Someone please help me out here. Everyone is yelling about fixing the “climate crisis”, but I still can’t find it – the crisis, that is.
There appears to be no significant change in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes and in fact the last two seasons have been pretty quiet. Katrina hit land as a pretty standard CAT 3 and hurricane intensity isn’t measured by the measure of property damage at any rate.
Global “temperatures” appear to be dropping ( if that term has any meaning at any rate ) and the solar scientists are complaining about a quiet sun which is starting to show many of the same characteristics as the Maunder Minimum, which led to the “little ice age”. Well, that’s a crisis, I suppose, but not the same color as the present one.
Sea levels continue to rise a minuscule amount each year as they have since the last ice age when sea level was perhaps 400 feet lower than it is today. I just can’t see New York under water anytime in the 21st century at the present observed rates which don’t seem to be changing.
Even the oceans seems to be cooling a bit based on data from the new diving buoy system, but perhaps NOAA is cooking the data and we can’t trust them any more than we can trust NASA anymore.
The Antarctic Ice Pack continues to grow and is now larger than ever in the 30+ years we’ve been able to take highly accurate radar altimeter measurements. The Arctic Ice continues to expand and shrink annually as it seems inclined to do, and we note some pretty good sized volcanoes have recently been discovered on the Arctic Ocean floor which might be helping the shrinking part a bit.
Polar bear populations are at near record levels and seem healthy, and even I have seen them playing around on floating ice chunks in the Arctic summer. They are a terrestrial animal, after all, as anyone can see who visits the Churchill area in the summer and takes a polar bear cruise on one of their giant bear-proof buses.
Droughts and floods seem to be more strongly correlated with changes in ENSO and his friends than with a one degree temperature rise over the span of a hundred years, but maybe I’m missing something.
When I wrote the WE Campaign suggesting they take a closer look at things before falling off the turnip truck I immediately started receiving email bulletins from them referring to me as a “fellow campaigner”, so I guess I now know how they grew to be a “million strong”.
So, while hordes of folks continually call for Weapons of Mass Taxation to be hauled out to fight the “climate crisis”, I still can’t seem to find the crisis anywhere and note that the likely beneficiaries of carbon taxes and such will be the folks tolling the alarm.
As I said at the beginning: I’m having trouble locating the crisis, so I’m hoping some of the many experts here on this forum can give me a little guidance.
Jim Peden
Middlebury,
Vermont, USA
This comment posted by Jim Peden in this thread at popular blog realclimate.org was disallowed. I tend to think it is the alarmist scientists that are really in denial?
Jim Peden is Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the “100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year” and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Despite J P’s CV the above post reads like a typical letter to the editor after some daily news article.
So what? Why doesn’t someone attempt to answer his concerns? What crisis? Will someone please tell the emperor?
JP,
I can’t help you either.
However, noting your technical background and those of others I’ve spoken with or read comments of, I would theorize that it is folks who have technical backgrounds that are the most likely to be searching in vain.
I also wonder, if advocates who have technical expertise in one or more of the various disciplines needed to understand this complex topic are manifesting their humanness by falling in love with a theory that they have invested much time in.
Others may have lost objectivity due to anger that others would question their theory.
I hate to think that some may have lost objectivity (or aren’t even trying to practice it), because of the funding stream that keeps them fully employed and or other financial gains they envision.
Note: I am speculating here. This is blog theory, not scientific paper theory, where the onus would be on me. If you think I’m full of it, please try to explain a bit-thanks)
We have to get used to the fact that this is science fraud. And we ought to act accordingly. If we cannot prosecute we can at least get a lot of people fired. It does no good to be in perpetual bewilderment at the apparent stupidity of these guys. We ought to get over that and just accept that people like gavin, Luke and others are willing hoaxers and liars. Same goes of course for the Goddard institute the IPCC and those within the CSIRO who are going along with this racket.
“I tend to think it is the alarmist scientists that are really in denial?”
It’s not so much a state of denial – more a protection racket. When you actually look under the bonnet of the IPCC, it is organised a lot like the mafia.
Firstly, everyone is connected to everyone else. In researching the “scientists” whose names appear on the front of the AR4 Synthesis Report, what I was stunned to find is that (so far) most of these people knew or worked with each other in previous careers.
So – it’s not a case of “the best and brightest” – it’s simply the tried and trusted old-boys’ network. They all know each other, they all worked with each other, they all review each others’ work, and they apparently have all worked to get each other ‘inside the tent’. Hardly surprising then that they arrive at ‘consensus’ with this much underlying corruption. It’s the world’s biggest documented game of “pass the parcel”.
Secondly, a number of them aren’t even scientists – i.e. don’t even have a degree. One is a Project Manager, one is a Political Adviser to Greenpeace. What sort of peer review could these people provide, I wonder.
Thirdly, they are not averse to brining family members in on this little caper – in one case, a son of one of the scientists is also part of the circus.
Lastly, it works just like a protection racket in that anyone with a dissenting voice must be silenced. The crooks have decided that the closed shop is the most effective way to prosecute this fraud. It’s all a bit like watching “The Sopranos”.
With so many people involved in such a huge fraud, is it any wonder that they get hysterical and try to shout down any dissenting viewpoint?
Ocean acidification gets very, very little attention here, except in the semi-conspiratorial sense that it is suggested that it must be what the “alarmists” will use now that warming is not so clear. In fact, regardless of climate, ocean acidification is a compelling reason to take CO2 reduction seriously.
Readers are invited to read the Discover article published on line last week which discusses it in detail: http://tinyurl.com/5rtpmu
(I believe there is a typographic error of some significance in one figure, but it doesn’t alter the basic point.) Forgive the self promotion, but the article makes many of the same points I did in what I wrote for Online Opinion, which was published just before the Discover article: http://tinyurl.com/5nslzb
I have yet to see any detailed skeptical response anywhere (from an academic with relevant qualifications) to the warnings of the scientists concerned about acidification. The negative responses at Online Opinion (by and large) didn’t do more than claim conspiracy again. And, by the way, I have read the SeaFriends website, and am unconvinced that Dr F’s arguments would hold water when examined by an expert in the field.
So I wait for compelling reason why we shouldn’t believe that CO2 alone (with or without global warming) will not be making major changes to ocean ecology in the lifetime of my children and grandchildren. Go read the articles if you want the detail of what it could mean.
“So – it’s not a case of “the best and brightest” – it’s simply the tried and trusted old-boys’ network”
We’re not impressed by the best and brightest “followers” either.
I remember back in the early 90s reading the center section of a wall chart. The wall chart was one that was typically found in new age homes and was, and still is, called The Moon Planting Guide.
The author would fill the center of the chart with his astrology ramblings for the coming year. For that particular year his theme was “The Emperor Has No Clothes” where he proceeded to explain how the various institutions were losing their status, Bank managers went from pillars of society to people who were ripping you off, dentists with mercury fillings, doctors with too many chemical drugs, lawyers with one scam after another. One by one the “professions” were losing their credibility.
The latest, and probably the last IMO, is scientists and we are seeing them fight back as their reputations sink down amongst the the lawyers, the bank managers (remember that TV ad where there was a bank manager at a barbecue) real estate salesmen and musicians.
The scientific evidence shows we may have had a little global warming in the recent past, but there is nothing objective to show that it is causing any climate change. It is an interesting little hypothesis that has been blown out of all proportion by vested interests.
Fact is you (and Ender etc) are definitely way, way behind the eight ball when you assert that CO2 doesn’t lag behind the Terminations of the Pleistocene Interglacials. All the body of evidence does show clearly that the lags were about 800±200 years, consistently from cycle to cycle ever since the transition from the earlier 41 ka cycles of the Late Pliocene to Pleistocene to the 100 ka cycles of the Late Pleistocene.
High CO2 is NOT a necessary pre-requisite for warmth even within 10 ky of Terminations Some years ago, while at ANSTO, I measured numerous U-Th dates for corals all along the eastern seaboard of Australia to clearly show the 6 ky period 2 – 8 ky ago was pretty damn warm – right down to the NSW Far South Coast.
I simply suggest you guys research the voluminous literature on the Terminations issue thoroughly – and I mean very thoroughly – right back to the Pliocene. It’s a ‘fertile field’ you obviously haven’t plowed yet.
To ‘cut to the chase’, everyone here (on both sides) who has a mature interest in these (critical) issues should go away and read, Gerald’s Marsh’s (much, much smarter) paper in APS because there is hidden gold in it if you are patient and cluey enough to get into it:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200804/marsh.cfm
Longer, better version at:
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/ClimateStabilityPolicy2.pdf
Bottom line is ALL climate models give broad probability distributions in temperature for CO2 doubling, with small but finite probabilities of large increases.
Roe and Baker (read them too) have shown the breadth of these distributions is due to the NATURE of the climate system. The probability distributions associated with such projections are relatively insensitive to decreases in the uncertainties associated with the underlying climate processes. This is why the David Stockwell’s of this world can have their cake and eat it too.
