their field. To suggest they’re all part of some sinister corporate plot to fry us is absurd.
4. IMO the way the debate is conducted speaks volume about the honesty of the parties. If someone scorns all who are doubtful as irrational dimwits but then won’t countenance even a discussion about nuclear energy for example as a possible partial solution to CO2 emissions , then the clear impression gained is that they’re arguing politically not scientifically. In this vein , real scientists should see the damage done to their credibility by media distortions. Rational AGW proponents should be the first and loudest to object to exaggerated hype ; regardless of which side it comes from.
>Still no takers on why 1998 was the warmest year on record nearly 9 years ago as CO2 keeps on increasing by 2ppm a year. A bit too tough to answer huh?
Try the review. To quote.
“Further, it is disingenuous to expect that a monotonic increase in carbon dioxide will lead to monotonic increases in temperatures. The anthropogenic greenhouse effect overlays other natural climate changes such as those associated with volcanic activity and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, as well as other human induced climate changes..”
It actually turns out that 2005 and 1998 are equal warmest, and the start to 2007 is now running equal warmest no record (with 2002, I believe).
Jim mentions AGW advocates inability to discuss nuclear:
Here’s Kerry Emmanuel of hurricane and climate change fame – long discussed on this blog.
[I should point out I’m not trying to start up a debate on hurricanes or nuclear – simply illustrating how stereotyping is a problem.]
Schiller and Woody could do well to read the entire article.
He says in http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
“Especially in the United States, the political debate about global climate change became polarized along the conservative–liberal axis some decades ago. Although we take this for granted now, it is not entirely obvious why the chips fell the way they did. One can easily imagine conservatives embracing the notion of climate change in support of actions they might like to see anyway. Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power, and few can be happy about our current dependence on foreign oil. The United States is renowned for its technological innovation and should be at an advantage in making money from any global sea change in energy-producing technology: consider the prospect of selling new means of powering vehicles and electrical generation to China’s rapidly expanding economy. But none of this has happened.
Paradoxes abound on the political left as well. A meaningful reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions will require a shift in the means of producing energy, as well as conservation measures. But such alternatives as nuclear and wind power are viewed with deep ambivalence by the left. Senator Kennedy, by most measures our most liberal senator, is strongly opposed to a project to develop wind energy near his home in Hyannis, and environmentalists have only just begun to rethink their visceral opposition to nuclear power. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.”
To have a shot at microw’s poser:
(1) simply we shouldn’t expect a monotonic increase
(2) 1998 was very warm El Nino event
(3) a slight lessening of solar forcing reducing the overall total of GHG + solar ??
Hit me !
“”It actually turns out that 2005 and 1998 are equal warmest, and the start to 2007 is now running equal warmest no record (with 2002, I believe). “”
You need to quote your source.
Ah!!! 2005 the let’s review the figures to make them look warmer year. Still even if that was true the temperature HAS NOT increased in nearly nine years when we are constantly told that we are all goner fry. It’s also passing strange that when the skeptics suggest that there are just to many variables, chaos and uncertainties to predict or adequately explain Climate , the warmaholics revert to these very uncertainties to excuse their failed projections on what would happen as exampled by every report of the IPCC.
The thing that annoys me the most about warmaholics is that even when the real world does not co-operate there is always an out.
The joy for the skeptic is the certainty that what ever you warmaholics predict you will always be wrong, where as we, who believe that climate change is perfectly natural always get what we predict. More change, uncertainty, and the changing cycles to study .
Seriously, I can’t believe how you can have so much faith in AGW caused by CO2.There are just too many reasons where you will be proved wrong.
When you can tell me with certainty what exactly the weather will be tommorrow, next week or the coming season with a 90%plus accuracy I might begin to take you seriously. Until then keep scaring the pants of our children for no reason. I don’t know how you sleep at night.
Re: global temps – my understanding is that, 1998 was highest, but on a 2-year moving averages 2002/3 was the peak. Not that it proves anything anyway.
David – if you’re still lurking…
I find it surprising that you suggest that “It actually turns out that 2005 and 1998 are equal warmest…”
I thought that BoM officially has the following interpretation of global temperatures:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi
Has this changed? Is BoM now tying itself to the GISS version?
Also, do you remember our exchange WRT to the discrepancy between BoM’s mean temp for Australia and that from NOAA/NCDC (and consequently from GHCN which is also used by GISS) for December 2006?
http://i19.tinypic.com/4zbb11x.jpg
I still have not been able to find a good reason for this – do you have any further thoughts on this?
cheers
Arnost
Couldn’t agree more Luke – stereotyping is a real problem.
eg. –
1. I accept AGW so I’m a neo-marxist one world government crank
OR
2. I’m sceptical about AGW so I’m a “denier”, flat earther/creationist or a corporate whore who’ll sing any song for a few bucks.
