There is a nice piece in The Australian this weekend by Christopher Pearson. He writes:
“Catastrophic predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”
She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”
Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”
Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.”
Duffy: “It’s not only that it’s not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there’s any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it’s put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary.”
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn’t support their case. “People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?”
Marohasy: “Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that’s what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
“There’s been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we’re going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling.”
Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”
Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
Duffy: “From what you’re saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable …”
Marohasy: “That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.”
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can’t be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate “climate refugees”.
Penny Wong’s climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.
It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian’s Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald’s version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that “we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics”.
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: “Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)”
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age’s version of the essay. The attribution reads: “Copyright Ian McEwan 2008” and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn’t there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at “absorbing inconvenient fact”?
[End of article]
It has made a bit of a splash in the blogshere:
Global Warming: Man Made or Just Another Weather Cycle?
Someone really needs to call Al Gore about this–and maybe the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee. From The Australian:
http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2008/03/global-warming.html
Many of the following blog links were found here:
http://tailrank.com/5510155/Climate-facts-to-warm-to
Untitled
instapundit.com
ENJOYING SPRINGTIME IN MINNESOTA: It’s sunny and warm here. UPDATE: But if you believe this, I could be chilly in the future: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”
http://instapundit.com/archives2/016796.php
Negative Feedback Limits Global Warming
deanesmay.com
Great little essay via Glenn : Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.
http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/03/22/negative-feedback-limits-global-warming/
Global Warming Ended Ten Years Ago
newsbusters.org
Despite the more hysterical predictions we’ve heard of late, the evidence continues to mount that if the earth was warming, it stopped quite some time ago .
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008/03/inconvenient-truth-global-warming-ended.html
“Climate facts to warm to”
soundpolitics.com
Global warming is usually Stefan’s beat, but this article is worth a read because it does so much to spell out the rational case for skeptics. Not necessarily of the notion that the Earth has recently experienced a period of warming, but skepticism of the notion that man is to blame, it’s all because of carbon dioxide, and the only rational course is too hamstring the economy through onerous public policies to address that narrow paradigm. To summarize the article, relying in significant part on information not disputed by the liberally acclaimed IPCC:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010417.html
Has the climate stopped warming?
tigerhawk.blogspot.com
Regular readers know that while I accept that greenhouse gases can, at the margin, warm the Earth’s climate, I am also skeptical that intensive regulation of greenhouse gases is necessary to avoid global catastrophe. Against that backdrop, I am justly accused of preferentially linking to articles and stories that suggest that cataclysm is neither visible nor predictable. So: the latest story that wonders whether the planet’s climate has stopped warming and possible explanations therefor.
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/03/has-climate-stopped-warming.html
Climate facts to warm to
uncommondescent.com
Read more Climate facts to warm to
Global Scamming
lewrockwell.com
Global warming, such as it was, stopped ten years ago. (Thanks to Heidi Wyss.)
No More Global Warming
strata-sphere.com
Just a reminder as we all wait for Spring to actually ‘sprung’ that from the high average temperature of 1998 to ten years later the Earth’s climate has cooled or plateaued. And don’t take my word for it (though there is no reason why you shouldn’t). Here is some interesting news on Global Warming (or the lack therein) Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
Untitled
antigreen.blogspot.com
Source
Collapse of the global warming paradigm
blog.freeny.org
“A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.” Read Climate facts to warm to
http://blog.freeny.org/?p=3103
Untitled
australian-politics.blogspot.com
Source
Blue Crab Boulevard
bluecrabboulevard.com Found 5 hours ago
Because the earth is not, in fact, warming, despite increased carbon emissions . Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2008/03/22/global-warming-er-never-mind/
Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming Ended Ten Years Ago
jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com
Despite the more hysterical predictions we’ve heard of late, the evidence continues to mount that if the earth was warming, it stopped quite some time ago .
New Age Rain
seablogger.com Found 19 hours ago
It’s raining with the kind of delirious thoroughness that one only sees in the tropics. This is the fourth major rain in the last six weeks, and the unseasonal recharge of the aquifers is most welcome. Still, along with the warmth of this winter, the rains seem to me a portent of more troublesome weather in the summer. Global warming is not required for an active hurricane season. In fact warming had already ceased during the busy years of 2004-5. I am pleased to see the facts getting more circulation, but it will take some time to wring the hysteria out of the media and the global elite — John McCain included.
Oh My Gosh, Were We Wrong About Climate Change?
kneedeepintheephemera.blogspot.com
Climate facts to warm to ,
http://kneedeepintheephemera.blogspot.com/2008/03/oh-my-gosh-were-we-wrong-about-climate.html
THE SATELLITE LOOKS DOWN..
atangledweb.squarespace.com
Fascinating article here on global warming, or the lack of it …it’s from an interview between journalist Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite , because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?” Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour.
PT’s Parking Blog
parkingtoday.typepad.com
I know, I know, it has little to do with parking, but I just couldn’t pass this up. You MUST read this article in the Australian. Basically is quotes a scientist, using UN and NASA data, as showing that global warming stopped in 1998 and in fact Global Cooling is now going on. HUH… This goes along with my theory that if politicians say something, believe the opposite. If this is true, what is the industry set up because of Global Warming going to do? What of carbon footprints or the SUV demise.
Northern hemisphere warming alarmingly
maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com
The snow and ice are melting fast. Spring must be here! It’s the time of year when the rich and famous seek riches from alarmism. My friends and I were starting up a company to sell palm trees to the Eskimos, but unfortunately recent satellite data indicate that warming stopped a decade ago . Dang! Our investment is OK though – we shorted Palm Tree Futures as a hedge, and might get filthy rich with those. Plus the government will pay us handsomely not to grow Palms on our experimental Massachusetts Palm farm.
“Global Warming” Must Read of the Day
targetrichenvironment.net
Earlier I posted about Little Cesar worrying about not being able to do his science project on “global warming” because he’s worried that Philadelphia will cut off his free wireless internet. It seems he won’t have to worry quite so much about it now. If you read the dialogue at the beginning, this is priceless ( link ): If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting. A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed.
Proponents Running for Cover as NASA Satellite Data Destroy Faulty Climate Models Used
managersrealm.com Found 10 hours ago
Co-host of Counterpoint Michael Duffy, recently interviewed Jennifer Marohasy, who is a “biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.” The interview took place on ABC Radio National. When Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth still warming?” Her response was: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.
Warming Ended A Decade Ago
oblogatoryanecdotes.com
Climate facts to warm to
Should Al Gore return his Nobel?
outrage.typepad.com Found 7 hours ago
Link: Climate facts to warm to | The Australian . CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return. Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
Climate facts to warm to
moneyrunner.blogspot.com Found 6 hours ago
Climate facts to warm to: The Earth is Cooling
Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker
gulf-coast-hurricanes.blogspot.com Found 6 hours ago
Is the Earth still warming?
Interesting new data on the global climate
eclipseweb.blogspot.com Found 6 hours ago
From
The Limits of Our Knowledge
pinotblogger.com Found 6 hours ago
And then today I stumbled across this , from an ABC Radio interview with an Australian biologist named Jennifer Marohasy: Duffy (the interviewer): “Is the Earth still warming?” Marohasy (the biologist): “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued.
LIBERALISM IS A SICKNESS, CONSERVATISM IS THE CURE
theillustratedconservative.blogspot.com Found 6 hours ago
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.” – The Australian In recent weeks we have seen the foundat
The Joy of the Merely Real
vitalaccuratethinking.blogspot.com Found 6 hours ago
Climate facts to warm to
Climate facts to warm to
lesliesrussell.wordpress.com Found 5 hours ago
Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference.
Is the Earth Still Warming
coolmel.typepad.com Found 5 hours ago
I just read this interview with Jennifer Marohasy from The Australian. Marohasy paints a different picture of the Global Warming story. Climate Change skeptics will almost certainly pick up and flaunt this story soon. Hat tip to Uncommon Descent for the link. Here’s an excerpt. “Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
Er….
jaycurrie.info-syn.com Found 4 hours ago
“That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.
BUT IF HUMANS AREN’T WARMING THE GLOBE… (via Jim Yates):
brothersjuddblog.com Found 41 minutes ago
Climate facts to warm to (Christopher Pearson, March 22, 2008, The Australian)
Bill Clinton Like McCarthy
muskegonpundit.blogspot.com Found 22 hours ago
The BIDINOTTO BLOG
bidinotto.journalspace.com Found 3 days ago
UPDATE , 2/22/08 — Other climate data contradict the global-warming hypothesis. I say “hypothesis” because the more the actual facts accumulate, the greater the temptation to demote it even from the category of “theory.”
Climate facts to warm to
globalwarmingskeptics.info
Global Cooling Goes Mainstream
poppypundit.wordpress.com
This story has popped up on Drudge and Instapundit. The Australian Broadcasting Company National Radio recently aired an interview with Dr. Jennifer Marohasy , on the subject of global warming. The interviewer, Michael Duffy — not Dr. Marohasy — brought up the question of whether or not the planet is still warming. Marohasy took advantage of the opening to present evidence indicating that the warming trend has actually reversed over the last decade. The interview veered into a discussion of the accuracy of the climate models that have served as the foundation of the current warming hysteria.
http://poppypundit.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/global-cooling-goes-mainstream/
Man Made or Just Another Weather Cycle?
redstateeclectic.typepad.com
Someone really needs to call Al Gore about this–and maybe the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee. From The Australian :
Inconventient
buttle.wordpress.com
facts . “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Who is Jennifer Marohasy?
This is a link to a broadcast from ABC Radio National of Australia regarding the recent global warming summit ignored by the media:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2191714.htmThis above link will direct you to either a real audio or windows media player, her segment begins at the 27:39 mark and continues to the 40:43 mark.
In summary, the earth has cooled in the last 10 years…interesting that CO2 has increased in this time.
Here is the print article link:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
http://handsacrosstheglacier.blogspot.com/2008/03/who-is-jennifer-marohasy.html
… and please add some more links to blog posts as you find them, in the comments section below.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Who is Jennifer Marohasy? – a woman armed with truth and determination, who stood up against doom merchants and false prophets, and calmed the fever winds of populist delusion, at the start of the 21st century.