IMHO, it doesn’t really matter all that much to argue endlessly about positive and negative feedbacks, other than for the very immediate future.
The key points are that:
(1) we are now a good 10,000 years into the current interglacial; and
(2) the history of the whole system over the last 2.5 My shows it is a lot more sensitive to EXTERNAL forcings rather than internal ones (like CO2).
Marsh says, keep in mind that the difference between the LIA and current global temperatures is only about 1.1 C. Solar Cycle 25, predicted by NASA to be comparable to the Dalton Minimum, could just as easily be the trigger for a new Ice Age.
I would add a big, big rider to this as follows:
Given that we are now getting VERY CLOSE indeed to the CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED maximum time span of durations of the penultimate and previous Late Pleistocene interglacial peaks e.g.
http://www.maureenraymo.com/2007_Kawamuraetal.pdf
in truth, it is more likely mankind actually needs a period of another 2 – 300 years of artificially elevated atmospheric CO2 levels to get itself in a position to cope, en masse, as a civilization, with highly probable steadily decreasing temperatures over the next 500 or so years.
Now, go away, read the literature, think about it, and tell me, fair and square, why I’m wrong.
Apologies for the cross post – I was having a hell of a time with all my posts getting blocked after late afternoon yesterday and Jennifer then back-posted just the main one this morning where of course it reverted to it’s original post time. Something a wee bit flaky with this blog.
MAGE; actually, there is absolutely nothing unusual happening with the weather at all; this is a text-book case of chicken-little based hysteria; having said that of course, I don’t for a minute believe those poll results of 70% supporting global warming; the polls are presented by the same msm who are supporting AGW.
Tipping points Jim! TIPPING POINTS!!! Ahhhhhh!
Steve; stick with it mate; I value your posts; and I think the site benefits from them; at the risk of suggesting you slum, why don’t you put the odd technical post at A Bolt’s; you have the knack of presenting simplified explanations of complex issues; there are a few trolls at Bolt’s who try to browbeat, and I run out of time sometimes. This is an issue which has its frontline in the msm, and right now Bolt is one of the few entry points into the msm from a sceptic’s viewpoint. Just a thought.
The really sad fact is that the site calling itself “Real Climate” suppresses simple observations of what our actual real climate is really doing at the present time. It is run by a NASA employee whose own CV suggests he is partially responsible for creating the climate models which have thus far failed miserably to predict anything accurately. Only in America can we work and pay our taxes so they can be spent supporting our own government employees who in turn churn out false predictions of future planetary meltdown and frighten us all into rushing into massive Carbon Taxes which will in reality not affect the future climate one whit but which might lead to an economic meltdown of our economy.
NASA isn’t the only recipient of our tax dollars hard at work promoting the hoax. Yesterday I received an email from a teacher in Oregon who said,
“The section of your piece referring to today’s teachers really hit home. I work part-time in a local elementary school library and one of the fifth-grade teachers does indeed have her students create posters about how global warming is adversely affecting world environments and what we humans can do to make things better. I made the mistake of confessing to her that I’m firmly in the anti-hoax camp (I didn’t put it like that, of course) and she looked at me as if I were crazy. There were further complications, but the end result was that I was told by the principal that it would be best (read: “Do you want to keep your job?”) if I kept my opinion to myself (the teacher had referred to it as my “bias”). And yet I had to continue helping her students get online to find articles that “proved” polar bears were endangered or coral reefs were dying from over-heated ocean water or….well, you get the point. Needless to say, I found the whole incident extremely distressing. I’m planning on having a bumper sticker made that reads “Stop Global Warming! Turn off the Sun!!”, but since I’m currently trying to get a permanent teaching position in this school district, I’ll have to wait. Thanks for being a voice for sanity.”
The teacher had earlier stated in her email,
“I’ve “known” global warming was not anthropogenic since taking college meteorology and climatology courses in 1988: my instructor explained to us how water vapor played too big a part in mitigating extreme temperature changes for puny humans to have a significant impact on climate. She made sense and I’m still grateful she got to me before Al Gore and his cronies did.”
I notice that Marsh’s submission to the FPS newsletter didn’t include any red disclaimer from Council of the APS.
Why is that do you think?
“Only in America can we work and pay our taxes so they can be spent supporting our own government employees who in turn churn out false predictions of future planetary meltdown and frighten us all into rushing into massive Carbon Taxes which will in reality not affect the future climate one whit but which might lead to an economic meltdown of our economy.”
No Jim. We have that same luxury in Australia.
Here it is called the CSIRO/Ministry of Truth.
Our education system is similarly corrupted as well.
Jim Peden’s above reference to the teacher being threatened with losing his job, is nothing new.
And one of the reasons that school children and other young, are such easy prey to AGW propaganda, is that there is very little ‘hard’ history and geography taught in our schools these days. Probably deliberatly.
Jim; your site reads like the initial John Daly campaign with no attempt to account for all the fossil fuels we convert into CO2. You could say most people don’t have a problem with producing extra CO2 because we don’t see, smell or taste it i.e. a complete lack of sensitivity one way or another but that’s naive when considering the greater environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Uses
Sure; it used to be easy to forget about effluent dumped into streams or seas and say we have effectively disposed of our waste but it’s only when we monitor at the source of the problem any immediate solution is likely to be evident. CO2 like wastewater is still seen as another modern society throwaway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
Changing our thoughts back to the point of entry “Everyone is yelling about fixing the “climate crisis”, but I still can’t find it”
Jim; we need a better sniffer.
Steve Short – “Fact is you (and Ender etc) are definitely way, way behind the eight ball when you assert that CO2 doesn’t lag behind the Terminations of the Pleistocene Interglacials.”
But I did not say this. What I did say that the dating method are too imprecise to definately say this. Also if it does lag then this is one of the positive feedback that kick in.
“the history of the whole system over the last 2.5 My shows it is a lot more sensitive to EXTERNAL forcings rather than internal ones (like CO2).”
No really? How does that change that this time we are doing it?
“Now, go away, read the literature, think about it, and tell me, fair and square, why I’m wrong.”
No-one says you are wrong. You could well turn out to be 100% right however at the moment all the evidence from the past points to a very different interpretation of the data. You simply see that data and come to a different conclusion – a geologist’s one.
You really do seem to be a geologist and not concerned with the effects of these changes. Lets say that we are at the end of the interglacial and in 300 years we start to cool again. To you, used to dealing with geological time periods, this is an eyeblink and not worth considering.
However in human terms this is a very long time. 300 years ago Australian was inhabited only by Aboriginals. In 300 years there is the potential for a hell of a lot of human suffering if we push the world temperature higher and melt sufficient land ice to raise sea levels even 2 meters. A couple of billion people live and work and feed from land 2 meters above sea level.
Finally if you really believe what you are saying then imagine the people 300 years in the future. They are going to cursing us for being so inanely stupid as to burn all the fossil fuel when the temperature was still going up instead of saving it for later to burn when the temperatures were plummeting. They will have to resort to the far far more dangerous method of releasing a methane burp and risking another Permian extinction.
So even if you believe what you are writing it still makes sense to conserve the fossil fuels for later, especially the brown coal, to release CO2 safely when the next glacial kicks in. This way us misguided AGW fools can have their low carbon economy and you people can be the heroes of the future that conserved sufficient fossil fuels to stave off a glacial period.
We also have the potential, because we are pumping the climate at precisely the wrong time, to make the next transition faster and more violent putting more species, including our own, at risk.
Finally what you are writing is totally at odds with your homeostasis model you were pedalling previously and seem to have forgotten about. Obviously as external forces can change the climate , the negative feedbacks are not strong enough to prevent the climate from warming and cooling. They are strong enough to damp them, however not prevent them. Therefore the same climate changing mechanism of enhanced greenhouse gases are perfectly capable of changing the climate despite the negative feedbacks that are present. To say differently would be totally opposite to what you said in this posting.
Forgive my automatic suspicions whenever I see a Wikipedia quote presented as somehow “authoritative”.
Sure enough, at the onset the author of this comprehensive analysis states,
“It is currently at a globally averaged concentration of approximately 387 ppm by volume in the Earth’s atmosphere, although this is increasing due to human activity.”
In reality, 97% of the “increase” has been natural, with only 3% attributable to anthropogenic sources, but it’s fashionable to blame any and all CO2 increase, regardless of actual origin, on industrialization.
For those willing to wade through the actual atomic absorption physics controlling the whole affair, it can be noted that a doubling of the current CO2 levels could only lead to perhaps one more degree of “warming” ( the warming effect is non-linear with respect to increasing CO2 levels).
For my money, I’d gladly take the extra degree of heating in return for an atmosphere much richer in CO2, which would give agricultural production an enormous boost sorely needed in the face of steadily increasing global human populations.
“In 300 years there is the potential for a hell of a lot of human suffering if we push the world temperature higher and melt sufficient land ice to raise sea levels even 2 meters. A couple of billion people live and work and feed from land 2 meters above sea level.”