“I can’t believe how you can have so much faith in AGW caused by CO2” – ummmm errr … lotsa physics? jeez
“weather will be tommorrow, next week or the coming season with a 90%plus accuracy ” lordy me – the old weather/climate line – jeeeeezzz
“I don’t know how you sleep at night” mainly prostrate and not well worrying that lying contrarian scum might win 🙂
Sid – “Ender, At the time that Hughes, Bradley and Mann got to work, an email was circulating within the IPCC community which said ‘we have to get rid of the MWP’.. And they did.”
Complete rubbish – there was no such email and if the MWP was there it would be represented in the data.
Not restarting the hockey stick wars.
Re; BOM’s interest in graphs:
IPCC reviewer:
“Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading. (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-18)]”
IPCC response:
“Rejected – though note ‘divergence’ issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series.”
Please…. You guys on the left get so defensive that you mistate the facts and immediately resort to personal attacks.
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – Affiliation with Columbia Univeristy
http://www.apam.columbia.edu/apam/ap/nasa.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddard_Institute_for_Space_Studies
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
Columbia University – Radical Leftists
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25772
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218200,00.html
http://nymag.com/news/features/30629/
How Gavin Schmidt holds up when he can’t delete or censor comments
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e
>David – if you’re still lurking…
>
>I find it surprising that you suggest that “It actually turns out that 2005 and 1998 are equal warmest…”
>
>I thought that BoM officially has the following interpretation of global temperatures:
>http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi
There are two widely used global surface temperature datasets. One is by CRU the other by GISS. Given the uncertainties in both there is a clear inability to determine whether 2005 or 1998 is the warmer year.
Ender is a perfect poster-child for the neo-Marxist ignoramus crowd.
For instance, he or she views the universe as a “closed system.” Wow. Is there a cosmologist in the house?
We’re maybe possibly looking at the heat-death of the universe in how many billion years? And managing CO2 is gonna stave off that cataclysm for how long?
Ender and other neo-Marxists cling to the closed-system model because they’re xenophobes. They don’t want outsiders messing with stuff. They’re anti-globalists.
“Rejected” is the reply from the IPCC for any compelling evidence which runs counter to their ‘faith’.
Ditto, BoM.
Ditto CSIRO.
Ender – looks like they’re tiring. Only 2 neo-marxists from Schillsa and Siddles is reduced to one-liners.
Jim,
The criteria that you seem to suggest lies beyond your point of acceptance is readily available in the public domain. Its difficult to understand, and thats why most people do not actually bother to delve into it.
The problem is, that people like to have their own sense of ‘being intelligent’ skillfully manipulated. If you make someone feel smart, then you get them on side- ask a politician. This has been a problem for climate change scientists, because science doesn’t allow for this massaging of other peoples egos. Many of the people on this discussion group are basically too afraid to back down from the point where their knowledge and expertise ends (and you must realise this on occasions at the very least). The next step if you want to proceed is to do a LOT of work- much easier to reaffirm what you already believe?
A case in point being that this discussion IS well and truly arcane. There are very few people in this discussion who have anything close to the level of expertise required to sort through radiation physics, statistical climatology and fluid dynamics just to name a few. Evidence of this is readily available from the repeated moronic comments regarding computer modelling that keep popping up. The war against computer models is an ideological one- mathematicians don’t get that upset by numerical modelling- they just try to solve equations. Do the originators of the comment have any real grasp of numerical modelling? Or are they just rehashing ideological pap that someone else wrote somewhere? But of course, this type of enlightenment will only bring me more enemies rather than friends. BUt what the hay- you all seem pretty entrenched in your beliefs anyway.
If you look in any of the IPCC reports, you will see that uncertainties are discussed quite freely. The conclusions themselves do not paint attribution of climate change as a deterministic problem, its a probabilistic problem and can only ever be. Those that continue to ask for a deterministic conclusion- and there are many in this thread- just show how way out of their depth they really are. There is a thing called a burden of proof- if you applied the burden of proof you applied to climate science to everyday day life- well, you probably wouldn’t be able to step into your car each morning and drive off. Its a pathetic double standard and you are basically being dishonest with yourselves. To use the doctor analogy again, the other reason you are more likely to trust your doctor is because your own skin is on the line. With climate change is off in the future somewhere so you can lay it off onto another generation- thats the basic fact behind peoples ability to be selective with risk management. Woops, still not making any friends.
If you are willing to accept that experts should, in fact, be trusted- then why would you be unwilling to accept that their level of disclosure is not honest? Thats what trust is. Sadly, again, it has to come back to a conspiracy theory and some left-wing pact. You can aim all the back-of-the-envelope calculations you like at it- but you cannot escape the real truth. If you do not accept the collective wisdom of thousands of climate scientists (and spare the rubbish that the numbers aren’t true)- then you are taking that position because you do not trust them. And the various people here have repeatedly outlined why they do not trust them.
For climate science, the fact that C02 is a greenhouse gas is unfortunate. It means that the science held, quite incidentally, some accord with environmentalism, and for that climate scientists will be damned by those who vehemently oppose the left. Shoot the messenger.