She made the ocean subside also.
/ I might have screwed up the past tense, future tense thing a little – but give it time.
My goodness, good work Jennifer. You forgot my blog though:
If suddenly there were no more global warming…
Global Warming Watch
Hmmm. Here it is: If suddenly there were no more global warming… http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-suddenly-there-were-no-more-global.html
Wadard – your blog is still flogging the dead horse of the MSU UAH ‘correction,’ and the irrelevant fossil fuel smear.
“An artifact of the diurnal correction applied to LT has been discovered by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz (Remote Sensing Systems). This artifact contributed an error term in certain types of diurnal cycles, most noteably in the tropics. We have applied a new diurnal correction based on 3 AMSU instruments and call the dataset v5.2. This artifact does not appear in MT or LS. The new global trend from Dec 1978 to July 2005 is +0.123 C/decade, or +0.035 C/decade warmer than v5.1. This particular error is within the published margin of error for LT of +/- 0.05 C/decade (Christy et al. 2003). We thank Carl and Frank for digging into our procedure and discovering this error. All radiosonde comparisons have been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good. There was virtually
no impact of this error outside of the tropics.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.03Jan2008
Spencer and Christie have recently returned the favour by helping to corect the RSS data for Carl and Frank.
Sorry, had to cut this out and repaste it. It corresponds to something that I said earlier to Luke. Except that Ian McEwan said it ten times as well as I did.
“Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)”
The only part where I disagree with McEwan is where he describes the movements as “well meaning”. I tend to see them more as self agrandizing and “holier than thou” kinds of movements.
“”Is the Earth stillwarming?”She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference.”
I can’t believe you can say that with a straight face and call yourself a scientist.
Jennifer,
Do you have a cite for your discussion about the Aqua satellite results? I’ve been trying to track it down and the only thing I was able to find was a paper from 2004 by Minschwaner and Dessler which had some aspects of what you say in it but some important differences too.
The NASA temperature record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
There are several dips along the way to our current position, that are much larger than your claim of a ‘cooling phase’, including the 30 year dip from 1945. Every time, the temperature keeps going up beyond what it was before.
“January 9th Update: Dr. John Christy, the main overseer of the UAH dataset wrote to us to tell us that we had misinterpreted the size of the recent warm bias in the UAH lower tropopsheric MSU temperatures. In fact, in an entry dated January 3, 2008 in the UAH above-mentioned readme file , Dr. Christy explains that, as it turned out, there never was much of a warm bias in the UAH data from recent months, and that upon further investigation, they found that they were mistaken in their estimates of its magnitude made in their December 19, 2007 entry in the same readme file. Further, Dr. Christy goes on to explain that it is his belief that the large difference between the UAH and the RSS temperatures over the course of the past several months (see the bottom panel of our Figure 1 above) rests with some undiagnosed problem (resulting in a spurious cooling) with the RSS data over the tropics. Dr. Christy, thus stands by the UAH data, in its current form (as depicted in the top panel of our Figure 1), as the record that is most representative of conditions in the earth’s lower troposphere.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/08/musings-on-satellite-temperatures/
Where’s this cooling?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/07/more-satellite-musings/#more-306
“We can’t imagine that the global temperatures will stay down forever, but the last 7+ years does provide a clear example that the rate of temperature change is not simply going up and up and up.”
ROTFLMAO! In other news, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg
Ahhh sticky fingers, and now tongues have multiplied overnight as peddlers from everywhere hog the fringe of the mixing bowl. Meanwhile the cake is cooking.
Joel,
You can read more about Spencer’s work and link to published papers here: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
There has been some discussion, initiated by me on the Aqua Satellite data here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002844.html
and also here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7124
We might have to ask Dr Spencer for a guest post – but let’s wait until after Easter.
“Where’s this cooling?”
Are you looking for this?
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/03/blog-post.html
From the Worldclimate Report link you posted SJT.
The trend in the UAH derived temperatures of the earth’s lower atmosphere for the most recent 10-year period (January 1998 though December 2007) is a positive 0.04ºC/decade.
If you threw in January 2008 data.It is now a cooling trend.He he….
+ 0.04 C is TINY!
It still strongly contradict the AGW hypothesis that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the temperature.The warming should have been much more pronounced that it has been.
LOL
I posted the article at my forum too.
It is getting a good number of reads.72 reads back to the source is a good day for us.
Good work!
“Ahhh sticky fingers, and now tongues have multiplied overnight as peddlers from everywhere hog the fringe of the mixing bowl. Meanwhile the cake is cooking.”
I am getting some input elsewhere that you are NOT the real Gavin Schmidt.
The real Gavin Schmidt is smarter.Does not post trash like this.Besides why would a scientist write like a mamma in the kitchen?
Why not post better material if you want to credibly continue impersonating a better man?
Dumb bum: I left clue after clue you were barking up the wrong gum tree.
Now I can’t help the thick headed posters on here in seeing the light when they are so intent on bashing into probably quite decent individuals from other spheres.
BTW my blog style was evolved to deliberately distract foreign mercenaries. Anything you considered I posted crudely comes from a single desire to be seen as totally independent from better known sources of wisdom frequently mentioned here.
Retreat, go home and play with some other toys.
I am wondering if by the end of the year the ‘warmth’ is back up around 0.5 degrees c will people give up the ‘no warming since 1998’?
Paul, where are the “facts” you allude to?
Never mind cake, I think gavin’s been in the sauce
again.
Mr T, I am wondering if by the end of the year the ‘warmth’ is back up around 0.5 degrees c
$50 for the “tip jar” says that’s not going to happen.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr
Happy Easter belatedly Jen.
Did you enjoy your egg. Seems you may have broken some other people’s.
regards.
Roy Spencer, Creationist!
http://timlambert.org/2005/08/tcs5/
No wonder I see so many similarities between the creationist crowd and the global warming sceptics.
SJT: I see more similarity between alarmists and creationists apart from the fact that creationists have an apocalyptic world view they take the word of a self proclaimed climatic messiah such as Tim Lamert over the evidence.
PS Lambert’s remarks about Roy Spencer are totally irrelevant regarding his skill and integrity as a scientist.
Sunset,
“It is getting a good number of reads.72 reads back to the source is a good day for us.”
If you change the background colour of your site, you may find more people stay and read.
Sorry, absolutely garish, hard on the eyes, some of it unreadable due to the colour combinations.
Jan, no bet for me:)
I just want to know if the GMT is back up to 0.5 (Was it 0.24 for Feb?) by the end of the year will people cease with the “no global warming since 1998)? Maybe I should rephrase it to “What Global Mean Temperature would it require to stop people saying: no global warming since 1998?”
I just had a look at Spencer’s book.
“Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth’s relatively constant average temperature is due to a balance between (1) the amount of absorbed sunlight, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation which is continuously being lost to outer space.”
I don’t think that’s true. I think what it starts with is “IF the amount of absorbed sunlight and the amount of emitted infrared radiation (which is continuously being lost to outer space) were equal the Earth’s average temperature averaged over a year and based on x watts per square meter, would be x”
Which is very different
“SJT: I see more similarity between alarmists and creationists apart from the fact that creationists have an apocalyptic world view they take the word of a self proclaimed climatic messiah such as Tim Lamert over the evidence.”
Where have I ever used Lambert as an authority on the science. As I said already, he is a good clearing house for scientific information on the subject.
I posted a reply to the Weekend Australian article via the wrong thread. Apologies to Jan & Paul.
I copy it here …
Whether or not the article in the Weekend Australian (Christopher Pearson, Inquirer March 22-23 2008) is a “nice piece” (ref. related blog entry, this site) is a question of perspective, I guess. No side, and I happen to think there are more than two, in the climate change debate is innocent of emphasising ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’ that suit their preferred case while downplaying claims by the other side(s).
Not only that, no side is innocent also of using emotive language to frighten, bully or shame the other into capitulating on their stand. The article by Pearson does both of these.
Or rather, on the first point, fails to provide the evidence, or explicitly cite the reference, needed to assess the argument. Jennifer Marohasy claims that newly acquired data shows the global climate has been cooling since around 1998, not warming as most global warming and/or climate change proponents claim. This is such a strong statement, and such a large departure from the views of around 95% of researchers focused on climate matters, it demands to be supported by evidence.
In my view it behooves Pearson to at least provide a graph showing these data, identify the source of data, and allow readers to form our own opinion. Doing this would be consistent with Marohasy’s own stated wish to have the evidence openly presented for scrutiny. I would also have liked to see an explanation of how these temperatures have been measured, although it probably requires a different article to do this adequately.
On the second point, Pearson writes: “The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.”
This is, in my view, unnecessarily inflammatory text. For one thing, it is not necessarily childish to hope to make a change in the state of the environment by changing one’s own behaviour. In fact, the greatest obstacle (again, my view) holding back change is individuals thinking: ‘I’m only one person, and one person’s actions can’t really make a difference.’
At face value this is probably true; you or I choosing to take the bus instead of driving a car today probably doesn’t measurably change the global CO2 level or mean sea surface temperature. But this view is NOT valid if we’re prepared to make the conceptual shift to relate our behaviour to that of our neighbours. If you AND I and 10,000 other people who do not usually take public transport (or ride a bike or walk) were to do so once or twice a week, this quite likely would make a measurable difference over the medium term, possibly even in the short term. Especially if similar scales of behavioural change were made in other large towns and cities. (Granted this would place a huge strain on public transport if it were to happen overnight, but this is where there needs to be a partnership between the general public and municipal authorities with the means to facilitate change; see below.)
So the point I wish to make, is that changing behaviour with a goal or hope in mind may be optimistic, but is not necessarily unrealistic and is childish only in the view of those who are unwilling to make that change.
Leaving aside CO2 emissions, global warming and climate change, there are many other reasons why we might want to change our daily behaviours. Among them the quality of air we breathe, the quality of daily life we experience (pollution, overcrowding, traffic congestion), general health of the population (obesity, diabetes, etc.), cost to future generations of dealing with waste in land fills, or nuclear waste … the list goes on. In these respects, surely it cannot be childish to want to live in cleaner, less stressful, more healthful, and more pleasant surroundings?
Countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Sweden and Denmark are often cited as among the most desirable places in the world to live (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/zurich-is-the-most-desirable-place-to-live-in-the-world-survey-says-473540.html). Not coincidentally these countries have strong policies on transport and environmental management. And not only do they legislate to make it less attractive for people to use private motor vehicles, for example, many individuals understand and accept the need to adopt measures that reduce their impact on the natural environment, they recognise the contribution they can personally make and they take pride in this. In the end Pearson’s “childish nonsense” is seen for the social maturity it really is.
“Sunset,
“It is getting a good number of reads.72 reads back to the source is a good day for us.”
If you change the background colour of your site, you may find more people stay and read.
Sorry, absolutely garish, hard on the eyes, some of it unreadable due to the colour combinations.”
I have plans to persuade the forum owner to change it back.
Thanks for the feedback.
SJT:Where have I ever used Lambert as an authority on the science.
this time it was not about science per se but your irrelevant claim with obvious implications,. which I don’t see supported in Lamberts article, with Lambert’s article as support.
Gavin:
“Ahhh sticky fingers, and now tongues have multiplied overnight as peddlers from everywhere hog the fringe of the mixing bowl. Meanwhile the cake is cooking.”
Gavin later on:
“Dumb bum: I left clue after clue you were barking up the wrong gum tree.
Now I can’t help the thick headed posters on here in seeing the light when they are so intent on bashing into probably quite decent individuals from other spheres.
BTW my blog style was evolved to deliberately distract foreign mercenaries. Anything you considered I posted crudely comes from a single desire to be seen as totally independent from better known sources of wisdom frequently mentioned here.
Retreat, go home and play with some other toys.”
Scientists with a good science education.Thinking as a scientist.Would simply not write such crap as you do.
That is why I decided to post a snotty few lines to fling back in your face what you fling at others.
Why not be a scientist again and drop the mamma in the kitchen goofola? The lay public reads your smarmy B.S. and wonder what the hell.A scientist writes like that?
I have been in communication with several scientists and science teachers.They all write and speak much better than the public.Much better grammar skills too.
You do not write or elucidate thoughts consistently well.You have a tendency to post musings of your past that seems at variance with the thread.We wonder why you post like that.
I remember how Dr. Glassman ripped your silly reaction to his provocative The aquittal of Carbon Dioxide paper to shreds.You never replied.Maybe because you never knew that Dr. Glassman made a reply.I doubt you would have anyway.Because Dr.Glassman is apparently a skilled debator.
As for realclimate.I have seen postings vanish.Suddenly stop debates with certain scientists who civilly rip AGW arguments to shreds.
I remember Nir Shaviv come back with many published science papers in a thread and you guys could not keep up.Then boom the thread died because RPHumbert states that he has other things to do.But then he is all over the place in the very next thread minus Shaviv.
The recent bruhaha with Shaviv and the missing Milky Way arms was amusing.
It is revealing that both YOU and RPHumbert often avoid blogs and forums that are filled with scientists.
You rarely show up at the Yahoo forum.The one that is packed with scientists of many fields.Why is that? Yes I am a member there.I know you as Gavrinny.
In the end it is people like you who fear mercenaries.The ones who crash your little blog party and convincingly keep up with you guys.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/03/who_are_america.html
This is an article about a poll taken regarding whom in America is a roll model in science.
Since 44% of those surveyed couldn’t name a scientist, it stands to reason that there is a hole, a nitch waiting to be filled.
Just as Jennifer’s article demonstrates, the public has an appetite to know more. It is simply the media community which is keeping this appetite from being fulfilled.
Through the reporter’s blog that I linked to above, I facilitated, goaded, angled for and finally achieved the goal, of getting Eric to host a debate on climate change between Tim Ball and Andrew Dessler. In the end Tim Ball experienced technical difficulties so the debate never actually took place in the form I envisioned, but the striking thing is that, with a minimum of promotion on various websites, the event was swamped with listeners.
There is a hunger. There is an audience who wants to hear our side of the climate story.
I urge you to contact papers, reporters, radio talk shows, – why do you know that Dr Spencer is becoming famous simply by virtue of being Rush Limbaugh’s climate expert?
At first they may ignore you. I went through that with a local talk show host, Bruce Maiman, here in Sacramento. But over time I sent Bruce links to dozens of global warming stories refuting the IPCC position (and thank you for providing those news bits), he has developed his own position, which I understand pretty well.
Now I send him stories that are tailored to his personal belief, and they are a regular feature he talks over with the guy who does the weatherfortcast.
You know I am not a scientist – just an interested observer. Imagine how much weight Paul, Tom, Jan or Jen, would have with your expert opinion.
With a little outreach, nobody would be asking the question, “Who is Jennifer Marohasy?”. Instead they will ask, after reading an atrociously one-sided Age climate change stenography, “What does Jennifer Marohasy have to say about it?”
Witness my other haunt, Anthony Watts “Watts up with that” meteoric rise in page views since his appearance on Glen Beck.
Let it be so.
For those who don’t know ROTFLMAO used by SJT stands for:
“A chatroom abbreviation used mainly by imbeciles, usually in response to something mildly, often very mildly, amusing. People who use this type of shorthand should be avoided like the Spanish flu.”
See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ROTFLMAO
for SJT re lack of data in Australian comment article the graphs are all used by IPCC and they are here:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/03/blog-post.html
yuo can check the SH and NH ice data at cryosphere today current temps here Hadcrut
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
UAH satellite data here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
They all show cooling and increasing global ice ABOVE anomaly but make up your own mind…
Sunsettommy – have you ever paused to contemplate that you might get a much better discussion if you backed off. You don’t need to get it on with Gavin. And let any side claim that all things have been done properly.
The evolved style here on blog is to smack’em hard as you won’t be offered any courtesy, and one is seldom disappointed or surprised.
You guys impute all sorts of motivations to those supporting the AGW position. If you support the science, you must have already signed on to marxism and destroying western civilisation.
I’m not going to be terribly happy about ratcheting up electricity or fuel prices either. I use these things myself.
As far as the science is concerned I just want to know. I just want to know. The policy resoponse is another matter.
Hitherto the body of evidence makes a good but not complete case for AGW being real and risk management being required.
But significant gaps exist. Both ways.
The lack of temperature rise has been noted but it’s too early yet to be definitive.
The recent fascination with Spencer’s paper is understandable – Jen has found true love and thinks she’s cracked a AGW tank-killer here. So all hands on deck.
Well maybe he’s got something – maybe he hasn’t in a global sense.
So if one was fair dinkum – you would swot up on what has been done hitherto with water vapour and clouds. It’s not like this a blank canvas. For example some googling will uncover papers like:
Held and Soden – Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2000. 25:441–75
The 4AR water vapour chapter itself.
Aumann et al. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15813, doi:10.1029/2006GL029191, 2007
Seasonal correlations of SST, water vapor, and convective activity in tropical oceans: A new hyperspectral data set for climate model testing.
Soden et al Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor. Science 2002
Soden and Held 2005. An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models. Journal of Climate
Santer et al 2007 Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
There is a much broader context here than just one paper.
The issue that you will find I believe is the ability to extrapolate are clouds.
Have a look on Joel Norris’s site. Even though we have had some trends there are not enough data to really know. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/
One paper is unlikely going to overturn the whole literature on this subject. But it’s a brave call to say it’s all over just the basis of this one paper. And serious climate types know this – that’s why you don’t get them on blogs in the main.
Anyway Sunsettommy – you want better discussions – back off the alarmist/marxist/you-must-agree mantra and you might get a discussion. Even some data sharing.
After all – any reasonable person just wants to know what the truth is? Yes?
On Anthony Watts – yep many of the US met stations are a disgrace in terms of location. Should be chucked. The big issue though is does it major league alter the overall interpretation of the whole. Again we just want to know how much influence there is.
You will note from Watt’s New York presentation he has wacked in a few pictures of met stations in downtown Melbourne, Australia. Only problem is they are not used in Australia’s climate change assessment. Small point.
Another fan here:
http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2008/03/abc-interviews-climate-blasphemer.html
“You will note from Watt’s New York presentation he has wacked in a few pictures of met stations in downtown Melbourne, Australia. Only problem is they are not used in Australia’s climate change assessment. Small point.”
In terms of Anthony Watts, it’s a major criticism. It shows just how poor his understanding is of the situation, and how carefully we should take his claims.
“There is a nice piece in The Australian this weekend by Christopher Pearson.”
The word “nice” and “Christopher Pearson” is something of an oxymoron.
Those depending on NASA might try reading “Moonwatcher” by Gordon Baxter in Flying July 1989. The gist is that 20 years after the first moon landing NASA’s Johnson Space Centre didn’t recognize the names of Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong.
Just filing this here:
Climate Counterpoint
By Allen Ulbricht
… Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs discussed recent data from the NASA Aqua satellite and how it relates to the global warming debate. …
Allen Ulbricht dot Com – http://www.allenulbricht.com
Warming Stopped 10 Years Ago? Nothing to see here, move along!
By Pierre Legrand
Duffy asked Marohasy: (Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs) Is the Earth still warming?” She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your …
Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar – http://pierrelegrand.net/
Global Warming or Global Cooling?
By Kate Carruthers(Kate Carruthers)
… to the ABC Radio on the way home the other night and heard a conversation between Counterpoint’s Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. …
Aide-mémoire – http://carruthk.blogspot.com/
I see the ‘barrel scrapers’ are in here quoting Lambert.
The record instrumentally measured record global temperature remains 1998, and even the head of the IPCC talks of a ‘temperature plateau’ and ‘natural factors.’
Meanwhile, I haven’t yet seen a published comment and reply on the Douglass/Christy paper or the McKitrick/Michaels paper. Come to think of it – I don’t think I’ve seen a comment or reply on Spencer’s paper either.
Luke: “The lack of temperature rise has been noted but it’s too early yet to be definitive.” I guess that this is a fallback on the argument that 8-10 years is just weather – not climate.