In marketing terms, this is what is referred to as FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt). It is generally the last refuge of the unprincipled scounderel and is used when the seller is bereft of ideas or trying to sell a pup – or both. It is of course unimpeachable in its simplicity and appeals to the weak minded. If you believe this to be the case, then present some facts to substantiate it. BTW – even the WMO says that it’s not getting any warmer:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html
“This way us misguided AGW fools can have their low carbon economy..”
Yes, you misguided fools can have your low carbon economy – just don’t include the rest of us in it. If you want to pay additional taxes, live in third world conditions, wear sack cloth and ashes – then please be my guest. Zimbabwe would probably be an excellent choice to pursue this lifestyle choice.
I sign-in this AM to find ZERO, NADA, NOPE responses to JP’s question. Where’s the crisis? What is the crisis? When is the crisis?
Al Gore says we have ten years of less. For what? The cooling to be self evident?
Sheesh! Answer the question. If you can. It is important!
CoRev editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
I should have said the anti AGW argument must start with accounting for all those black holes in the ground. Then perhaps we can see what’s going on up in the atmosphere.
“97% of the “increase” has been natural” doesn’t stack up given our recent industrial activity. More cows than cars?
Next
G’day CoRev: Did you know a poll here reckons two thirds of the population supports the new government’s ideas for carbon reduction despite their ignorance of the proposed mechanism under a carbon trading scheme?
“A couple of billion people live and work and feed from land 2 meters above sea level.”
As you would of course expect from the misguided AGW fools – a complete fabrication (making $hit up yet again).
See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9162438
According to this study, approx. 634 million people live less than 30 feet (9 metres) above sea level.
But then I guess if you are going to engage in FUD marketing, go for the figure that has a bigger emotional impact.
Peden’s post and the subsequent denialist frothing is just par for the sceptic course. Ho hum …
(1) I accept the most of the recent glacial terminations were not started by CO2 – why would they? But the PETM exists as a good example of what CO2 can do in other circumstances. – IMO.
(2) Emmanuel’s work showed a somewhat convincing link between hurricanes and PDI. Why somewhat – as the record hasn’t got the necessary data we need to be definitive. AGW theory and the even the latest CSIRO modelling does NOT (that’s NOT – like NOT) imply an increase in numbers of storms. Moreover a trend to faster longer lived systems. And every year has its own peculiarities with wind shear, dust, steering systems etc – so nobody said there would be a linear increase year after year. And decadal variability confounds the issue.
(3) The solar story is far from convincing – sunspot lovers are about as good as cycle worshippers. The literature is not in your favour for a full explanation. Ask Lief !
(4) Sea levels are going up as expected and well confirmed by satellite altimeters. The IPCC AR4 report is the considered opinion on sea level rise ~ 0.5 metres – not 20 metres.
(5) ENSO and Walker circulationa are showing some definite trends. And if you want to add up changes in the Indian Ocean and Antarctic circulation things are quite interesting. Especially in Australia. Be interesting to see if global drought frequency has increased – challenge?
(6) What global cooling – Holy wishful thinking Batman. You have statis at best and sceptics have no good idea either as to why.
(7) Polar bears are a diversionary ruse compared to the major biological effects in numerous ecosystems noticed in 100s of global studies – see the recent Nature paper.
(8) As usual the policy response is bundled in with the science for harsh judgement. Not liking the mitigation options does not imply the science is wrong. Who doesn’t like a V8 but it’s your heart not your head.
(9) Implying that anyone supporting AGW wants to destroy western civilisation or condemn millions in the 3rd world to perpetual poverty is such utter bullshit. Why would you want to do that?
(10) Seems that Arctic ice levels are still well below average and Antarctic levels are near average. As if any specific year really matters that much.
So I pity Jim Peden’s charges – he has unique opportunity to give them a balanced view and get them to think for themselves about an important issue. But alas Jimbo is just spinning it like everyone else.
One day we might see a balanced view of for and against but not here eh?
Rant on dudes – commence frothing….
“Did you know a poll here reckons two thirds of the population supports the new government’s ideas for carbon reduction despite their ignorance of the proposed mechanism under a carbon trading scheme?”
And that doesn’t concern you — that AGW & the ETS is being carried on the back of ignorance? It must be great living in a fool’s paradise.
Did they detail the question that was asked in the survey? Like, f’rinstance:
“On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest, how concerned are you that man-made CO2 is causing dangerous warming of the planet, rising sea levels, extinction of most species, and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu?”
Don’t worry – once the ignorance begins to lift and people see the real costs involved, that 70% figure will drop down to single digit figures.
A lot like it did in the Lord Mayor’s election in London and subsequent UK by-elections.
Oh yea – current climate crisis – well there isn’t one.
Just significant ongoing climate variability issues tending to worsen in the centennial afternoon with a tendency to later developing extremes in the probability distribution in the future.
Well Ivan – get the AEF to run a “no climate tax party” for the Senate ! Do it man – stop whining.
Ivan writes:-
>Paul – I don’t know. I just quoted from the article. However, I assume that since everything else out of the AGW camp is bull$hit, this must be too.
>As you would of course expect from the misguided AGW fools – a complete fabrication (making $hit up yet again).
Er, yeah…we believe you Ivan….
Don’t worry about (7) Luke, PBs et al survived in the past and will do so in the future. The experts here have told us so. Besides, extinction is the circle of life. Let’s see Pixar make a kiddie’s flick out of that.
“Well Ivan – get the AEF to run a “no climate tax party” for the Senate ! Do it man – stop whining.”
There is no need for me to go to all that effort. Rudderless & Wrong are doing the denialists’ work for us. All we have to do is keep the loonies ranting.
Once the price tag of all this nonsense becomes more obvious, the warm inner glow of ‘saving the planet’ will evaporate in a nanosecond.
Picture a scenario in 856 days time where people are queued up in the cold outside a polling booth clutching a How-to-Vote card saying “Vote Rudderless for a Colder & Poorer Future”.
So – I don’t have to do a damn thing, other than sit back and wait for these clueless idiots to self-destruct. When they go, all the oxygen thieves go with them. Yee-haw!
Ivan; Yuor last post was baby talk. That poll could be seen as just about trust. I trust fellow man in general do you?
HA..HA…HA…HA…HA….
What — trust us to make you colder and poorer?? From the 70% who admitted they were clueless and ignorant as well??
Wow – what are you smoking?
Sorry — got to go – I’m laughing so hard I can’t find the correct keys. I’ll just roll around on the floor for a bit until the convulsions subside. I haven’t laughed this much since I was a kid…
HAR..HAR…HAR…HAR…HAR….
You idiot!
Poor old Ivan – if Labor is re-elected you’ll have to migrate mate. Now off you go for a sook.
Gavin, Europe is perhaps a barometer of what is in our political futures, some sense of proportion.
Tax us more, pleeaassee! Not gonna happen.
Luke, so you have said maybe to crisis? Some droughts? Some warmer temperatures? Some minor CONTINUED sea rise. Next IPCC report will lower estimate by ~1/3, IMO.
Statis? Is that all? For how long? 10? 20? 30? longer? or fewer years? Recent lit. says in the 20-30 year range.
Open debate squashed? Why? soundness of the AGW science or fear that it’s weaknesses will be uncovered?
Quit calling for a political counter movement. It’s about the science first. I don’t know why it became about politics first. Let the science work it’s magic, it can even with the many times to one funding for the warming side. And, that seems to be what is happening. Emotional investment in the warming theory is going further onto thinning ice.
So, I don’t know if anyone remembers, but way back in elementary school most of us learned about dinosaurs and ice ages and mammoths and all that wonderful stuff. Did we forget what we learned about the planet heating and cooling without our “help?” Why does no one seem to site these sources? As a teacher myself, I would implore other teachers (regardless of political agendas) to teach the students how to think and research things for themselves, learn how to distinguish spurious sources from valid ones and see into the motives of the sources of your information. I fear we have a coming generation that watch too much TV and listen too much (this sounds like an oxymoron) to their teachers who tell them what to think rather than how to think.
On most of the websites and blogs that carry comments from AGW believers why is it that the moment their belief system is questioned they don’t defend their beliefs with science but with personal attacks and illogical, unproven statements. It reminds me of religious believers – they have faith in something they cannot prove – that’s fine when they keep it to themselves but is disasterous for the rest of us, as history and current events have shown, when they ‘force’ their unproven beliefs on the masses.
Let scientific research, funded without bias find the truth (not fit the desired result such as happened with WMD).
Anyone remember the other mass panics started by the media and vested interest: Sars, bird flu, Y2K, AIDS – all these were guaranteed ‘disasters’ – where are they now?
What’s clear with MMGW claims is that a lot of people’s jobs (especially journalists) are predicated on perpetuating an impending climate disaster – without it the Emperors New Clothes come into play.
BTW: did the clever computer models predict (i) the biofuels fiasco, (ii) the lack of global warming in the last 10 years & (iii) the likley onset of cooling? Thought not, so why believe anything they predict 20,30,50 years out?