Finally, regarding the whole faux debate regarding scientific scepticism- Again, the level of debate shows that very, very few of the you have spent extended professional time working in ‘hard’, physical science (searching for minerals just doesn’t count- fact). If you had, you would realise that physicists and mathematicians do not deliver seminars (not lectures) to anything but polite applause- every new result is subjected to instant scepticism in science. The absolute tragedy of the faux climate debate is that scientists are being FORCED- yes FORCED into an advocacy position because their work is under constant attach from people grossly unqualified to do so. If anything will eventually subvert the true scientific process, ironically it will probably be the continued babblings of the denialist machine. Scientists are now extremely careful in frankly discussing certain aspects of the science- uncertainties being one of them. This is not because they are hidden (read the publicly available Fourth Assessment Report) but because idiots continually and deliberately distort their views. You can only take so much of that before you are chastened. Peer review IS the basic critical scientific process, and the denialists continue to refuse to subject their work to this critical process. Then they have the nasty cheek to claim they represent scientific scepticism. Please, give me break.
I noticed Space has asked several times for the denialists to show their mettle and discuss the fingerprint evidence for natural climate variability. What did we get, nothing, and its not going to happen. Fact again. Just a continual attempt to drag the discussion back to incidental squabbling over science that is a decade old. If you really want to prove that this discussion group is not arcane- try following up with a serious discussion as suggested- pick something at random out of the IPCC report- you will be entirely surprised by the number of scientists that would be willing to provide information to intelligent questions.
But that won’t happen, and your perception of this discussion as scientifically relevant is a delusion. Sorry if that doesn’t massage your sense of intelligence, but science doesn’t work that way.
Ciao.
Renzo – well said and an insight into the science process
but the problem is that ordinary citizens will be asked to vote on this matter. It is a major issue of some pith and moment. Introduction of carbon taxes or mandatory targets will directly affect people’s hip pockets.
Voters normally opt for better standards of living and affluence if it’s on offer. Does anyone vote for austerity.
So this is where the cognitive dissonance kicks in – how can I as a law-abiding citizen with a family going about my daily business be stuffing the planet’s atmosphere. Hey I saved hard for that car – you now want me not to drive it? The family have been a lot happier in summer since we installed the split air-con unit. You want me to turn it off? It goes against all we know.
So we may not like or accept the policy response. In this situation it becomes easy to shoot the science message and assume by default there’s something wrong with it.
How many are prepared to be honest and they accept the science message but alas are not prepared to take a significant economic slug or lifestyle change to fix it. Can’t face the medicine sorry.
Luke, I agree, the situation is indeed extremely difficult- which is why the deliberate and organised muddying of the waters is particularly damaging.
Of course, despite my rant- it would be foolish to think that everyone would simply trust in the scientific process or the scientists. It would also be naive to think that people would only ask legitimate critical questions and not attempt to confuse the argument. As I said in my previous post, and others have pointed out- the implications of the science are grave, and the vested interests many.
It is interesting though that this all comes out as some assault on capitalism and ‘our way of life’. If anyone is running around like chicken little, it is not the climate scientists (after all they propose that the problem is fixable)- it is those that continue to push the line that reducing carbon pollution will somehow end western society as we have come to know it.
I am not being glib about the challenges of retooling aspects of energy production and the economy (if that is indeed the way to go about it- note, I am not an economist and defer to considered judgement)- but are we so helpless as humans that we cannot respond to challenges?
Perhaps the real fear of the future does not lie with the scientists after all.
I’ll leave most of that Renzo – not sure where you’re going with it most of it – but three quick points;
1. I accept that ” trust the experts ” is a sensible practice but it’s not foolproof – look at Iraq.
2. My point about both sides inability to freely acknowledge inconsistencies applied to the public debate not to the IPCC.
3. Peer review – according to Wegman at least – doesn’t appear to guarantee objective assessment. Perhaps sceptical scientists ( being in the minority ) don’t believe they’ll get a fair go from the establishment?
Good post renzo: In my day we did a lot of measurements of one kind or another for industry rather than government or science but in the total of it all we only gained a better perspective. In the end we had to run the plants regardless of disputes and uncertainties but a lot becomes instinctive. Simple references become important though in any form of navigation. Each to their own hey … no; some must be universal.
Systems of recognition are dotted with casualties but some paths are well worn then there is a safety factor.
Jim: from experience some scientists by comparison to say engineers don’t know when to dig in so they become fragile in their work despite the fact they may be very good at what they want to do.
I remain in aw of a handful of researches who were so multi skilled they could do virtually anything. Essentially they each moved out of uni and became the most practical people around at the time.
The big questions for us at the grass roots is do these talented individuals function well in teams and can they teach us beyond our own experience. I reckon Jim there is still much to be said for our collective wisdom in all newer science
Jim, your points are valid, but its a matter of reasonable perspective.
The situation in Iraq is surely not a reasonable comparison. The whole thing was secretive and still is. The basic facts were based on the ‘intelligence’ of relatively very few. It was never placed in the public domain. The decision making process was rushed.