Motty has pointed out numerous times that the temperature trend has flat-lined for MORE than the last 10 years. Nir Shaviv first brought this up in that infamous exchange on RealClimate and makes reference to it on his site (the post titled “The Fine Art of Fitting Elephants” on his blog).
The correlation between ENSO and global temperatures is pretty much well accepted (Phil Jones / Kevin Trenberth etc) – with the notable wrinkle that ENSO leads global temps by up to 6 months. If one graphs the ENSO and global temps, the only real breakdown in the correlation over the last 50 or so years is at the time of the major tropical volcanic events. Whether the ENSO/NAO/PDO etc are a factor in causing warming/cooling or whether they are merely a symptom of a changing climate is of course the subject of conjecture. However, one thing that we can be reasonably certain of is that volcanoes are entirely natural.
If we know that Pinatubo cooled the globe by 0.5C (various sources), one can (back of the envelope type stuff) adjust the temperature series to status quo ante. Here is the Hadley Climate Research (HadCRU) temperature series from 1950 and the NASA GISS model aerosol forcings (thick black line) (//data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/) used in climate models hindcasts (note that the scale has been adjusted such that the max amount for Pinatubo’s effect is about 0.4C – less than what research suggests):
http://i30.tinypic.com/im86eu.jpg
And this is what the temperature series (thick yellow line) would should(?) have been if the three major volcanic eruptions, Agung (1963/64), El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991) did not take place:
http://i30.tinypic.com/tan59t.jpg
To close the circle, if one plots this adjusted temperature against Wolter’s MEI index, the expected correlation is restored:
http://i32.tinypic.com/o0rxg5.jpg
The warming trend over the 80’s and 90’s to the present is now no longer linear but is now more of a step in the temperature series that very nicely corresponds to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977 (the two red lines overlayed above).
A strong argument can be raised that the temp increase has not significantly increased over a period approaching 30 years – a time that is considered statistically significant in climate studies. I think the “AGW tank killer” has a bigger warhead than most yet realise.
cheers
Arnost
Well gee Paul – so many papers get published and nobody reacts – do you react to everything in GRL, Nature and Science. Some things may just not seem that important to others.
And you just dislike Lambert as he’s on you guys full bore.
True barrel scraping is publishing at E&E.
“A strong argument can be raised that the temp increase has not significantly increased over a period approaching 30 years” – come off it Arnost. A massive thermal signature sunk into all ocean basins during the early part of that period (Barnett et al). Let’s not be fantastic now.
However you may have a point on the current statis, or you may not. Pray like hell the temperature doesn’t start to rise again any time in the next 5 years. We’ll see won’t we.
Meanwhile the good efforts of skeptics have done nothing to temper policy in this area. Seems full steam ahead with the Feds? Something about contrarian style and approach perhaps?
Something in the style makes AGW believers dig in even deeper. Political flavour perhaps? Certainly the smarmy ridicule style and screaming marxists hasn’t gone across well. Of course a big hike in power bills or fuel might test the electorate’s resolve too. It’s all just very hypothetical for the voters at the moment. Nothing has really changed. Kyoto Mk I met fairly easily.
Good stuff, Arnost. And we are overdue for another major volcanic cooling event which will drive the stake into the climate undead’s heart.
Just filing some more:
American media ignores inconvenient science on global warming
American Thinker – Bellevue,WA,USA
Christopher Pearson’ March 22 article in THE AUSTRALIAN concerns an interview of “Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think …
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/american_media_ignores_inconve.html
ABC interviews Climate Blasphemer – reasonable discussion ensues!
By Jack Lacton(Jack Lacton)
I listened to Jennifer Marohasy on ABC Radio National’s Counterpoint program last week. In an interesting and, for the ABC, surprisingly balanced interview by Michael Duffy she summed up the state of climate science, the new data that …
Kerplunk – Common sense from Down Under – http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/
Climate facts to Warm to
By holly
It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a …
Raw Cuisine – Food for Consciousness – http://www.rawcuisine.co.uk
Save the Pandas from the Polar Bears
By Lisa
The climate giveth and the climate taketh away. Biologist Jennifer Marohasy in conversation with Mike Duffy:. Marohasy: “Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels …
– http://dustmybroom.com
Global Warming Is So 90s
By Roland Patrick(Roland Patrick)
[Jennifer] Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, …
Let’s Fly Under the Bridge – http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/
http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2008/03/global-warming-is-so-90s.html
“I see the ‘barrel scrapers’ are in here quoting Lambert.”
I have not ‘quoted’ lambert. Lambert has just provided links to information, which I have used.
“Good stuff, Arnost. And we are overdue for another major volcanic cooling event which will drive the stake into the climate undead’s heart.”
You’re relying on volcanoes to stop global warming? Good grief.
‘Luke’ asks us to ‘note from [Anthony] Watt’s [sic] New York presentation [that] he has wacked in a few pictures of met stations in downtown Melbourne, Australia.’ According to ‘Luke’, the only problem is the ‘small point’ that they are not used in Australia’s climate change assessment.
‘SJT’ agrees that this is ‘a major criticism’ which ‘shows just how poor [Watts’s] understanding is of the situation.’
Against these opinions, we have the verdict of Roger Pielke, Sr, who describes Watts’s website as ‘outstanding’ and says that the work he is leading is ‘a critically important assessment of the value of surface observing sites to monitor multi-decadal trends in surface temperature.’ According to Pielke, Watts’s presentation in New York provided ‘very effective further evidence as to why the multi-decadal near-surface air temperatures are not robust observations to model global warming (or cooling).’
Roger Pielke, Sr. earned a Ph.D. in meteorology from Pennsylvania State University in 1973 and was a professor at Colorado State University from 1981 to 2006. He was Colorado State Climatologist for the last seven years of this period and has served as Chairman of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, Chief Editor of ‘Monthly Weather Review’, Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics and Co-Chief Editor of the ‘Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences’. He is now the Editor of ‘Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere.’ I think that his opinions on this issue are worthy of consideration.
The pictures of weather stations in Melbourne that Anthony Watts ‘chucked in’ to his New York presentation will be found, together with an extensive discussion to which I contributed, on the Climate Audit website under the heading “Melbourne’s Historic Weather Station’ at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2248 . In a posting to this thread on 26 October 2007, I summarised the position as follows:
‘The outcome of these posts appears to be agreement that the Melbourne Regional Office station is the one in the photograph on Anthony Watts’s original post, for which Geoff Sherrington reported that there are max-min temp records daily since 1855. Alan Cheetham has said (#42) that records from this station are used by GHCN, GISS and HadCRU, and that the adjusted data shows Melbourne temperature as flat (#52). I’ve noted (#50) that the recent CSIRO/Bureau of Meteorology publication “Climate Change in Australia – Technical Report” stated that records for Melbourne from 1856 to 2000 were used in the analysis underlying the CSIRO projections for the city published in 2001. We’ve only been talking about one place but if it’s correct that there’s no disagreement on any of these points the discussion seems to have had a useful outcome. Am I missing something?’
Apparently this was broadly correct, although Pliny made some minor corrections in noting that ‘The main weather station was the Melbourne Observatory from 1862 to 1907’, and that ‘it transferred to the Melb Regional Office of BoM when that was established in Drummond St in 1907/8.’ I subsequently confirmed these details with the aid of David Day’s splendid centenary history (‘The Weather Watchers: 100 Years of the Bureau of Meteorology’, 2008).
‘Luke’, whoever you are, would you care to elaborate on the ‘small point’ that you think Anthony Watts got wrong in his New York presentation, in a posting to Climate Audit? And ‘SJT’, whoever you are, I’m sure that Climate Audit readers would welcome a posting from you explaining why you think Watts’s understanding of the situation is so poor.
Come of it Luke. The papers attracted criticism from the usual sources, but nothing so far written up and submitted for peer review.
SJT: Lambert has just provided links to information, which I have used.
Do you honestly think there is a difference between quoting Lambert and linking to an article by Lambert linked to by Lambert ?
.
Mr T,Jan, no bet for me:)
Aw you’re no fun:)
Luke – “Pray like hell the temperature doesn’t start to rise again any time in the next 5 years.” You’re sounding more and more like a sceptic these days…
The global temps don’t look like skyrocketing any time soon. Strong global atmospheric La Nina circulation characteristics remain in place, and regardless of what BoM says, there is little chance of it fading in the next six months. For what it’s worth, I think the chances of even neutral conditions by the end of the year are less than the chance of a multi-year La Nina. The BoM has been wrong throughout the last year with their ENSO projections – I suggest they are wrong again.
The consensus scientists and their “bulldogs” conveniently ignore the influence of the volcanos and ENSO / PDO etc when they’re projecting temps. It’s only now when the temps are not skyrocketing in keeping with their projections that they conveniently use these as excuses – the cooling over the last couple months is explained by Hansen and the Met as consequential of a “strong” La Nina – and the solar minimum (makes me despair really)!
So I don’t really want to see a volcanic event any time soon (and not only because it generally is a tragic event). And, though I think it’s not likely, I would in fact like to see a neutral ENSO situation for the rest of the year. For it is only under these circumstances (no volcanos and neutral ENSO) that a global cooling will drive the stake into the climate undead’s heart, and show that climate sensitivity to CO2 is not as great as that which the consensus would like it to be. Data trumps theory…
This preocupation with CO2 as the “crisis” of the millenium or whatever is a sham. Trying to reduce CO2 is a waste of time and resources given there are much more pressing environmental issues that need to be dealt with.
cheers
Well well Jen must be headlining if luminaries like Ian Castles are emerging to comment. We are truly honoured that you joined us. And the on the matter of the royal Melbourne met station site too. I have emailed Anthony Watts on the issue and informed him that Melbourne CBD (and for that matter pretty well all Australian capitals) are not part of the Bureau of Met’s Reference Network for Monitoring Climate Change. I added that he would have to check what CRU and GISS did. As I said – “small point”. But important for Aussies. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
You might well ask the Bureau the supplementary question if in deed it actually does matter for interpretation whether capitals are or are not included.
Luke – have you emailed Hadley and GHCN to ask if the station is not in their network?