Well, it’s lat in the day and still no definition of a crisis. Luke tried to regale us with a list of maybe weather possibilities, but no crisis is defined.
C’mon now folks. This was an easy one! Or was it?
Because if it was difficult that means all your other spouting off, piffle, blather, etc. was BS.
Bickers
Quite right – notice that the two camps on this issue are closely aligned to political leaning – strongly suggesting that yet again the Whigs and their successors have hijacked science for political purposes.
I’ve often said that we are headed for another dark age – but I have not imagined I would be witnessing its start.
Minister Wong still considers it to be a acientific consensus so it’s certainly not science that is being debated by technically sophisticated belief.
We live in interesting times but at least we can sell coal to Dubai which is just announced the contruction of 4 coal fired power plants.
Ivan – “In marketing terms, this is what is referred to as FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt).”
And that would be different from the FUD you people are peddling that “we will all be rooned” or “go back to grass huts” if we have to live in a low carbon economy.
I accept your correction on the number of people at risk at this stage as it doe not take into account the secondary effect of the 600 million or so moving to where it is dry and they can grwo crops. Also it does not take into account the farmland that will be flooded and lost.
Jim, much like yourself, I’ve just seen this Al-AGW* always presents as a politico/religious belief which is behavioural . I’ve mentioned my efforts to post on the UNreal climate site, but in Australia i have ventured, dare i say into these deltoid and JQuiggin blogs and found this closed, frozen-in-place mindset. What one sees here is a dim captive lot of rote learners in wrong order.
Quiggin for example develops what he calls his ‘litterbug’ argument using the per capita CO2 emissions method to promote the idea that Australians are practically the worst in the world. What i simply tried to say (that met with his complete censoring) was that to use the per capita CO2 method removes the geographic reality. i.e. It sees people removed not just from their biology but from their environment. I view this disconnect as a very serious issue because for starters Australia with its extensive land and ocean environment would have higher energy needs but our emissions would essentially be neutral too.
A natural consequence of this disconnect is seen with our prime minister who from all reports is looking at 300,000 immigrants per year. This may lower per capita emissions but have diabolical effects on the environment. e.g. There is the increased demand for finite water resources in the Murray/Darling basin plus increased demand for food, infrastructure and energy.
If we are concerned about purposeful behaviour then we need to understand that all living organisms do not “respond to stimuli” but rather control input variables. It is not the stimulus-response model nor the cognitive science model because behaviour is the individual CONTROL of perceptions.
AL-AGW* like all mind viruses, has a disorder of perception, preferring rote learning in wrong order and simply is belief in belief for its own sake where it becomes congratulations you lazy minded mug because you have lost control of your perceptions. We should now stop being so damned respectful of this lying, superstitious, blinded worship mindset because we get no answers from this weird respect for lazy minds living in ratbaggery.
* AL-AGW = alarmist AGW which is based on Algorian science.
Ender – “And that would be different from the FUD you people are peddling that “we will all be rooned” or “go back to grass huts” if we have to live in a low carbon economy.”
This is an easy one. The markets and the economy are fickle creatures and prone to be quite unstable from major restructuring. The climate on the other hand has proven to be quite stable (still predicting a tipping point in 2010?).
The ability of a cap & trade scheme that adds 1% to inflation to cause economic hardship is a rock solid certainty. The scheme having any effect on the climate is not.
Still silence on Jim Peden’s challenge. I have to admit I’m shocked. SHOCKED I say!
Please, define at least one crisis!
Bickers – “On most of the websites and blogs that carry comments from AGW believers why is it that the moment their belief system is questioned they don’t defend their beliefs with science but with personal attacks and illogical, unproven statements.”
Really – you must be visting the wrong sites then. People who read the science and decide that AGW is a problem will point you to the science resources that underpins AGW. It is not a belief system at all. The science says what the science says – it is as simple as that.
However if you are pointed to the science and then return with the recycled denier cherry picking science and sling off at people then you will cop an earful.
I guess it depends on how you approach it. I now just quote the Coby numbers as they take in all the denier arguments – it saves a lot of time.
Bickers – “On most of the websites and blogs that carry comments from AGW believers why is it that the moment their belief system is questioned they don’t defend their beliefs with science but with personal attacks and illogical, unproven statements.”
Agreed. Happens all the time on RealClimate. If its the only site you read then you think the attacks are justified. But there have been so many errors posted on RC over the past year (dissected by our good friend Motl) that its just becoming a waste of time.
Charming people these alarmist AGW designers with their proselytizing schemes in the media, in science, in schools, in blogs, etc One would need to be so naive or totally blind not to see these climate designers all twisted up in mind control techniques seeking the most appropriate and effective means to bake a person’s brain within their alarmist AGW incubator. They certainly have all bases covered and I simply find this arrogance profoundly disquieting.
Just see how these designers operate by designing consensus models for science turning it into theology. What next? Design how you should think? Design people’s behaviour? Design madness in the world? Design the universe perhaps? For the climate designer it has never been how best to present the truth to the public but instead it is spin and how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving this group more money or more power.
This then is the fictional view of life which of necessity implies fictional people. It in effect blindly says …. why do people need the real world when you can have an inexorable and schemingly designed fake one with its designer as a perpetual broadcaster?
ender; I must say I find your logic esoteric to say the least; there is no doubt that CO2 follows temp increase; the AGW crowd are saying that natural effect is being compromised this time because of the anthropogenic contamination of the process, but a very interesting discussion on CO2 source makes that problematic;
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
I’ll be the first to admit that isotopic ratio discussions give me a pain, but it does look that isolation of an anthropogenic source for CO2 is problematic; this combined with the good correlation between solar and temp and CO2 buildup provides a convincing counter-argument to the CO2 AGW concept; especially with this ‘new’ paper on CO2 cooling properties;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
Joel – “This is an easy one. The markets and the economy are fickle creatures and prone to be quite unstable from major restructuring. The climate on the other hand has proven to be quite stable (still predicting a tipping point in 2010?).”
Really Joel – have you looked at the ice core records? We have had a period of stablity in this interglacial however right at the end (possibly) we are recreating the condition with our CO2 emissions that existed at the start of the glacial to interglacial.
The stone age grass hut FUD campaign is wearing a bit thin as there are multitudes of ways to preserve a technological society without emitting heaps of CO2. We just have to be a bit smarter about it instead of burning the furniture. Also one of the spin off advantages is that small scale renewables are ideal for the places we have previously ignored in the Third World where small things like solar powered lights can make a massive difference to the lives of people.
Daryl – “Did we forget what we learned about the planet heating and cooling without our “help?””
No we didn’t. It is exactly this record that tells us that the climate can change and often quite dramatically. The fact that these changes were natural does not mean that this one we are experiencing now is not natural as they are independent.
As a teacher you should be pointing your students to research sites like Real Climate and Spencer’s history site that present the science and they can decide for themselves.
Climate crises are ongoing – Katrina, Australian drought, Nargis, European heatwaves etc etc – doesn’t stop.
Luke, you’ve proposed weather events, again! Climate? If your examples are climate then we have gone full circle to the controlling weather issue. Remember it? If any and everything can be claimed then we are in a world of … well you know.
Still waiting for that “CLIMATE” crisis.
Changed rainfall climate – Australian drought
It is apparent that Luke,Ender and other AGW believers.Fail to answer James Peden’s closing sentence:
“As I said at the beginning: I’m having trouble locating the crisis, so I’m hoping some of the many experts here on this forum can give me a little guidance.”
So far zippo!
No multi-year trends over decades aren’t weather. Stop playing word games Corev. Climate is a longer term average of weather events or a trend in weather.
Humanity has ongoing run-ins with weather and therefore in the longer time sense climate ongoing. Recent US floods show us a first world country washed away. Forests burn in fire weather. Hurricanes/typhoons/tropical cyclones smash into coastal communities ongoing. Heatwaves and cold snaps occur ongoing. Episodic droughts reappear.
And we don’t cope that well in the main. Loss of life, property damage, economic havoc.
It’s mythical if you think our current climate is benign. We already have enough problems.
Now when we get to 9 billion humans it will be most interesting.
And the planet owes us no favours – in fact we’re lucky to be here at all.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html African droughts may have gotten us earlier
But anyway – let’s try a global change in the Palmer drought index. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai_pdsi_paper.pdf
Maybe we’re headed back to those wonderful MWP Maya busting mega-droughts? But could that be like sceptics speculating on sunspots and ice ages?
“This comment posted by Jim Peden in this thread at popular blog realclimate.org was disallowed.”
Well, with all of the filthy languange and personal attacks who can blame them?
But seriously, anyone who expects Gavin Schmidt to post a substantial objection to the orthodoxy is living in dream land. If Gavin is going to post something contrary to AGW he will only do it if he thinks that he or one of his henchmen can successful contradict it.
I though it was hilarious when Lucia challenged one of Gavin’s articles on her own blog, Gavin came and complained to her on her blog for not going to his blog to voice her objections. But if you do go to his blog to voice your objections, he will throw out whatever he likes. The man is a hypocrite and a control freak. Guess he is taking lessons from James (Captain Ahab) Hansen.