In contrast we have spent years making no decision on CO2 pollution. The process has been transparent compared to almost any public interest issue and the knowledge base extremely broad.
Peer review, in my experience, is not an iron clad guarantee of objectivity. However it is a good system- papers are subject to multiple examination and there is a right of response- and the process goes on until resolved. While one paper may slip through- it is difficult for the science to become seriously misguided if many people are looking at the problem (consensus if you will).
The process is made robust if critical claims are subjected to the peer review process. This is what keeps the system honest and healthy. A perusal of the four IPCC reports shows that many, many papers have been dedicated to supporting or refuting claims in climate science. It is those that do not submit to the review process (continually) that one must be suspicious of (unless, again you have a conspiracy theory going on).
It also allows people to be more comfortable about discussing uncertainty- the environment needs to be intelligent. Hostile is OK, and most good male scientists have probably had hostile characters- but straight down the line and not deceptive.
The Durkin film is a classic point- what peer reviewed paper would be allowed to be chopped and changed- bits taken in, bits taken out, a version here, a version there, and then presented with the same ultimate conclusion? Very very iffy.
Renzo,
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the Iraq comparison ( politics aside ).
It’s very relevant IMO when considering actions Governments take based on the advice of the experts – and the concensus on WMD was virtually 100%.
Agree with your other comments – I’m generally a supporter of the view that faced with the choice between a conspiracy and a stuff up, I’ll go with the stuff up everytime.
Renzo..”This is what keeps the system honest and healthy”….Like Mann “peer reviewing” his work on the Hockey Stick, as an IPCC reviewer.
Suppose you think that is honest behaviour on hte part of the IPCC and Dr. Mann… Apparently David Jones, and the BoM condones it as honest behaviour.
Of course Sid’s judgement and scientific insight are quite good – that’s why he’ll back someone like Morner. Not worth two bob Sid.
Sid. Back to the hockey stick? Hmm… didn’t think I mentioned the hockey stick in any of my posts. You must get tired pushing that barrow. Just to reiterate, I see from the thread that it has already been pointed out that the Mann study has been repeated by at least 9 others. If you want to flog a dead horse go for it. But I refuse to play this childish game regarding Mann. Update your science.
In general on reviewing.
I take it by your comment that you are casting aspersions on the peer review process and stating… what exactly.. that peer review isn’t worth a thing and we should not be suspicious of those that refuse to submit to this process? Sounds funny to me.
The IPCC report is a review/synthesis of published work- and lead (as opposed to leading) scientists must be appointed to oversee the whole process of creating a synthesis. If you are going to choose experts, as you should, to prepare a synthesis of the whole field as it stands- then chances are that their personal work will be included. Multiple leads are chosen for this process to avoid the direct conflict of interest you are talking about. In addition, the IPCC report is open for anyone to comment on before publication, and many denialists do participate. Its also why the wording is, in the end, quite cautious- its a consensus report. If you have a problem with it you are back to the conspiracy theory again- which is your right of course, but you should really state your paranoia in your post rather than posting some open ended question.
The papers that are subjected to the IPCC process are ALREADY peer reviewed and published in scientific journals. You cannot review your own paper for publication in a journal. Unless maybe its “energy and environment’ they have their own rules.
So Renzo, the fact that greenland was considerably warmer between 1920 and 1930 than it is today, and in the twentieth century, post 1955 has been cooler than pre 1955 doesn t raise any questions? The fact that the MWP gets turned into a myth doesnt make you question the religion? (what MWP you say!?) Does temperature follow co2 or does co2 follow temperature historically? Why does Gore need to produce a documentary that is clearly propoganda? How could ‘live earth’ really expect us to believe in the urgency to fix co2 emissions when it has as its slogan a ‘nuclear free planet’? …….if it is really a problem then all potential solutions have to be considered surely?
There are Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs reliant on AGW, how much is being spent on the denialist side? Why is every report that is anti AGW being funded by self interested parties who are clearly biased, yet advocates of AGW are not allowed to have their motives questioned?
Jim: Tell me the origin of your conspiracy and stuff up as I can’t see a valid basis for either in these circles.
Gavin,
I was responding to Renzo’s comments about conspiracy;
“It is those that do not submit to the review process (continually) that one must be suspicious of (unless, again you have a conspiracy theory going on).”
For the benefit of BOM, Wag TV email to Carl Wunsch:
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
Toby – “The fact that the MWP gets turned into a myth doesnt make you question the religion?”
The MWP has never been turned into a myth. There are legitimate questions as to whether it was global in extent or confined to Northern Europe. There is also no evidence that it was warmer than present temperatures. MBH98 was the first real attempt to resolve the proxy data and they turned up the noise suppression, for want of a better word, really high so the MWP was not prominent. Later studies, compiled with the benefit of MBH98, were able use lower values and the MWP reappeared however in none of them is it warmer than the present.