Arnost – “skyrocketing temperatures” – what was the IPCC range again ? – “stake into the climate undead’s heart” – yes yes Arnost you are being really objective.
Try some basic logic – you all were long bleating in 1998 – “oh but it’s an El Nino” Now we’re not allowed to comment about a La Nina?
What’s your track record for predicting La Nina events from March on the climate record 9/10 – 6/10 or ??
“skyrocketing temperatures” – to get to the bottom of the IPCC projections you need a minimum 0.2C per decade. This trend has not been apparent in the last decade. The trend in my “volcano adjusted” time series is less than half of that. And we have a year to solar minimum – if the temps are anywhere near the Jan/Feb range over the year, the trend will be 0.
And you know that I have been bullish on the La Nina since mid last year!
“Something in the style makes AGW believers dig in even deeper.” That’s preposterous, Luke, and you know it. The phrase “AGW Believers” says it all, in fact. They’re not the slightest bit interested in science, only in continuing their idiotic AGW pseudoscience. Your pretense in being interested is disingenuous at best. Climate Changers do seem to be changing their tune these days though, even trying to play both sides of the fence.
“And we have a year to solar minimum”
While I’m on your side of the fence Amost, we cannot say when solar minimum will be reached. It could be as little as a couple of month; it could be more than a year. But even after it is reached, it will take some time for 24 to ramp back up. And while there is a considerable amount of disagreement in the solar physics community, it’s beginning to look more and more like 24 will be a weak cycle.
I came upon this interview over at BlueCrabBoulevard. It would appear Jen is about to entertain more than a handful of crabbed and addled modelers. Good show!
“You’re relying on volcanoes to stop global warming? Good grief.”
No volcanoes needed for that, it’s already pretty much been stopped for the last 25 years or so as per Arnost’s posting. However, a major climate impacting volcanic event would draw the broader public’s attention to what is really going on with the climate and help expose the big AGW lie.
“You’re relying on volcanoes to stop global warming? Good grief.”
No volcanoes needed for that, it’s already pretty much been stopped for the last 25 years or so as per Arnost’s posting. However, a major climate impacting volcanic event would draw the broader public’s attention to what is really going on with the climate and help expose the big AGW lie.
Tilo: “While I’m on your side of the fence Amost, we cannot say when solar minimum will be reached.”
Is that the royal ‘We’ you’re using?
I say we have at least a year, sometime next March at the earliest, before solar minimum. Could I be wrong? Sure. But there is zero chance it could happen in as little as two months. Your appeal to controversy among Heliophysicists carries as much force had you made it to Climate Scientists, no offense.
Arnost – “an event” – a single event.
Seems to be a lot of papers in the 4AR for idiocy and pseudo-science. Although given you guys publish in E&E you obviously don’t know any better.
“A major climate impacting volcanic event would draw the broader public’s attention to what is really going on with the climate and help expose the big AGW lie.” – had to see it written – thanks Mark – all I ever wanted. Do you realise how utterly silly that is. Hey world – if we remove the sunlight the place cools down. REALLY ? Well that’s a Nobel Prize. We’ll call you. Just wait over there till we ring.
SJT wrote:
‘”Is the Earth still warming?” She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference.”
I can’t believe you can say that with a straight face and call yourself a scientist.’
I partly agree with this comment, and partly not. I can see how one can be a (good) scientist and not agree with the most popular/widely accepted hypothesis/theory; there are many examples in history of individuals being lambasted for advocating “inconvenient truths”. Galileo Galilei springs to mind!
Since Popper ‘good’ science has proceeded through the 2 steps forward, 1 step back method of falsifiability. It’s incumbent on science to not accept a hypothesis or theory unchallenged. So in this respect asking if (1) global warming is in fact happening, (2) if so, whether this is caused by rising levels of atmospheric CO2 [or has some other cause], and (3) global warming [if true] is causing significant climate change – these are legitimate tasks of science.
Where I agree with SJT, and apparently disagree with JM, is in the weight of evidence. Data can be wrong, even recent data collected by the best means available [unrecognized sampling problems, poor interpretation, etc.]. The data and interpretations JM refers to need also to be challenged!
Observations such as reduction of ice over the north pole, summer ice retreat around Greenland, ice retreat on the West Antarctic Peninsula, glaciers elsewhere [tho’ not everywhere] in retreat -these are much more difficult to disregard. In my experience, ice melts when the temperature rises.
“In my experience, ice melts when the temperature rises.”
Only if the net effect is to raise it above zero.
Luke, Last year’s CSIRO/Bureau of Meteorology publication “Climate Change in Australia” stated that records FOR MELBOURNE from 1856 to 2000 had been used in the analysis underlying the CSIRO projections for MELBOURNE published in 2001. I don’t need to check with BoM to know that it would have made a difference for interpretation if they’d used the records for somewhere else instead. Small point, but important for Melburnians.
G’Day Ian; LTNS
Good to Arnost back in the fray too. As everyone should know by now, I appreciate a good local dust up.
Sunny boy should realize too I’m the most practical tech in the biz of non scientific measurement and assessment. Guessing steps in advance is an art form despite all the latest blog discoveries.
BTW, I can spot an apology within rapidly expanding blocks of knowledge. When it comes to those who have never managed instruments of any kind over time, my support remains with those working at the sharp end of the practice.
Continuous mulling over stations sightings, probes and recorders indicates nothing more than someone’s obsession with odd details in a whole world of interesting stuff. Chose a good site and stick to it.
A simple rule of thumb, science can only follow the practice and poor expectation can lead us up the garden path. Both distractions and obsessions can slow our journey.
My guess is Ian woke up this morning to find his lawn well watered for once. Hooray if he did.
For those who don’t know, Ian and Luke are veterans on this blog and each have an axe to grind depending on Jennifer’s topic of the day. As both are experts in particular disciplines we can all learn a lot.
Well it would be a bit difficult to do any work on Melbourne itself with data from elsewhere wouldn’t it. Climate Audit has done a whole series on Australian stations and shown that nearby Laverton is different http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2248 . But Melbourne CBD obviously as whatever data it has.
Would be best for the Bureau to graph us the data though. CA’s graph looked patchy to me.
This is a side issue really. The UHI issue is whether the met stations used by the Bureau to assess climate change trends in Australia are all based in cities with artificially high heating values. They are not.
Can’t say the same for GISS and CRU data uses but again – does it change the interpretation of overall trends is the important issue. I think not but am happy to shown that it makes a major difference to the overall Australian numbers.
So with UHI contamination and broad trends – it depends on the numbers of “contaminated” stations. If they are small numbers it won’t make a major difference to trends.
But in any case if one wishes to assess climate change trends in Australia – why not go with the Bureau’s reference network.
Luke:CA’s graph looked patchy to me.
It’s unfortunate but the data is patchy for a number of stations not just here but world wide.
“Observations such as reduction of ice over the north pole, summer ice retreat around Greenland, ice retreat on the West Antarctic Peninsula, glaciers elsewhere [tho’ not everywhere] in retreat -these are much more difficult to disregard. In my experience, ice melts when the temperature rises.”
Yes but that temperature could have risen 25 years ago and little since then. However, glacial melting would continue until a new equilibrium is reached. It is not an instantaneous process!
“Do you realise how utterly silly that is. Hey world – if we remove the sunlight the place cools down. REALLY ? Well that’s a Nobel Prize. We’ll call you. Just wait over there till we ring.”
As usual Luke misses the point. Anything that would bring temperature history (particularly over the last 30 years) and the impact of volcanic eruptions into the broader public mind could only help but educate them to the lies they are currently being told by the AGW crowd.
Mark: As usual Luke misses the point.
I suspect that’s Luke’s expertise that Gavin was referring to above I’m not sure that it’s a skill anyone aught to learn though. Unless one wants to go into propaganda or propaganda analysis then it might be useful.
We are not relying on volcanoes to stop global warming. It has been the collective wit of Bimbolopithicus climatensis that has relied on past cooling from volcanic activity to exaggerate the extent of the 1990’s temperature rise.
Arnosts links repeated below make it very clear that there has been no trend that could, in any way, be attributed to a gradual increase in CO2.
“And this is what the temperature series (thick yellow line) would should(?) have been if the three major volcanic eruptions, Agung (1963/64), El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991) did not take place:
http://i30.tinypic.com/tan59t.jpg
To close the circle, if one plots this adjusted temperature against Wolter’s MEI index, the expected correlation is restored:
http://i32.tinypic.com/o0rxg5.jpg
The warming trend over the 80’s and 90’s to the present is now no longer linear but is now more of a step in the temperature series that very nicely corresponds to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977 (the two red lines overlayed above).
A strong argument can be raised that the temp increase has not significantly increased over a period approaching 30 years – a time that is considered statistically significant in climate studies”.
So a once-off, structural shift has taken place due to changes in pacific currents and subsequent knock-on effects. This structural shift is also very common in the temperature records of pacific island stations (except urbanised Hawaii).
These structural shifts to new plateau are present all along the long term temperature records and the burden now rests with (soon to be extinct) Bimbolopithicus to explain why a claimed proportionate relationship between CO2 and temperature could consistently exhibit temperature inertia followed by a sudden jump.
Where, exactly, in CO2 theory, is the room for accumulation to a threshold followed by a once-off adjustment? Please explain.
Did anybody get this one?
Is Al Gore out of a job?
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, March 22, 2008
I’m talking about his gig as the Goracle. Is it over?
Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was …
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=8166
“In my experience, ice melts when the temperature rises.”
Depending on your starting point, it can also melt when temperature falls.
“Is Al Gore out of a job?”
I can only hope than Jen makes as much telling the world the truth as Gore did lying to it. But not likely.
Pity your post is entirely fact-free, Jennifer. Every one of your talking points has been systematically demolished by Tim Lambert (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/), several times in some cases.
David: Every one of your talking points has been systematically demolished by Tim Lambert
Please do show us how enquiring minds need to know.
Jan Pompe,
that would require David (and for that matter Luke and the rest of the RC Cheering squad) to demonstrate an ability of thoughfulness instead of parrotting his loved intellectual dwarves.
And another,
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008332.html
March 24, 2008
The Sound Of Settled Science
“Is the Earth still warming?”