“It’s mythical if you think our current climate is benign. ”
It’s mythical if you think that climate was ever benign, Gomer.
“Changed rainfall climate – Australian drought”
Looks like Austrailian drought is Luke’s last stand, since every other indicator is going against him. How many times has he brought it up now? Must be hundreds.
Tilo a good case example is a good case example. And we’re not on some redneck Nevaadah blog are we? This is Aussie mate. Anyway – read my global link above.
As for you hassles on RC – well boo hoo. Get over it. I’m banned on Warwick Hughes for daring to debate with even mild vigour. And Deltoid (so maligned here) gave you your own personal thread – the Tilo Reber memorial thread – so WTF eh? Pielke turns comments off – how crap is that?
It’s not like you don’t have an outlet – Macca’s science blog of the year surely is an outlet. And even Macca won’t tolerate as much ball and racket abuse as here.
Yes RC should let it hand a bit looser but you’re up them for the rent – so what do you expect – they’re only human and are going to get narky with you.
Anyway salutations, best wishes and up yours doofus. Start debating with facts or rack orf.
Ender – “Really Joel – have you looked at the ice core records? We have had a period of stablity in this interglacial however right at the end (possibly) we are recreating the condition with our CO2 emissions that existed at the start of the glacial to interglacial.”
Oh come on. Even Hansen doesn’t think we’re heading for another ice age. Hansen says “another ice age will never occur, unless humans go extinct.”
Are you arguing for a collapse of the thermohaline circulation or rapid deglaciation of both polar ice sheets within the next 100 years? I would call those climate crises but they’re just not happening.
Luke, to define weather events as climate crises they must be a UNIQUE SERIES of events. Otherwise single events are just new records. Using historical records of 150+/- years is ludicrous as climate comparisons for said events. Such a short period used as a historical limit is a sure sign of arrogance or just plain ignorance.
Which leads us to the questions, how many, how often and how severe have Australian droughts been in the past, a past far in excess of 150 years. If they have not previoulsy occurred, then we have a new weather record. If there have been others then we have cyclical weather, which might be defined as climate. There are a whole universe of questions that could be asked to nuance the level/amount of change of these events, but would they define a crisis?
So where’s the crisis?
Climate crisis is a term unique to the AGW group. As often as it is used/thrown about it should be easy to define.
Luke – “Changed rainfall climate – Australian drought”
Aren’t we back to weather now? Australian rainfall was dandy up to 2000. 8 years isn’t enough data to make any conclusions, right?
“The stone age grass hut FUD campaign is wearing a bit thin as there are multitudes of ways to preserve a technological society without emitting heaps of CO2”
A bit thin, eh? As usual – this comment completely misses the main point. Firstly, professional jobs are disappearing from Australia on a daily basis. Financial and IT jobs get “outsourced” almost daily. If you want proof of that, read Tuesday’s IT section of any major newspapers.
Secondly, blue collar jobs are disappearing on a daily basis. Look at Mitsubishi, Ford, GM and a long list. They are all moving manufacturing jobs to countries where labour costs and government costs are cheaper.
Now add into the mix the cost of “feel-good” environmental costs. The ETS will lock in a 1% cost to inflation — day 1. Business has signalled loud and clear that they will pass on every cent of the ETS. And that’s before they start doing anything that will actually produce a noticable result (like taxing petrol, or closing down the coal mines and coal-fired power stations for starters).
Woodside has already indicated that they will re-evaluate a $60B LNG project. Aluminium smelting will definitely become an iffy proposition once electricity costs start to go up. And so on it will go, as the cost of Rudderless’ lunacy begins to bite.
For every cancelled project, or every closed manufacturing facility, there is a flow-on effect to almost every other area of the economy. Blue collar jobs disappear, then white collar and professional jobs disappear. And these won’t be cyclical changes – waiting for the economy pick back up. These will be permanent.
If we’re going to be serious about ETS, then airfares need to have the carbon cost built into them as well. Australia is the most remote tourist destination in the world. Guess what – it just became the most uncompetitive. And where has all the job growth been in the last 20 years? In the services industry, predominantly catering to tourism – one of our biggest export earners. Kiss these jobs goodbye as well.
And don’t for one minute believe Bob Brown’s horse$hit about blue-collar jobs becoming green jobs. How many tour guides can we possibly use to show tourists (if there are any) around closed down factories, power stations, etc.
I’ve lost count – how many unemployed were we up to so far? How many do you think we’ll need to get to before the country is reduced to third-world standards, I wonder?
With the erosion of the tax base, where will the money come from to develop all your imaginary or emerging technology? You don’t have to live in a grass hut to have third-world standards.
A dandy up to 2000. ROTFL. And try about 20-30 years Joel ! And look internationally too.
Why must they be a unique series of events CoRev? That’s just discounting of contemporary impacts and your cognitive dissonance preference.
We’ve been through the Aussie drought thing ad nauseum on many threads and don’t want to repeat – but Murray Darling and SE Qld flows have been lowest on record. MDB drought has been brewing since 1998 really. SW WA has major long term rainfall decline. And there is some good deductive climate science homework as to why. You know what I’m going to say so why repeat it.
So the globe has ongoing crises with climate. Otherwise why is there emergency relief – the Burmese would simply say – oh yes – we swept the driveway and the power was back on in a few hours. Same in New Orleans. Same in US floods. Those Californian fires would have been out before you knew it. No problemo.
Australia would not be spending zillions in drought relief ongoing. Producers would not have had 300 years worth of support in 10-20 years.
We’d be singing as we walked. Taking it all in our stride.
So existing climate variability gives us heaps of grief as a species. Would be a piece of piss mate (as we convicts say).
Our local experience is that AGW shifts that existing climate variability with its episodic ongoing crises up a notch. Gives you more tail on the probability distribution.
I am utterly stunned that you guys are trying to portray a nice benign friendly current global climate is the norm.
“Looks like Austrailian drought is Luke’s last stand, since every other indicator is going against him. How many times has he brought it up now? Must be hundreds.”
It’s not the ‘last stand’, it’s, to date, the most significant impact. And the impact has been huge, and this is very early on.
Ivan – “A bit thin, eh? As usual – this comment completely misses the main point. Firstly, professional jobs are disappearing from Australia on a daily basis. Financial and IT jobs get “outsourced” almost daily. If you want proof of that, read Tuesday’s IT section of any major newspapers.”
Which has absolutely nothing to do with climate change or policies relating to climate change. This is all the free market globalisation that you people worship. Can’t even think why you said this in this context.
If anything renewables can bring work back to Australia. With some more investment the solar tubes that are made in China from Sydney Uni research could be made here. The Flow Batteries, developed at the Uni of NSW could also be sold amd made here if someone had financed them. Instead we provide jobs for Canadians. What about the solar technology of David Mills?
“I am utterly stunned that you guys are trying to portray a nice benign friendly current global climate is the norm.”
I am equally stunned by anyone thinking that imposing an ETS tax is going to make the drought go away.
Do you need a new bone to put in your nose, or will the current one do for a while?
“Well, it’s lat in the day and still no definition of a crisis. Luke tried to regale us with a list of maybe weather possibilities, but no crisis is defined.
C’mon now folks. This was an easy one! Or was it?”
This is only the start, theres over a century of changes to come. That we have had such severe drought this early on is not good for Australia, which is already mostly desert.
“Al Gore says we have ten years of less. For what? The cooling to be self evident?”
To stop what is going to come over the next century or so.
“If we’re going to be serious about ETS, then airfares need to have the carbon cost built into them as well. Australia is the most remote tourist destination in the world. Guess what – it just became the most uncompetitive. And where has all the job growth been in the last 20 years? In the services industry, predominantly catering to tourism – one of our biggest export earners. Kiss these jobs goodbye as well.”
Your statement is not logcally valid. Whether or not people can afford to come to Australia has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is real. If it’s real, it’s real, no matter what airfares cost.
“Which has absolutely nothing to do with climate change or policies relating to climate change. This is all the free market globalisation that you people worship. Can’t even think why you said this in this context.”
I can see why you and Luke hit it off so well. He is completely clueless when it comes to the political process and how complex problems get solved in the real world – and you’re completely clueless when it comes to economics in the real world. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
“If anything renewables can bring work back to Australia.”
Dream on. When has this ever happened in the entire history of Australia? Technology goes the other way, Ender, largely because there’s no business culture of risk-taking in Australia. Also, it’s just too damn difficult to get through all the red tape here.
“could also be sold amd made here if someone had financed them”
That was my point, egghead. Where is the finance going to come from in a depressed (and shrinking) economy?? I seem to have woken up this morning in 1973 and Gough Whitlam is running things – and we’ll just print more money.
It’s becoming clearer by the day why you 2 are such believers in this AGW nonsense.
“Your statement is not logcally valid. Whether or not people can afford to come to Australia has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is real. If it’s real, it’s real, no matter what airfares cost.”