Ender:
“Notwithstanding claims in the MBH papers (e.g. verification r2 skill as shown in MBH98 Figure 3), we showed the answer was, in every case, No. Early segments of the MBH reconstruction fail verification significance tests, a finding later confirmed by Wahl and Ammann and accepted by the NAS Panel. Far from being “robust” to the presence or absence of all dendroclimatic indicators, we showed that results vanished just by removing the controversial bristlecones, a result also confirmed by Wahl and Ammann and noted by the NAS Panel. We showed that the PC method yielded biased trends, an effect confirmed by the NAS and Wegman panels. We showed that pivotal PC1 was not a valid temperature proxy due to non-climatic contamination in the dominant-weighted proxies (bristlecones, foxtails). Here again the NAS panel concurred, saying that strip-bark bristlecones should not be used in climate reconstructions.”
New Mann paper here:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MRWA-JGR07.pdf
Steve McIntyre:
“I noticed that Mann has continued to use his PC methodology without changing a comma, notwithstanding the strong statement of Wegman that his PC methodology was simply “wrong” and the statement by the NAS panel that it should be avoided (And North’s testimony at the House E&C hearing that he agreed with Wegman) In effect, Mann is saying that, using his PC1, he can “get” a hockeystick not only with the Partial Least Squares regression of MBH98, but with the variation of RegEM (and I recall US pointing out some odd de-centering of his RegEM method.)
It’s one thing for Mann to keep using his PC methodology in the face of criticism from the Wegman and North panels, but why did the JGR reviewers acquiesce in the continued use of Mannian PCs? Pretty pathetic. Actually, it’s not just the JGR reviewers – Mann’s PC1 has been used recently by Osborn and Briffa 2006, Hegerl et al 2006 and Juckes et al – it’s as though the Team is brazenly showing solidarity with Mann to spite Wegman and others.”
The word “bristlecone” is not mentioned anywhere in Mann’s new paper. So it’s a strange sort of “robustness” that Mann is proving. It’s already been agreed that, if you take the bristlecones out of the network, you can’t get a HS. So the original claim that the reconstruction is “robust” to the presence/absence of dendroclimatic indicators is false, although you won’t see a hint of that in this paper. Again, what were the reviewers doing? This has been a topical issue – why didn’t they ask Mann to consider it?”
Well Paul thank heavens then that we’re not in the MWP as with the greenhouse forcing we have now it would be even hotter. Phew !
Ender doesn’t want the ‘hockey stick wars’ re-ignited. Tough luck. The IPCC has re-ignited the issue by bringing the hockey stick graph and associated “data” back to life, like a ‘multiple re-entry vehicle’, in it’s latest Report.
Mann brazenly boasts that he can get a hockey stick graph any way.
Steve Mcintyre asks (above), “What were the Reviewers doing”. Ha ha. The ‘global warming’ peer review process is a total laugh. Lacks any credence of integrity. Is a closed shop. A case of ‘you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.’
Of course Mann can get a hockey stick graph. As stated above, he has ‘not changed a comma’. As David Evans pointed out, he built the hockey stick into the algorithm, and that is what the programme produces regardless of the input data.
The IPCC and it’s mates in brazen solidarity, are closing ranks around Mann, and the lot of them are not only thumbing their nose at the NAS and Wegman panels, but also at the world community at large.
Luke – we’re in the Modern Warm Period, added to by the small effect of the ‘enhanced greenhouse.’
Says a non publishing professional whinger, a computer programmer and our uncle Sid.
So interestingly Sid wants some serious peer review. But Sid as you know it’s any old iron, any old iron, any, any old iron.
Take the latest Lavoisier meeting for example. Now do these guys do any peer review. Does any old bilge count? How can Prof Carter allow himself to be published alongside stuff like Archibald has put out. He wouldn’t let one his undergrads get away with it.
But for your average denialists any old iron will do. Doesn’t have to be correct. I mean have a gander at Lavoisier and NZ CLimate Coaltion’s sites. There’s literally anything there. Where’s the uniformity in use of the flamethrower. There isn’t any. Any nonsense will do.
From the NZ Coalition site:
“The Coalition encourages the reading of a wide variety of opinion and information on climate change, from many differing viewpoints. We provide links to a range of such material, including some older writings that have historic significance in the public or scientific debate. For some items, we also provide an editorial comment or correction. Responsibility for the accuracy of the pieces that we link to rests with their authors and the publication in which they appear. Refereed scientific papers are widely regarded as the most reliable source of information on climate change. Note, however, that refereeing, even by the most prestigious of journals, is no guarantee of ultimate correctness. Rather, it represents an editorial quality control process that affirms an article to be free of obvious errors and a worthy scientific contribution. Many, and probably most, refereed scientific papers contain at least small errors, ambiguities or faulty logic. Therefore, they should – almost as much as opinion editorials – be perused as if they bore the label: “reader beware”.
i.e. expect Any old iron !
Lavoisier are still recommending Daly. Stacks of Daly’s stuff has been shown to be utterly wrong. So why are Lavoisier still pushing it.
http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.html
Any old iron !