She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference
The study of Neanderthalis nonscienceiensus var denialesis is always amusing. So we are now reduced to putting arbitrary red sticks on graphs where we feel like it. And the MEI seems to diverge from the temperature curve – so some powerful greenhouse magic must be stopping it following the reduced MEI values. Pity simulations of solar and aerosol forcings don’t reproduce the temperature series at all. Whatever is happening in the last few years – you guys aren’t onto it. Back to breaking rocks hominids.
How to crawl under the ROCK
http://www.science.org.au/nova/016/016box04.htm
For Jan and others I reckon Luke knows this rock too, its called the “dome” at ANU.
A few days back I searched on google in an area where I knew there should be publications on our particular climate concerns by people we meet here, and guess what? I found lots of research citations.
Thats good hey
Just filing these here:
Global Warming Hype Alarm Wrong Disproven Jennifer Marohasy …
By dancingfromgenesis
Meteorologist Jennifer Marohasy at the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, Australia, is reporting that global temperatures have decreased over the last decade, confirmed by the United Nations’ panel on climate change, …
– http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com
Weather
By plaintruthtoday(plaintruthtoday)
It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a …
The Plain Truth – http://journals.aol.com/plaintruthtoday/the-plain-truth/
News Round-up
By John(John)
[Jennifer Marohasy, senior fellow of Institute of Public Affairs]”The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. …
Average Gay Joe – http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com/
American media ignores inconvenient science on global warming
By budsimmons
Christopher Pearson’ March 22 article in THE AUSTRALIAN concerns an interview of “Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.” When asked about “Global Warming”, …
Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian – http://bsimmons.wordpress.com
Head of the IPCC says Earth is cooling, American media ignores it.
By firstfriday
Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and Senior Fellow at Melbourne’s Institute of Public Affairs. When asked by ABC radio if the Earth is still warming, Jennifer replied: “No, there has actually been cooling.” Okay, big freaking deal, …
First Friday Collective – http://firstfriday.wordpress.com
Gosh, now even Luke is trying big words in a failed attempt to appear credible. Better stick to “corrugated iron” mate, until you can carry the whole act.
In the mean time, where, in CO2 theory, do the sudden temperature jumps to new plateau fit in?
This should be really interesting. Oh Lukey? Come out, come out, wherever ya are.
Turn Up The Heat
Global Warming is not what it used to be. It appears that despite a continuing rise in CO2 global temperatures for the last 10 years have been falling. If you count just since 2002 temperatures have been stagnant. The ABC mentioned is the Australian Broadcasting Company.
Check your spam logs.
My post did not register.
Here is the url that should have gone with 6:00PM:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/03/turn-up-heat.html
“SJT: Lambert has just provided links to information, which I have used.
Do you honestly think there is a difference between quoting Lambert and linking to an article by Lambert linked to by Lambert ?”
If you can’t see the difference, there’s no hope for you.
seems we have another echo chamber
Just filing these here:
The Earth Is NOT Still warming…?
By Gail
Jennifer Marohasy is a biologist and senior fellow of the Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Check out her blog for the flurry of opinion after her interview with Michael Duffy on ‘Counterpoint’, …
Pigs Will Fly | the can do community… – http://www.pigswillfly.com.au
More on Climate Feedback
By Warren Meyer
So when I read the interview with Jennifer Marohasy, I was focused less on the discussion of how world temperatures seemed sort of flat over the last 10 years (I have little patience with climate alarmists focusing on short periods of …
Climate Skeptic – http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
Just filing these here:
The Earth Is NOT Still warming…?
By Gail
Jennifer Marohasy is a biologist and senior fellow of the Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Check out her blog for the flurry of opinion after her interview with Michael Duffy on ‘Counterpoint’, …
Pigs Will Fly | the can do community… – http://www.pigswillfly.com.au
More on Climate Feedback
By Warren Meyer
So when I read the interview with Jennifer Marohasy, I was focused less on the discussion of how world temperatures seemed sort of flat over the last 10 years (I have little patience with climate alarmists focusing on short periods of …
Climate Skeptic – http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
Jen will you stop stuffing the thread with your junk. OK – so you’ve rated on 100,000 blogs – are about to have an audience with the Pope and might even win a Nobel Prize. And you even got Castles and Kellow out for a spin – I mean – man you must be rating heavily. We’re impressed OK. NOW STOP IT !
But getting back to doing Motty slowly.
Mate what step-function – it’s in your mind.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf pages 703, 706
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png
You know what the drill is by now. Yadda yadda. Read it for yourself.
Even if something is happening Australopinheadicus mottiensus var rednecki would be the last species to work out what’s going on.
You can’t get the warming experienced prior to 2000 without something else adding in. Warming signal is in all oceans so cross off the Great Pacific Shit. The forcings are pretty clear.
Probably clouds but you won’t be that happy if you look at the cloud trends. Gobblygook. Anyway it’s just a temporary reprieve on the way to being cooked.
Hansen says so. So must be right.
SJT:If you can’t see the difference, there’s no hope for you.
Lambert provided links to articles by Lambert which you used therefore you quoted Lambert.
Loius: that would require David (and for that matter Luke and the rest of the RC Cheering squad) to demonstrate an ability of thoughfulness instead of parrotting his loved intellectual dwarves.
Thanks for the heads up!! but can we assume for a moment or two they are intellectual giants?
Luke: If you reckon our Motty needs a step function to keep perhaps he can blame me. Note too, our Jennifer luvs echos.
“http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png”
Nice graph Luke! But where’s the impacts from ocean current changes and cloud cover changes. Also how valid can such a graph be when by their very own admission the IPCC states that the LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) for Aerosol and Solar effects are medium-low and low respectively.
So stop hoisting this crap on us!
So Luke dishes up an image that only goes to 1995?
And isn’t this the same dude who heaped spittle on Durkin for the same thing?
And notice how the claimed volcanic impacts are only factored at -0.12 for El Chichon and about -0.16 for Pinatubo? And this when all the papers estimate the actual impact in the order of -0.5 to -0.6C.
Must be some of that “data smoothing” we hear about, eh? Hell, we’ll just take a bit off the old volcanoes and add it on to the CO2.
And note how the wikibumph 5 year mean also stops at 2003. I guess there isn’t much enthusiasm amongst wikiwallies to update this increasingly inconvenient data.
And as for Luke’s command of the deceptive arts, he works in government, bull$hit is his stock in trade. He’ll proudly include it in his CV.
Well Mark who makes up graphs with pencils. Where’s your driver for the warming. “Nature” I suppose.
As for Grotty – they get those data through something measurement which retired industry apologists may have overlooked in their astroturfing classes. As good as your glacial speed estimates. ROTFL !
Whatever is causing an statis in temperature you guys will be the last to find it.
Just filing this here:
By Al Knight
Article Last Updated: 03/25/2008 09:07:59 PM MDT
It was conservative commentator Ann Coulter who once said that Democrats had finally found, in the global warming scare, a claim that skeptics would have to wait for 100 years to disprove.
It was a good line and pointed up the difficulty of disputing a projected rise in ocean levels that had not yet occurred. Still, as it turns out, Coulter was wrong. The alarms about global warming — or climate change, as it is now often labeled — are under increasing attack and it is hard to imagine that the dispute will take a century to resolve.
This is, after all, the age of the Internet and attitudes can change very quickly. Scientific disputes that might have gone unnoticed in major media outlets for years find their way onto the Internet.
The way this fact has influenced the disagreements over global warming is fairly obvious. Opposition to the central claim of man-made global warming has grown, and grown rapidly.
The central tenet of this counter-point-of-view is that although carbon dioxide levels in the air are doubtless increasing worldwide, these increases do not pose a catastrophic threat to the planet and they certainly do not justify huge government programs aimed at immediate greenhouse gas reductions.
What was once thought to be settled science isn’t settled any longer. Just the other day in a radio interview, Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian scientist, said that since 1998, the hottest recent year on record, global temperatures have, in fact, been cooling. She went on to say that if even if 2002 is used as the starting point, warming trends have simply plateaued.
Comments of this kind won’t settle the matter once and for all, but they will assuredly make it less likely that huge chunks of the American economy will be sacrificed in a nationwide rush to reverse global warming.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8696254
Just filing this here:
More Global Cooling Evidence Embarrasses the IPCC Orthodoxy
By ideonexus
Jennifer Marohasy a biologist, free market advocate, and Global Warming skeptic. When asked “Is the Earth still warming?” Dr. Marohasy replied:. No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. …
ideonexus – http://ideonexus.com
profoundly embarrassing
By Evan Lee(Evan Lee)
It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a …
outer workings of my inner child – http://theevanlee.blogspot.com/
Jennifer,
don’t you find this in the least bit embarrasing? You seem to be obsessed with how well you are doing in the blogosphere.
Just filing this here for possibly future reference:
Global Warming Down Under Going Down
By bsnotebook
It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank, the Institute of Public affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a …
Tidbits from the BS Notebook – http://bsnotebook.wordpress.com
The Carbon Footprint Fraud – Part 4
By Jack Sine(Jack Sine)
Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank in Melbourne, Australia reported on ABC radio that the head of the UN’s IPCC has acknowledged it and has spoken about the temperature …
SineQuaNon – http://jacksine.blogspot.com/
The Cooling Oceans and Unwarmed Atmosphere
By Charles R. Anderson(Charles R. Anderson)
Christopher Pearson wrote an interview with Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, Australia published in The Australian. Marohasy notes that referenced to 1998, …
Objectivist Individualist – http://reasonedthoughts.blogspot.com/
Temperatures should be going up…but they’re not.
By jroosh(jroosh)
Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist, well-known conservative, and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, in a recent interview… “Is the Earth still warming?” “No, actually, there has been cooling, …
Roosh Five – http://rooshfive.blogspot.com/
American media ignores inconvenient science on global warming By …
By Hans von der Gruen(Hans von der Gruen)
Christopher Pearson’ March 22 article in THE AUSTRALIAN concerns an interview of “Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.” When asked about “Global Warming”, …
USA Partisan –
the end of the above reference is here
Christopher Pearson’ March 22 article in THE AUSTRALIAN concerns an interview of “Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.” When asked about “Global Warming”, …
USA Partisan – http://usapartisan.blogspot.com/
Hi Jen,
You are getting a lot of exposure – it’ all good!!!