This was an economic statement, not a religious one. See if you can follow this short logic chain:
– ETS = tax (i.e. charge added to cost of goods and services).
– Airplanes use fossil fuel and produce CO2
– Therefore, air fares will need to rise to cover the increased cost mandated by ETS
– Air fare increases will (or should) be proportional to distance
– Therefore, Australia will be proportionally more expensive than destinations which are closer to our main source of tourists.
– Therefore, we lose.
This has nothing to do with with whether AGW is real or not, or whether the tooth fairy is real or not. It has to do with the economic response to the implementation of illogical and damaging policy.
But apparently AGW zealots are so consumed by their religious beliefs, that they can’t comprehend fundamental economic principles.
ender, you have no legitimacy without thorium.
luke; that link of yours to the Dai, Trenberth and Qian paper on the PDSI says this;
“An empirical orthoganal function (EOF) analysis of the PDSI reveals a fairly linear trend resulting from trends in precipitation and surface temperature and an El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-induced mode of mostly interannual variations as the two leading patterns. The global very dry areas, defined as PDSI<-3.0 have more than doubled since the 1970s, with a large jump in the early 1980s due to an ENSO-induced precipitation decrease”
There is no doubt that there has been climate stress over the last 30 years as a result of PDO phase shift and increasing population; agricultural practices are also to blame; Lomborg at p154-156 discusses the Falkenmark water stress criterion for the future as being a measure of land practice and population pressure not climate change.
So to our MDB and the scandalous misrepresentation by Wong in presenting the current drought in the MDB as a manifestation of AGW and not political ineptitude along with bad land practice; you have turned up your nose before about this BoM 2005 paper, but figs 4 and 4 say it all really;
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20050323-craik.shtml
“This has nothing to do with with whether AGW is real or not, or whether the tooth fairy is real or not. It has to do with the economic response to the implementation of illogical and damaging policy.”
The economy depends on the environment.
“The economy depends on the environment.”
I guess you win. I can’t think of a suitable inane comeback to a vacuous one-liner such as this.
So now you have two killer statements to drop into conversation:
1) “It’s a science.”
2) “The economy depends on the environment.”
I can’t quite work out what your problem is.
Science is science, no matter what our values are.
No environment, no economy. I didn’t know anyone could argue with that?
“No environment, no economy. I didn’t know anyone could argue with that?”
If you look back over the history of civilisation, it is obvious that the story of progress goes hand in hand with the struggle to overcome the challenges presented by the environment. If the economic returns have been great enough, the technology has been developed to facilitate this – whether it is growing crops in the desert, drilling for oil in Alaska, going to the moon – whatever.
To say “no environment, no economy” is perhaps the stupidest statement to come out of this whole AGW discussion – ever. There will always be an ‘environment’ – it may not always be to our liking – and there will always be an ‘economy’, since the alternative is to lie down and die. And the ways and means will always be found to deal with whatever comes up – hot, cold or indifferent.
Jim Peden, You will find the answer to all your questions by contacting scientists Kevin Rudd, Bob Brown,Tony Blair, Barack Obama etc, and their political scientific organizations such as the Greens, Labour Australia & UK,the Democrats USA and other millenarianism agendas not withstanding Socialist Political Parties.
“No environment, no economy. I didn’t know anyone could argue with that?”
Wow, now you’re saying no environment. AGW will make there be no environment. Quite the statement.
Agriculture is vitally important to the economy. Although considering its 3% of GDP, I’m not sure you could argue that drought has impacted the average Australian more than petrol prices. (Luke will comment on the hidden costs of farm subsidies here).
Luke, are you saying regional climate models predicted this amount of rainfall shifting in this short a span of time? Surely you jest. Your insistence that a regional model using boundary conditions from a global model is somehow proof because it qualitatively fits the current Australian rainfall shifts is terrible. Verification (or validation or attribution) is done for the GCM’s. Have the regional models been validated by accurately producing previous Australian droughts? I agree we don’t need to dig up this discussion for the upteenth time. But you’re the only one pushing it.
Been through it before Cohenite – there’s really quite enough science to take a risk averse evaluation. Pretty well most of you position at 2:37 is utter bunk. But I don’t think discussing it will help. Population shift affecting the PDSI globally etc ROTFL. Land practices – more bunk in the context of the analysis.
Joel – yes – and if you want the modelling discussion and journal paper list – well truck on over to Open Mind and read the recent drought threads.
I reckon whatever happened you guys would weasel out of it. There is no proof of changes in climate that you would accept. None. Every data set and concept would have some issue.
Ivan you numb nuts – well we can keep going and make things much worse. I think you’d like a semi-permanent ENSO situation wouldn’t you. You know being such a dry bastard you’d love it.
But really who cares – if you’re think you’re any good form the anti-senate climate party and get going. But odds are that the sky won’t fall in and you’ll be stuck with Ruddster for a while longer. It will be 1,950 days and counting Ivan.
So stop whining like a little bitch and change things politically. Surely you have might and right on your side. Surely God is a sceptic? We’re just wishy washy flim flams so it shouldn’t take you that long. That is if you’re any chop and not just full of it.
Sorry for apparent reversion – old browser.
“Wow, now you’re saying no environment. AGW will make there be no environment. Quite the statement.”
Good grief, I was saying if there is no environment, then there is no economy. It’s a simple statement of fact.
“Sorry for apparent reversion – old browser.”
Oh – so the browser made you revert to your normal gutter-sniping vitriolic self? Hmmm… how bizzare. And all this time I thought it was the red cordial.
“But odds are that the sky won’t fall in and you’ll be stuck with Ruddster for a while longer.”
I wouldn’t put much money on that one. I would put money on Rudderless being out of the PM’s job before the next election, though. Once the hard-heads in the party realise the damage he is doing, the knives will be out. They won’t want to take a liability like that to the next election.
“It will be 1,950 days and counting Ivan.”
Look at Gippsland – a uniform swing like that, and they’re gone. And if they reprise the Little Johnny Howard act and run on Trust — well – sorry that just makes me convulse in fits of laughter.
“Surely God is a sceptic?”
You don’t think She is?
Ender: I don’t doubt that AGW believers have done a great deal of science funded by Government. My core point is that it’s becoming increasingly clear that the science is far from settled. We’re incapable of accurately predicting the weather (using some of the world’s most powerful computers) a week out, so why do you think we’re capable of predicting the complex climate system a 100 years out?
As I stated the computer models that are being used to justify a complete change of our lifestyles (which will impact most severely on the poorest people) failed to predict the biofuels fiasco, the Earth not warming for the last 10 years and the current cooling.
Until you use science (not propoganda) to explain how the climate works then scaremongering the masses with false science (Gore’s movie) will at some point backfire. But how much damage will have been done to our economies and citizens before we find out that the amount of CO2 we generate (minute compared to nature) and CO2 itself have little or no effect on the climate. In fact we know that when CO2 levels were a lot higher than they’ll be in the next few hundred years the world was covered in lush greenery – an Eden some would say. CO2 is not a toxic gas, it’s essential to life on Earth and there’s no, repeat no EVIDENCE that is causes warming or exacerbates it in any meaningful way
Bickers – come on this is fairy tale stuff – lush greenery – an Eden !! – well people notice 1000 ppm as uncomfortable and at 2000 ppm CO2, a majority will feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headaches. Prehistoric Earth is not like the current day ! You wouldn’t enjoy it !
And here we go – current cooling ? huh …
“complete change of lifestyles” – huh ?
Luke: do some science and medical homework please: CO2 @ 3 or 4 times the current level would have no physiological impact on humans and other life.
The comment Eden was a metaphor for explaining that we know from the historical record that a richer CO2 climate resulted in a lusher world, so some more CO2 in our current climate would (i) not cause or exerbate any given average temperature & (ii) would act as a fertiliser to plant life (we’re going to need more food unless we control poulation growth)
As for cooling: go check out the satellite readings – they don’t lie. Anecdotally, here in the UK we’re having another very poor summer: it’s quite cool (more like spring than summer) and the last heatwave we had was July 2006).
Lifestyle comment: unless you’re living in a coccoon then food and fuel prices have gone through the roof. Food in particular has gone up because of the crazy notion that growing biofuels instead of food was (i) feasible: it’s clearly not & (ii) carbon neutral: it’s clearly not. Millions of people are now suffering (lifestyle) because of misguided, unnecessary policies that will do nothing to change the climate
CO2 don’t help if she don’t rain.
Check out the FACE experiments. Quoting some latest weather isn’t relevant. The trend is your friend.
And yes satellite can lie – there is a darn lot in radiometric correction and bi-directional reflectance and that sort of stuff. Sensor drift. Multiple platforms over years etc etc.
A quick Google on Health – http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/CarbonDioxide.htm – check out 2000 ppm – and gee the Earth may have had 8000 ppm at one stage. (hears gasping noise and loud clunk as Bickers expires into some prehistoric herbage)
But yes if you think I’m being tedious CO2 is not a pollutant in the sense that CO is. At our current levels of exposure. As yes if it’s part of organic life and beer bubbles I agree.