Do these sceptic groups have any duty of care? Any quality control whatsoever ? Or does the end justify the means?
Paul – not if you’ve got your own copy of http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/ , a sturdy crucifix and some quality garlic.
It’s night night for solar I’m afraid.
Incidentally also see the Society have put their own guide. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
on misleading information.
Luke, you just thrash about like a European Carp on the bank. Lashing out, pouring invective on anyone who opposes ‘the faith’.
Back to the point. Do you defend Mann and the IPCC on their use and re-use of this faulty graph? Or do you believe that the graph is not faulty? If so do you believe the graph is an accurate representation of climate over the past 1,000 years?
Just for the record.
Luke – I downloaded a copy as soon as it was published online this morning:
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature
BY MIKE LOCKWOOD
AND CLAUS FROHLICH
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
Conclusions:
There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attributio n studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
Sid – have a look in the mirror !
Paul – yep !
Luke – Nothing new – a much hyped paper that defies IPCC 2007 low LOSU. 50 years now down to 20.
Also, another prediction of lower solar activity to come:
Nevertheless, it is possible that the decline seen since 1985 marks the beginning of the end of the recent grand maximum in solar activity and the cosmogenic isotope record suggests that even if the present decline is interrupted in the near future, mean values will decline over the next century. This would reduce the solar forcing of
climate, but to what extent this might counteract the effect of anthropogenic warming, if at all, is certainly not yet known.
Whooo haa! Too many posts from Paul then Luke, thinking their referees are refining the debate. IMO both add to the confusion with lordly appearances throughout this thread perhaps hoping the latest link will end the contest. Will the Lockwood/ Frohlick study end it? I doubt it with a plague of fresh posts likely to swamp it we must move on quickly in anticipation of new threads.
There were other angles besides this barrage over science
Back to Jim: There is no “conspiracy” except perhaps in the mind of Sid who must be another contrary kiwi in the post Daly era.
Jim; some of these islanders were born with a perceptual problem; everything in the world was theirs for the taking. While the rest of us struggle with the science as Mother Nature throws fresh problems in our face they have it all conquered in a flash. They know no boundaries in truth either and that makes them hard to stop.
Ask me sometime about arriving on the Mainland for the umpteenth time. Let’s say ignorance abounds outside the mainstream. I guess there was a solid wall of learning to be had in every big city.
Certainly we have ignorance today about causes and cures regarding climate change, this ranges from top to bottom in our society. Conspiracy theories indicate only an individual inability to handle the necessary learning. Clubs based on these theories are merely backward steps in response to uncertainty. Unfortunately blogs can be full of it.
Good management sometimes requires aggressive steps with out the necessary science. We have battles, winners and losers, be careful choosing sides. Society is full of casualties but life should go on. Contemplate your next vehicle wisely.
Forecasting in the past has been somewhat entertaining; I expect it will remain that way. That’s human nature. However any serious media production on the question of climate change that totally ignores human impact on this planet becomes pure entertainment.
Besides, there have always been other reasons for society to pick up on our collective abuse of stored energy and material resources. Regardless of the climate threat we have an obligation to maintain the balance on and near the spot we live on. Common sense went out the window with a lot of “cheap” manufacturing.
Slave labour is bound to return in new forms of daily handicaps and future debt. Considering say transport in terms of time and energy, its ignorance not conspiracy that drives us to drink. Let’s have any excuse though.
Minding human aggression in the environment has to become another factor.
Jennifer: I bet on the aggression score alone our ABC running this film tonight won’t help any part of the community. The cover on Times 2 this morning asks Who’s the fraud?
When it comes to the crunch, Luke wont defend Mann, the IPCC and their ‘Shonky Stick’.
Well Sid – I could – but Jen might want to open a Hockey Wars thread – Ender will scream – will be many many to and fros.
And you’d like to have a nice little chat would you given the way you play this process with rampant accusations that you won’t back up with anything but newspaper clippings.
I’m just recovering from the Morner bout. It seems to me Sid that you position is that we have a massive internional conspiracy involving 1000s of people, 100s of organisation across the globe who cannot be trusted. But a hardy handful of stalwarts are the only ones who really know – you’re at a position where you won’t accept anything that doesn’t suit you. See your closed mind approach response to the Morner rebuttal references. So what’s the point of any discussion. It’s simpler just to insult each other. Unless of course you’d rather it be otherwise.
Rebuttals from “the club”.
Dr.Nils-Axel Morner is one of the world’s leading experts on sea-levels. What’s his crime?
1. He dared to question the poppycock on rising sea-levels. And…More importantly,
2.He exposed the IPCC falsifying a data set.
Uh no Sid – and he ain’t the only player – he’s what we call “wrong” on the Maldives issue.
He’s exposed nothing more than being past it. You have do what we call “read” the material I have provided to find out what we call “why” which you haven’t what we call “done”. I’m afraid you’ve backed a lame horse old son. I can’t believe you still haven’t clued on.