Just filing this here for potential future reference, its from
“Anti-warming nonsense neutered
Posted by Ken Parish on Tuesday, March 25, 2008
For some reason, Saint decided to include an anti-global warming rant in today’s Missing Link. It’s part of an “interview” between warming denialist Institute of Public Affairs shill/scientist Jennifer Marohasy and denialist pundit Michael Duffy …
A couple of days later Ken posts this as a comment
Ken Parish said:
The effect of cloud formation generated by increased evaporation arising from global warming remains an issue of considerable uncertainty in my understanding (although I admit I haven’t kept up my reading of journals over the last couple of years so I might be wrong). AFAIK they don’t even yet know whether cloud formation will result in net positive or negative feedback effects let alone their likely quantum.
My lay understanding is that it depends on the proportional formation of high reflective clouds (which will aid cooling) versus low fluffy ones which act like blankets and keep the heat in. If it turns out that more of the former than the latter are formed then clouds will constitute a negative feedback which will dampen the temperature rises that would otherwise flow from increasing atmospheric CO2, and vice versa. Either way, all that the clouds will do is dampen or amplify the effects of human-caused warming, they won’t eliminate it.
Again from memory, the IPCC range of probable/projected temperature increases make allowance for at least some of the uncertainties about the sign and quantum of feedbacks. That’s one of the reasons why they give a “low” range projection of 1.1 to 2.9 °C for the 21st century and a “high” range scenario of 2.4 to 6.4 °C. If all the unknown variables, feedbacks etc end up coming in as negative, and effective greenhouse emissions reduction strategies are also put in place, we could end up at the bottom of the low range which would have few if any significant adverse consequences (I suspect), whereas if we don’t take action and some unknowns come in as positive feedbacks then we’re in real trouble because temperature increases of around 4°C or thereabouts will have major bad effects both on the environment and human society.
The existence of such unknowns is one of many arguments used by the denialists to deny the need for any positive action against global warming. However the rationalist response is surely to take the threat seriously and take effective reduction measures without panicking, while funding ongoing research to reduce the areas of uncertainty. We seem to be moving in that direction despite the efforts of denialists like those on this comment thread to persuade people to sit on their hands and do nothing and hope that everything will be alright. Given that oil will run out relatively soon anyway, and that even coal reserves may be more limited than we thought, that looks like a very stupid strategy indeed even if all the cards end up falling the right way on the unknown aspects of climate science.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/03/25/anti-warming-nonsense-neutered/#comment-254831
I see you’ve also listed all the scientific journals your interview appeared in.
Letter 26 March 08
Climate Shock
Anyone who reads the Australian may have noticed an article on the weekend. It talked about the soon to be debunked myths of global warming. New data from NASA’s latest satellite is extremely enlightening. Climatologists are all pretty much in a state of shock.
John Herbert
Sandy Bay
From The Mercury, News Ltd, Tasmania
———–
And then this was published on 28th March
Warming Denial
John Herbert highlighted an article in the weekend Australian that talked about the soon to be debunked myths of global warming (Letters, March 26) but failed to mention a few details that five minutes of googling revealed:
The article was based on an interview between the ABC’s Counterpoint co-host Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). The article does not highlight that the IPA is a conservative think-tank funded by big oil and gas, mining, tobacco, pesticide and forestry companies and that Jennifer Marohasy has long denied the link between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and climate change.
Nor does it highlight that she played a role in persuading a federal government committee to overturn recommendations aimed at increasing the volume of water released into the Murray River at the same time that the IPA was receiving tens of thousands of dollars from Australia’s largest irrigation company. I read the article and fail to see where John Herbert gets his opinion that climatologists are all pretty much in a state of shock.
Jason Little
Dynnyrne
From The Mercury, News Ltd, Tasmania
vid/link dump – Obama Mack Daddy – Russian Road Rage – Temps …
By Valis Keogh(Valis Keogh)
It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a …
Valis Enterprises – http://valiskeogh.livejournal.com/
Climate non-Change
By politigalco
According to Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, in an article in The Australian, “The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) . . . talks …
Politigal Colorado – http://politigalco.wordpress.com
Gee, Could the Global Warming Models be Wrong?
By David
His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.”“ –Jennifer Morohasy, biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
Morohasy, biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
Random Nuclear Strikes – http://www.softgreenglow.com/wp
Letters following piece in the Denver Post:
Re: “Climate becomes a hot topic,” March 25 Al Knight column.
One has to wonder whether Al Knight reads his own paper. The same edition that ran his latest free-market, fundamentalist op-ed railing against the very notion that man-made global warming could have some validity contained an article describing the collapse of a 160-square-mile chunk of an Antarctic ice shelf. But in the face of actual evidence, Knight wants us to take the word of an obscure Australian scientist and an unnamed British scientist that man-made global warming is all a bunch of hokum.
Now it is true that there is no “proof” that man-made carbon emissions caused the collapse of the ice shelf. But there is also no proof that taking climate change seriously will require us to sacrifice “huge chunks of the American economy,” as Knight declares with certainty. Economists appear to be no better at predicting the economic future than climate scientists are at definitively understanding why the ice shelf collapsed. If Knight is so concerned with sacrificing huge chunks of the American economy for no apparent reason, he might turn a critical eye toward defense spending and the Iraq war. Both are running the American economy into oblivion.
Matt Sandor, Boulder
——————————————————————————–
Al Knight’s column illustrates the rhetorical sleight of hand socommon among those who distort scientific research for narrow ideological, political or economic purposes.
He erroneously states that a “projected rise in ocean levels … has not occurred,” when scientists from NASA have measured the sea level rise at a half-inch in the past four years.
He quotes the author of a global-warming skeptics’ blog in Australia, Jennifer Marohasy, as the last word on climate change to suggest that the planet is actually cooling. This contradicts data from NASA that show the five hottest years on record since the 1890s have been since 1998.
Knight also insists that the rise of the corn-ethanol industry in the U.S. is somehow the product of environmental science, when the real explanation is Congress’ eagerness to please the farm lobby without regard for the real environmental consequences.
Tragically, this distortion of information occurred on the same day that satellite photos showed a piece of the centuries-old Wilkins Ice Shelf the size of Connecticut collapsing in Antarctica, where average temperatures have increased about 1 degree Fahrenheit each decade for the past 50 years.
Knight and the rest of the dwindling ranks of climate-change skeptics need to end this mindless denial of reality and join the world in trying to solve the most complex environmental problem of our time.
Bill Becker, Executive Director, Presidential Climate
Action Project, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver
——————————————————————————–
Al Knight demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the ethanol industry, and uses old mistruths to perpetuate unsupported attacks. Recycling uncorroborated points about the negatives of ethanol is sure to guarantee the status quo when it comes to oil addiction in this country. The fact remains that ethanol production is highly economical. Ethanol yields nearly 70 percent more energy than it took to produce, while gasoline production is a net energy loser.
Additionally, new ethanol technology is improving, making more efficient use of water. One gallon of ethanol requires just three gallons of water to produce, while gasoline technology uses three to eight gallons of water for every gallon of fuel produced.
It is easy to buy into the negative ideas of uninformed critics of ethanol. But simply parroting old ideas doesn’t address the real energy problems our nation faces.
Dan Sanders, General Manager, Front Range Energy, LLC, Windsor
So a misunderstanding and/or misquoting of a 2004 NASA document, that was misrepresented as recent, has been picked up and repeated by sceptic sites all over the world. Certainly gives an insight into how this misinformation spreads. Makes me wonder why so many are so willing to be mislead so easily when a bit of basic googling would show up the flaws. Are any of them being paid to spread misinformation or are they all just incapable of critical thought?? Given that there is a lot of science – in peer reviewed journals – that suggests the need for urgent action to prevent run away climate change, I hope that any who accept money to spread minsinformation are eventually tried for crimes against humanity.
“So a misunderstanding and/or misquoting of a 2004 NASA document, that was misrepresented as recent, has been picked up and repeated by sceptic sites all over the world. Certainly gives an insight into how this misinformation spreads.”
Yes, and Jennifer is keen to document it for some reason. It’s a useful exercise, even if not for the reason Jennifer is doing it.
No misunderstanding and certainly no misquoting of a NASA document from me. I’ve just been explaining the latest findings from the Aqua Satellite as per a lecture from Roy Spencer that I attended in New York earlier this month.
You’ve just been parroting what Spencer said, in other words.
SJT: You’ve just been parroting what Spencer said, in other words.
What sort of assinine comment is that. Quoting an acknowledged expert is always the right thing to do.
“What sort of assinine comment is that. Quoting an acknowledged expert is always the right thing to do.”
I’ll make a note of that next time I refer to the IPCC.
I’ll make a note of that next time I refer to the IPCC.
Do that! You might however be better off waiting until they can give a good physics based exposition on how we can expect ~3K+/-1.3K warming form a doubling of the CO2. That’s physics based not projections of ‘what if’ scenarios run on GCMs.
Published in the Tasmanian Mercury on April 1:
Dear Sir,
Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.
Jason Little (Warming Denial, Letters, March 26) may not like my politics or the Institute of Public Affairs; but this is irrelevant.
It wouldn’t matter if I had horns and a tail, temperature data from NASA indicates that the earth has stopped warming – the last really hot year was 1998. It would be premature to jump to the conclusion that we are now about to enter a period of cooling, but the data is sufficient to warrant a re-look at the climate models and greenhouse theory that underpins them. This is because something other than carbon dioxide appears to be having a major influence on global temperatures.
Jennifer Marohasy
Senior Fellow
Institute of Public Affairs
A letter published March 29 titled “NASA reports cooling” by Ric Christoferson announced and celebrated that “global warming is officially over.” Who said it was over? NASA, National Academy of Sciences or World Meteorological Organization or some other national scientific society? Nope. It was Jennifer Marohasy, biologist and senior fellow at the Institute on Public Affairs, a Melbourne-based think tank whose primary funders have been mining and tobacco corporations. Marohasy, a biologist, is characterizing climate data produced by NASA’s Aqua satellite.