On biofuels – well I don’t think the IPCC said destroy the 3rd world and create a food crisis by substituting food for biofuel. Blame opportunists and speculators. But now that we know biofuels create these issues I don’t think the world has to keep doing the same – it’s called learning !
“unless you’re living in a coccoon..”
Sheltered workshop, more likely. He’s researching a new book to be called “Global Warming for Dummies”. Apparently he’s the most qualified person in Australia, finishing a short nose in front of Tim Foolery.
“On biofuels – well I don’t think the IPCC said destroy the 3rd world and create a food crisis by substituting food for biofuel.”
Ahem!
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/files/pressrelease2007-05-04.pdf
.. and I quote:
“Environmental groups are, however, deeply concerned that the IPCC’s [AR4] Summary for Policy Makers on climate mitigation, released earlier today, includes a recommendation for large-scale expansion of biofuels from monocultures, including from GM crops, even though monoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change.”
When you got to the bit “well I don’t think” you should have just left it there.
“- it’s called learning..”
So let’s see if I have this straight. When the IPCC makes ill-conceived alarmist recommendations based on flimsy data and poorly thought-out strategies that leads to catastrophic results including famine and starvation, the accepted protocol is for apologists like yourself to simply say “Oops – sorry for the complete f*ckup. We’re still learning. Anyway – no harm done. They were all probably uneducated sceptics anyway.”
But of course, we’re still supposed to trust and believe them on the big one, right ?
“CO2 is not a toxic gas”. That’s right, people try to breathe in pure CO2 for the benefits it gives them all the time.
It’s not an issue at all of if it is toxic or not, it’s a matter of it’s physical properties in the atmosphere.
Bickers – “In fact we know that when CO2 levels were a lot higher than they’ll be in the next few hundred years the world was covered in lush greenery – an Eden some would say. CO2 is not a toxic gas, it’s essential to life on Earth and there’s no, repeat no EVIDENCE that is causes warming or exacerbates it in any meaningful way”
What was the temperature and sea level in this eden of yours?
SJT
Physical properties in the atmosphere which you actually can’t measure because the gas is air – with a CHEMICAL composition of etc etc.
CO2 does not behave physically independently in air – its basic gas theory – asl Mr Walker to explain it.
Get the science right please.
Luke: I checked out your health link – interesting but highly misleading, (i) other factors are mentioned alongside CO2 levels that may be more harmful catalysts (e.g. bacteria) to the symptoms described & (ii) I’d like to see a research paper that discusses this in the context of ‘open’ circulating air, not a closed or restricted environment, e.g. room.
I cannot believe your comments on satellite readings: even your fellow bretheren accept they are more accurate than land based stations. They are highly unlikely to ‘lie’ and the AGW brigade would be all over the media if they were showing warming – they’re not!
Why is a stalling in warming or a cooling phase any more different to what AGW believers have been propogating – your whole pitch is based on blaming recent ‘weather’ (warming) on mankind, so will you now do the same when the climate stops warming?
You still haven’t answered Jim’s question: where’s the crisis?
Well the IPCC didn’t tell your money grubbing mates to cause mass starvation at all – that’s your capitalist greed gene you’re confused with Mr Piggy. Oink Oink. Hey Ivan how’s the new political party going – you could be in the wilderness for 5000 days and counting you know ROTFL !
“CO2 is not a toxic gas”.
IT’S NOT???????????????
That can’t be true. As my references, I cite the following in the Alarmist Age (amongst others):
Tracee Hutchison (April 5, 2008):
“deadly carbon dioxide”
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/04/1207249454452.html)
Ken Davidson (April 17, 2008):
“IF FORCED to choose, I would prefer to live on top of a nuclear waste dump than a carbon dioxide dump”
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/16/1208025282995.html)
These esteemed hacks for the Alarmist Age wouldn’t lie to us, would they????
I’m shocked!
luke; I was going to raise some objections to your interpretation of Berner and the ‘inability’ of solar decline to bring on an ice-age, but then I realised it was pointless, because your good mate Tamino has proved the Dalton Minimum didn’t occur, and there is no correlation between sunspot activity and temperature; now what was that expression? Oh yes, ROTFL; how crass.
“Well the IPCC didn’t tell your money grubbing mates to cause mass starvation at all..”
What a piss-weak excuse for a human being! The fault here is all due to the IPCC.
“you could be in the wilderness for 5000 days and counting you know..”
You think so? I know the real world doesn’t intrude into your reality very much, but consider this.
The G8 has already made noises about backing away from AGW and/or CO2 reductions (you remember the little bit about blaming the Chinese and Indians?). If McCain wins the US Election, which is better than even money, then all bets are off. The wavering that is already going on in the G8 will only increase.
Next cab off the rank is Helen (“Ms 27%) Clark in NZ in November. Gone for all money. European Parliament elections are due next June – which will give the Europeans a chance to show their solidarity. Followed soon after by elections in Germany in September. Merkel is already wavering over the damage that ETS will do to their automotive industry (vis-a-vis the French, who make smaller cars).
Gordon (“Dead Man Walking”) Brown will be next – either at the same time as the European Parliament elections -or- if he thinks he’s deader than dead, he’ll hang out for as long as he can and hope for a miracle. Much like John Howard. The latest, however, is June 2010.
My guess is he will hold out until June 2010 and get slaughtered. His only salvation will be to jettison this AGW ETS crap. Now put yourself in Rudderless’ position. Shortly after Brown gets crucified (or repents), he will have to front up and tell everyone in Australia to “stay the course” and that “the cost of doing nothing will be greater than the cost of screwing our economy” … etc.
And you think the hard men in the ALP will just sit back and let him crash and burn against this background? Get into the real world occasionally.
Ivan – we know you like science and absolute proof. Get a CO2 cylinder. Close all the doors and windows and turn on the gas. Report back on any symptoms of toxicity.
Don’t forget to ask your mommy for permission first though.
Here’s what it’s like living next to a CO2 dump in Cameroon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm
CO2 isn’t toxic harmful really. If your CO2 dump blows you’ll being laughing about it for … well – for one or two minutes.
Luke
Got that CO2 source in the GCM computer model?
Luke: I’m sad that you’ve reverted to what most AGW believers do when someone threatens their belief system – you make false, vindictive accusations about their person – how dare you say:
‘Well the IPCC didn’t tell your money grubbing mates to cause mass starvation at all – that’s your capitalist greed gene you’re confused with Mr Piggy. Oink Oink’.
You don’t know me or what I believe in, other than I question the so called scientific consensus behind AGW – any desktop research shows there are thousands of highly qualified scientists (many more than are claimed to support IPCC) who (i) don’t buy into AGW or (ii) even it exists see it as a recipe for disaster.
Until I saw the Gore movie and started doing some research I went along with the media claims (mainly BBC) that mankind was causing unstoppable global warming. Any sober research on what drives climate change clearly shows that mankind and CO2 are not drivers of it.
I’ll ask you again: can you provide any evidence of a global climate crisis caused by mankind?
Bickers I was talking to my very good friend Ivan on this 8:23 comment. My responses on crises ongoing and worsening are above in the various comments.
Bickers: “can you provide any evidence of a global climate crisis caused by mankind?”
For starters, try a google on JP’s “climate crisis 2008” versus “environmental crisis 2008”.
Sure we get side tracked by blogs in both downloads but the second leads us to comments on China, China, China, Darfur…etc. I reckon JP has led us up the garden path by his mere choice of key words.
CoRev may wish to check it too
Luke: Again I followed the link you provided based on the your comment: ‘Here’s what it’s like living next to a CO2 dump in Cameroon.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm
A ‘dump’ tends to be something manmade – this lake is caused by natural volcanic activity – nothing to do with man!! So, your point is what?
Living next to an erupting volcano or sunbathing on a beach that’s about to be hit by a tsunami is dangerous, so living next to this natural event is clearly a problem and one not manmade.
I’m sure you know that we live on a planet that can produce violent events (without any help from mankind).
If you want to engage in a rational discussion based on science then I’m happy to do so, however your personal insults about me and illogical statements (above comment and link) indicate that you have very little if no evidence to answer Jim’s basic question: where is the climate crisis?
If you can rationally demonstrate there’s a global climate crisis that mankind has caused then please explain in detail.
So CO2 is a pollutant? Well, so is oxygen;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
This nonsense really has to be laid to rest.
Gavin: i read the links – couldn’t find any evidence of a ‘climate crisis’.
Plenty of scaremongering based on computer models and weather events, but no evidence that recent or future global climate has been changed in any noticeable way by mankind.
AGW believers need to explain why the World has stopped warming and has started to cool when their models didn’t show this. Unless they can do this I’m afraid the Emperor will be manufacturing thousands of new clothes for them.