Sid I find it incredible that you’re nitpicking in infinite detail on Hockey Stick. So without anything checking you’re decided to accept Morner’s view with utterly no Googling around to see if they’re are any other views or explanation. Why coz you’re predisposed to IPCC conspiracy theories.
So instead of wasting our time why don’t you undertake the most elementary checking to see if there are any other views (as they say in parliament question time).
You’ll find he doesn’t know how to process his data and other such issues (as I’ve been saying). Now do I have to do your homework for you? I ask you?
A previous from from>
Morner (2004) shows a plot (his Fig. 2) of sea-level variations from October 1992 to April 2000, based on TOPEX/Poseidon data, ostensibly showing that there is no rise in GMSL. This is described as being “raw data”, and appears to be cycle-by-cycle (10 day) averages of global mean sea-level. Unfortunately, there is neither a description of the data that were used to produce this figure, nor a reference to its source. In order to be a meaningful estimate of global mean sea-level, a number of corrections would have been necessary, including wet tropospheric path delay, dry tropospheric path delay, ionospheric path delay, sea-state bias and tides, but it is unclear which, if any, of these well-known and understood corrections have been applied.”
Now following your lead I should be saying “oooo oooo if it was a corporate prospectus he should be locked up blah blah blah.” It’s simply poor science and he’s wrong. None of this criminal bolsh. It’s the science process at work – he’s been sloppy and incorrect. Now having settled that science moves on.
The above critique by David Jones and ors. from the NCC,BoM raises one issue in particular, relating to the ‘hockey stick’.
In claiming that the GGWS is “seriously misleading”, they present amongst other data, a graph, in Fig. 3, titled ‘Northern Hemisphere temperature recostruction (from IPCC 2007)’.
It would appear that this graph is in fact Dr. Mann’s discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph, re-incarnated, or risen from the ashes like the pheonix! (with a little less ‘noise’ repressant).
When subjected to some real review processes outside “the club”, (NAS and Wegman panels), Mann’s work failed the test.
Could it be that David Jones and ors. and the National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, have been “seriously misleading”, in using this graph?
I think you’re seriously misleading in your one line summaries of the NAS and Wegman panels. (as usual)
I also remember that you challenged BoM on worst on record rainfall during recent drougt and we’re still awaiting your rebuttal analysis too.
Paul – “we’re in the Modern Warm Period, added to by the small effect of the ‘enhanced greenhouse.”
This is a fascinating statement. It would suggest that you have worked out some way to partition the relative forcing agents that act upon climate in order to calculate the relative contributions to global mean temperature change.
To my knowledge this has been done only by the optimal fingerprint method papers, which are discussed in the detection and attribution chapter of the IPCC FAR. All such attempts have showed greenhouse gases to be the dominant forcing over the last 50 years. And what do you know- you don’t even need to do past temperature reconstructions to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gases, or to work out that the climate is sensitive to greenhouse gases. Surely enough to cause serious concerns about CO2 pollution. No? Maybe it doesn’t suit your politics then.
Paul, could you please provide the methodology you have used to partition the forcing response. I expect a reply, you were pretty firm in that statement, not a hint of uncertainty about it.
Paul – “we’re in the Modern Warm Period, added to by the small effect of the ‘enhanced greenhouse.”
This is a fascinating statement. It would suggest that you have worked out some way to partition the relative forcing agents that act upon climate in order to calculate the relative contributions to global mean temperature change.
To my knowledge this has been done only by the optimal fingerprint method papers, which are discussed in the detection and attribution chapter of the IPCC FAR. All such attempts have showed greenhouse gases to be the dominant forcing over the last 50 years. And what do you know- you don’t even need to do past temperature reconstructions to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gases, or to work out that the climate is sensitive to greenhouse gases. Surely enough to cause serious concerns about CO2 pollution. No? Maybe it doesn’t suit your politics then.
Paul, could you please provide the methodology you have used to partition the forcing response. I expect a reply, you were pretty firm in that statement, not a hint of uncertainty about it.
In terms of the Hockey Stick issue, if you are trying to argue some moral equivalence (thanks Rog) between that debate and the Swindle graphs I suggest there are none.
This is not a debate about choice of statistical analysis, choice of data, interpretation of analysis – To quote BoM’s BAMOS critique “Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science”.
Mann et al received some criticism in the NAS and Wegman investigations but the net result of that is that the conclusions broadly stand with somewhat less certainty. And certainty is a statistical term here.
I consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy to be a fair review.
The 4AR has since proposed:
Current SPM statement from 2007 (page 10)[54]
““Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR, particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12 to 14th, 17th, and 19th centuries. Warmer periods prior to the 20th century are within the uncertainty range given in the TAR.”
And there is more in the detailed chapters.
Note the use of defined terms “likely” and “very likely” which are defined by the SPM.
So it put the reconstructions in a marginally more uncertain state in what is a field with obvious uncertainty and lack of data. You’ll also note also the Hockey Stick curves do have error bounds.