The reason you don’t hear anything close to the exuberance Christoferson seems to have for this unilateral declaration of the end of global warming among actual climate scientists is because short-term variations do not a climate trend make. According to NASA’s Goddard Institute (www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html) the five hottest years in the past 100 were in order with hottest first: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
Now if Christoferson could find a banker or Realtor somewhere announcing the end of the subprime mortgage crises, he could declare our financial woes to be over. And, perhaps, while he is at it, he can declare that pigs fly.
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=196687§ion=Opinion&freebie_check&CFID=22041900&CFTOKEN=53131045&jsessionid=883087f5e2513571c62e
Jen,
Looks like a return of serve in the letters to the editor from your critic. I have retyped (with some copying and pasting) his letter that appears in the Mercury today:
NASA says it all
The argument that global warming stopped in 1998 is nothing more than sophistry.
Jennifer Marohassy (Letters, April 1) states that temperature data from NASA indicates that the earth has stopped warming. The last really hot year was 1998. Furthermore in the Weekend Australian article referred to by John Herbert (Letters, March 26) she states that temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.
She may want to tell this to NASA as its Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation contains the following passage.
“’Global warming stopped in 1998’, has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense.”
In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Niño of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.
All scientists competent with statistical analysis know that using a select small number of data points which fluctuate greatly around a trend line to interpret changes in that trend results in critical loss of analysis power aside from being invalid.
Jason Little
Dynnyrne
Looks like his source is NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis method of estimating global temperature from surface air temperature data at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
And your source is NASA Marshall Space Centre global temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd12mar97_1.htm
I am amazed that letter writers would use words like sophistry that 90% of a newspaper’s readership would not know the meaning. Perhaps it’s a technique to communicate to the masses that “I am more educated than you – so I am right and you are wrong” Perhaps it’s a method of argument that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest.
Alan
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/apr/02/pam-dzama-145global-warming-is-now-145climate/
H Home › Opinion › Community Columnists PAM DZAMA: ‘Global Warming’ Is Now ‘Climate Change’STORY TOOLS • E-mail story• Comments• iPod friendly• Printer friendly• News alerts More Community Columnists • ROB WOUTAT: Why Do They Talk So Fast Now?• LARRY LITTLE: Two Relevant Speeches — and a Movie• PAM DZAMA: We Shouldn’t Walk Away From Iraq SHARE THIS STORY What’s this? While gazing out the window at falling snowflakes a few days ago, I was comforted by the knowledge this is yet another confirmation of global warming. Unseasonable weather is now attributed to the global warming, increasingly thought to be man-made. It’s not called global warming as often anymore. Now it’s “climate change,” a label nebulous enough to sound serious yet difficult to adequately define. Too much rain or not enough is obviously the result of climate change. An inadequate snowpack or one above normal is the result of climate change. It never matters on which end of the spectrum variations occur, the answer is always the same. It’s the increase in carbon dioxide that’s blamed for the earth’s warming creating the miseries of “climate change.”Last week the topic on “The Mini Page” of the Kitsap Sun was “Energy for the Future,” which touted various alternative fuels. I’m normally not a reader of this page, created “especially for kids and their families,” but the information contained on it was disappointing, although not surprising. The agenda was clear: convince the kids the earth is harmed by global warming; there will be no oil left by the time they’re adults and alternative sources of fuel must be utilized as soon as possible. Hydro power, solar, wind and geothermal energy in addition to biofuels are mentioned as replacements for fossil fuels. Of course nuclear energy isn’t on the list because it doesn’t meet the current “environmentally correct” agenda.Alternative fuels are needed because when fossil fuels “… are burned, they give off gases such as carbon dioxide. These greenhouse gases harm the atmosphere. Experts believe these gases are adding to pollution and global warming.” The orthodoxy of these pronouncements was never questioned. Presenting only one side of this issue is propaganda and not a truthful examination of the facts. But those promoting the “consensus” view of climate change believe the debate is over.Children reading this page are certainly unaware of the 400 prominent scientists who testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last December and don’t support the man-made global warming theory. Recent publications and statements by some of these experts include: Brazilian Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart “… many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of recent global warming”; French Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, “… the Apocalypse looms ever nearer … the average citizen is bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance … non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God …”; Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, “… Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid (funded) …”A study in August 2007 conducted by Belgium’s Royal Meteorological Institute concludes “carbon dioxide is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming … water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is the simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist and Director of the Australian Environment Foundation was recently asked if the Earth was still warming. “No, actually, there has been cooling…,” she said. “This is not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because CO2 levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.” She went on to say the head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) “… has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels …” Of even greater significance is data recently received from NASA’s Aqua satellite, launched in 2002. It gathered information on cloud formation and water vapor in addition to temperature. According to Marohasy, “… climate models suggest … warming from additional CO2 will result in increased water vapor … so you’re going to get a positive feedback … the data from the NASA Aqua satellite shows just the opposite, with a little warming, weather processes are compensating … actually limiting the greenhouse effect …” The meteorological community has acknowledged these findings and hasn’t yet refuted the information, but it certainly has caused great consternation. It’s time to re-think the “consensus” theory of man-made global warming, imposition of carbon-offset restrictions and constrictive “green” policies which only reduce choices and increase costs to societies. As stated in the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change at March’s 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York: “Global warming is not a global crisis. Attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.” It would be an inconvenient truth if this result becomes the legacy of climate change alarmists. Pam Dzama may be reached at columnists@kitsapsun.com.Comments
Roundup
THE CHURCH OF WARMISM & PUBLIC HEALTH
By Catron
The Australian reports the following comments from Jennifer Marohasy, of the Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs:. If you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, …
– http://www.healthcarebs.com
It seems the Global warming debate is a heated topic in Tasmania with yet another letter to the Editor. (Many will be aware that Tasmania with its contribution of 10 MT CO2e to the global year 2000 emission of 41,755 MT CO2e recently turned out the Hydro powered lights for earth hour)
Today’s letter appears to support Jen:
Climate of Hysteria
I find Jason Little’s letter (April 3) admonishing those of us who are sick of the climate change hysteria to be deliciously ironic, specifically the part where he educates us about the perils of using only a small set of statistical data to support one’s cause.
Patrick Merrick, Hobart
Google News Alert for: Jennifer Marohasy
Roger Haglund, Moorhead, Letter: Don’t be too quick to believe the …
In-Forum – Fargo,ND,USA
The “senior fellow” cited in the article is actually a biologist named Jennifer Marohasy who got her degree in insect ecology. Does this qualify her as a …
See all stories on this topic
Google Blogs Alert for: Jennifer Marohasy
[interesting I found out on Saturday that Graeme Pearman, former head of the CSIRO Atmospheric Division, also started life as a biologist with one of the same majors as me – botany]
Denier Cricket
By Terence(Terence)
Any comment that mentions Christopher Monckton by name or which links to an article by him. Out! (in the shorter one day event) Any comment that mentions Monckton, Fred Singer, Bob Carter, Jennifer Marohasy or Climate Audit. …
Long Ago and Not True Anyway – http://laanta.blogspot.com/
A Skeptic’s Primer on Global Warming
By STAFF:(STAFF:)
Christopher Pearson’ March 22 article in THE AUSTRALIAN concerns an interview of “Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.” When asked about “Global Warming”, …
Netizen News Brief – http://netizennewsbrief.blogspot.com/
Back at March 24 Luke reports
“‘Luke’ asks us to ‘note from [Anthony] Watt’s [sic] New York presentation [that] he has wacked in a few pictures of met stations in downtown Melbourne, Australia.’ According to ‘Luke’, the only problem is the ‘small point’ that they are not used in Australia’s climate change assessment. ”
I took the photos. I also asked the BOM if the daya they collected were still being used. In summary, their answer was that they have no responsibility for the use of data once released to the wider world.
I call this the von Braun defence from the Tom Lehrer song about ICBMs
“I send them up, who cares where they come down?
That’s not my department, says Wehrner von Braun.”
I have never made the claim that records from here are still used in Australia’s climate asssessment. But readings are taken, so there must be a purpose.
Luke, if you write so sloppily, you will never get a Pullit Surprise.
comments on this thread had been blocked because of spam attacks. but it has been reopened now.
Just filing this here:
Collapse of the global warming paradigm
“A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.”
http://blog.freeny.org/?p=3103
and comments:
on 16 Apr 2008 at 10:18 pm 9Simon Forsyth
The article you link to “Climate facts to warm to” is very bad science.
The claims by Marohasy about global temperature leveling off or dropping are unfounded. A simple email to her source, Roy Spencer at NASA, can clear it up. Which is what I did. Roy says that Marohasy is confused. He states that the data is not from the much vaunted Aqua satellite project as Marohasy claimed, and is not global average but a much smaller sample of 20 degrees either side of the equator.
Paper published by Roy Spencer can be found here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
Now for some clearly needed Ad hominem. Marohasy, the scientist who has misrepresented the information in the interview, appears to have published only a dozen scientific papers or so in areas such as biological control. Her expertise is clearly not climate. She has had a long association with banking, industry and anti-conservation environmental groups that advocate actions like whale hunting. Not the person I would be quoting on climate change.
Check out Marohasy’s web site:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/about.php
on 16 Apr 2008 at 10:43 pm 10Administrator
Let’s exclude all scientists who have political views.
on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:50 pm 11Jennifer Marohasy
I think it is Simon Forysth who is confused.
In the radio interview, and newspaper piece which correctly reported on it, I talk about two things:
1. the satellite data which has been recording temperatures since 1979 and which suggests no warming since 1998 (over the last 10 years), and also
2. data from the aqua satellite which provides information on temperature anomalies and clouds formation and evolution. potentially providing an explaination for the absence of warming.
If Simon Forysth emailed Roy Spencer suggesting I said data from the Aqua Satellite showed no warming over the last 10 years he would have been correct in replying that this is not the case. Indeed the Aqua Satellite was only launched in 2002. A point that was also made in the radio interview.
You can listen to the radio interview via this link:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2191714.htm