So if it turned out with 100% quality paleo proxies that the MWP global environment was as warm as the present with solar forcing alone – imagine what it would like with an additional greenhouse forcing of 370ppm CO2 or even worse a high-end SRES scenario CO2 forcing at stabilisation would be like on top of that – wow !!
I noticed that David Jones gave “An Inconvenient Truth” 4.9 out of 5 “There were a number of simplifications but at no time did I feel that he was moving outside the climate science knowledge envelope.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/an-inconvenient-truth-or-gores-opportunism-you-decide/2006/09/08/1157222329040.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
So while he complains about the outdated graphs in TGGWS, the outdated Hockey Stick was ok.
Why no statement from BAMOS along the lines of “An Inconvenient Truth goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science”.
That’s just as true as the same statment they made about TGGWS.
Considering how many flaws there were with an inconvenient truth, if he is able to give 4.9/5 to it, then we have to think little of any of David Jones’ opinions me thinks….the same goes for any of the advocates for AIT who rate it highly…they clearly let their bias obscure their reasoning. Love or hate TGGWS at least it was not concocted in a way that yelled ‘propoganda’ like AIT.
“not concocted in a way that yelled ‘propoganda'”
I just spat my coffee over my monitor after that one. ROFTL.
Very entertaining mop up after the show, thanks to Tony
Renzo – you ask bizarre questions to which the even IPCC have no answer. Most seem to agree that an iconc doubling of CO2 would add around 1C to global temperatures (all things being equal),anymore depends on unverifiable climate models assuming positive feedback. Nir Shaviv has pubished his empirical estimate. If climate sensitivity to CO2 wasn’t low, then the earth would have been very different to how it actually was in the past.
I think you’re out of date with the ’50 years’ argument.
Paleo work would would give at least 1.5C and a best fit of 2.9 C for 2x CO2
What always concerns me on this subject is the comparisons that can be drawn between the proponents of opposing arguments in climate change and those associated with conficting religious ideals… particularly the level of vehemency and zeal used within the statements used to “prove” or “disprove” each particular theory.
At least now the public have had an opportunity to see something made that is based upon the opposing viewpoint to that of global warming.
The simple term itself “global warming” has been subtly adjusted in recent years to “climate change”. This being a much more politically convenient term, as is difficult to convince the public that “global warming” is responsible for some countries having had the coldest periods of weather on record.
I would like to refer an article in The Australian that I believe highlights that those viewed as “heretics” in science are more often than not the founders of the new belief. I have my own (and very Australian) comparison. The “discovery” of Helicobacter Pylori and its effect on the stomach. It took 26 years for the theory and findings of Robin Warren and Barry Marshall to become accepted fact. I need not remind anyone of the level of derision and attack that they both received in the early years…
The article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,22044046,00.html
S.
The silence of David Jones and ors. (who published the above critique on TGGWS), on the above questioning of their use of Mann’s hockey stick material, is noted on this thread.
This leaves one with the impression that they, and the NCC,BoM, above which they signed their names, supports, and continues to promote the data from the seriously misleading hockey stick graphs.
That they do this, while claiming that the GGWS is seriously misleading, is really quite breathless.
Further, it lowers one’s confidence in climate science, and brings into disrepute the NCC, BoM, a taxpayer funded Government Agency.
Sid – “The silence of David Jones and ors. (who published the above critique on TGGWS), on the above questioning of their use of Mann’s hockey stick material, is noted on this thread.”
No Sid it is not at all. Most of us are veterans of the Hockey Stick wars of a few years ago and do not want to restart them yet again. Silence does not imply anything other than the proxy studies have been EXHAUSTINGLY debated and other than the strange parallel universe where McIntyre exists the proxy studies including MBH99 are robust, stand up to scrutiny and give us an accurate picture of past climate as much as noisy, incomplete data can.
So give it up.
HELLO Sid – you have an answer from me !!
“seriously misleading hockey stick graphs” – how about explaining yourself for a change ? addressing my response above.
Sid you missed Williams on 666 as he cooked up some more film titles for that mob, Why women are inferior, Why whales make the best fertilizer for tobacco crops……..
Ooops wrong thread
Bad luck Ender.. As much as you and the AGW fraternity wish to bury the hockey stick, it has come back courtesy of the IPCC’s latest report.
That the IPCC has had to dredge up this thoroughly discredited and seriously misleading graph again, just shows the paucity of credible data they have to promote the cause.
That David Jones and co. at the BoM have to dredge up this thoroughly discredited and seriously misleading material, again shows the paucity of credible data they have available to promote their cause.
And thanks to Paul Williams for the pic. of Drs Pittock, Whetton and Jones viewing, adoring and endorsing Gore’s AIT.
That says it all…And explains the silence.
We’ve all heard the saying, “lies, damn lies and statistics”. The HS falls into the category of statistics that this saying embodies. Ender and Luke saying it was vindicated doesn’t make it so, no matter how often they repeat it.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and
that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”