The stake in KRudds electoral heart will be the fact that he, and his entire party, have coldly calculated to junk a couple of hundred thousand otherwise viable small businesses and trash half a million otherwise good marriages, rather than meet part of their carbon reduction target with nuclear power.
With nuclear power the bar, for ordinary Australians, will not be as high as Rudd has now set it. And as the bar will be higher, the stress on businesses and the kids marriages will be higher, and the casualty rate will rise to match it. Of, course, the grandkids will pay the highest price of all.
This is going to be one hell of a hair shirt.
“So CO2 is a pollutant? Well, so is oxygen;”
So is money. There was a study back in 1977 where a couple of doctors sewed coins inside rats and they developed cancer – this was at the time when every known sugar substitute was being “proved” to cause cancer. They published a paper on their findings in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/citation/238/5/397b
It shows what happens when you let scientists go off unsupervised. (I believe these guys went on to join Hansen at NASA).
“The stake in KRudds electoral heart will be the fact that he…”
Funnily enough – I think it will be even simpler than that. I think it will be the not insignificant fact that he will have de facto defined everyone in Australia as a polluter. If you breath and exhale, then by definition you will be a polluter. People can latch on to that simple concept. And almost all of the general public instinctively resents being turned into a lawbreaker or miscreant by political fiat.
“This nonsense really has to be laid to rest.”
So why start it?
Bickers – the simple point is that in large concentrations CO2 is a hazard. Leakage of CO2 sequestration deposits has been an issue for concern for sequestration storage researchers – and Lake Nyos vividly illustrates why it’s something we do not want to happen. You’re making the points about CO2 being harmless and Eden etc. They’re incorrect. Similarly large amounts of salt are hazardous and you can easily drown is large bodies of water. Both relatively “harmless” substances to most people.
Similarly CO2 is not a magic plant fertiliser if other inputs are limiting as various FACE experiments well demonstrate.
If you’d like more rational discussion on this blog perhaps you might also remind the other anti-AGW personalities to be as kind.
I have made my points about climate crises above in the comments. I don’t intend to restate them again. You can address them if you feel the need.
Thanks, Jim Peden, for another voice of sanity in wilderness. Don’t mind our resident frothing trolls. They seek to end rational discourse, under the transparent pretense of advancing the inquiry.
It’s amazing how a strong, clear, logical argument spreads like wild fire, while the shrill voices of magical fear have paradoxically provided evidence of the urgency of your questions.
If, after 110 comments, this is the best arguments the warministas can muster. Your point, Jim, stands true and well taken…
Thanks goes to Luke, Ender, and all the lesser AGW acolytes, for making Jim’s point stunningly clear.
“I have made my points..”
You’ve made your points – yes – a bunch of waffle, rhetoric and hyperbole, but nothing that comes remotely close to any reasonable textbook definition of ‘crisis’.
Perhaps you’d care to point out the crisis(es) for the sake of us slow learners – nothing bigger than 2-syllable words, preferably. (We can take the biofuel crisis created by the IPCC as being read for the time being.)
And then maybe SJT can come along afterwards and say “Suffer in your jocks, ya dickhead”, or something insightful like that.
Nice try Luke.
“…but Murray Darling and SE Qld flows have been lowest on record. MDB drought has been brewing since 1998 really. SW WA has major long term rainfall decline. And there is some good deductive climate science homework as to why. You know what I’m going to say so why repeat it.
So the globe has ongoing crises with climate. Otherwise why is there emergency relief – the Burmese would simply say – oh yes – we swept the driveway and the power was back on in a few hours. Same in New Orleans. Same in US floods. Those Californian fires would have been out before you knew it. No problemo.”
You’ve defined a number of disparate weather events. Are they a series? Nope! Can they be related? Nope! Are they even extreme weather events? Nope! Can a pattern with the current Australian drought(s) be discerned? Nope!
Why a series? C’mon now! How do we prove/show a trend. One point does not a trend make. And, that’s all you have provided with your examples.
So, even again, where is that “CLIMATE CRISIS?”
Luke; thanks for your latest comment.
Again, you’re not addressing Jim Peden’s request: ‘show me evidence of the climate crisis’.
Of course large natural or manmade concentrations of any gas is dangerous – obvious really!
However, we’re talking about climate and AGW supporters are going to have to prove why increasing CO2 levels (minute in actual terms) have not caused additional global warming since ’98 and appear to not be mitigating a recent cooling phase. That’s at the core of the so called AGW ‘scientific consensus’ and their computer models. If warming/cooling is increasingly shown not to be connected to CO2 the whole AGW mantra is a busted flush.
In the UK the largest sugar beet processor has an adjacent plant that is the largest greenhouse growing tomatoes in the UK. CO2 is piped to the greenhouse from the sugar beet plant to enrich growth – I believe other greenhouse farmers do the same thing which goes to show they understand the benefits of CO2
Luke; thanks for your latest comment.
Again, you’re not addressing Jim Peden’s request: ‘show me evidence of the climate crisis’.
Of course large natural or manmade concentrations of any gas is dangerous – obvious really!
However, we’re talking about climate and AGW supporters are going to have to prove why increasing CO2 levels (minute in actual terms) have not caused additional global warming since ’98 and appear to not be mitigating a recent cooling phase. That’s at the core of the so called AGW ‘scientific consensus’ and their computer models. If warming/cooling is increasingly shown not to be connected to CO2 the whole AGW mantra is a busted flush.
In the UK the largest sugar beet processor has an adjacent plant that is the largest greenhouse growing tomatoes in the UK. CO2 is piped to the greenhouse from the sugar beet plant to enrich growth – I believe other greenhouse farmers do the same thing which goes to show they understand the benefits of CO2
I think this tells you why we should be sceptical of buying into the AGW and IPCC agenda – the law of unintended and thought through consequences!!
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg30
“It’s not like you don’t have an outlet”
I’m not talking about my lack of an outlet, I’m talking about what RC did to Jim Peden, Gomer. Try to keep your subjects straight.
“And Deltoid (so maligned here) gave you your own personal thread”
Yeap! And when I started giving Lambert data to show him that his accusations of Jennifer were wrong, he threw it in the can. By the way, he wasn’t doing me any favors. I was giving him a third of his hits for a while.
SJT:
“To stop what is going to come over the next century or so.”
And what if we don’t do anything different for the next ten years. Then what will happen over the next century. What is this mythical tipping point that we will reach if we do exactly what we have been doing? What is your idiot friend Al Gore talking about SJT. Give me the scenarios and the numbers.
“Close all the doors and windows and turn on the gas.”
You are a true idiot Luke. That’s like saying that salt spoils your food. And if you want to proof it, just dump kilo of salt on your morning eggs.
Anyone with a genuine interest in understanding what drives climate should read this:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
“Anyone with a genuine interest in understanding what drives climate should read this:”
Right over Barbra Boxers head. She can only understand flooded cities and dead polar bears. Spencer does also have an explanation on his site that makes understanding his theory a little simpler.
Thanks for the link Bickers. I’m guessing that Real Climate is trying to figure out how to throw mud at it right now.
Bickers: “Anyone with a genuine interest in understanding what drives climate should read this:”
Right on Bickers! But don’t expect the resident alarmists to pay heed to actual science!
“”So CO2 is a pollutant? Well, so is oxygen;””
And so is bull$hit! Where’s the EPA to deal with Luke, Ender, SJT and Gavin when you need them?
Bickers: Thanks for looking at “environment crisis links” via Google re man made problems however I spent considerably more time doing the same job and found heaps beyond the “usual” blogs.
CoRev: ?
CoRev – don’t bother playing word games. You’ve been given your answer. Stop trying to be simply tedious. Or define your subject much more clearly. Actually I think you need to do a guest post here with a lot more detail.
Global drought index trend.
ENSO trend
PDI hurricanes
As for “You’ve defined a number of disparate weather events. Are they a series? Nope! Can they be related? Nope! Are they even extreme weather events? Nope! Can a pattern with the current Australian drought(s) be discerned? Nope!” – sorry that’s not a refutation. That’s just your opinion. I’ve given you this information over many posts. NOW I want a detailed refutation CoRev. “nope” is not a quality answer. Why do they have to be extreme? Significant damage is the issue.
Now where’s your detailed critique of why I’m wrong. And give this to me in a risk management context as it’s 6 going to 9 billion humans we’re talking about here. Risk by definition is imperfect knowledge. I want your formal calculation of risk to rebut the IPCC’s report – where is it?
Bickers – giggle – optimum conditions in a glasshouse as an example. A nice well watered C3 species. ROTFL ! Not the real outside world mate. That’s called getting rid of the weather. No wonder you’re confused.
Bickers where’s you evidence of a “cooling phase”. Table it in detail pls.
“Minute” is not a science answer either. Botulism is also minute. Try ingesting some. Silly argument. This is on par with you desire to teleport back to when CO2 was over 2000ppm. Where’s your formal calculation that the calculated magnitude of the greenhouse effect is wrong? An opinion to the contrary is not an answer.
“If warming/cooling is increasingly shown not to be connected to CO2” – where’s your evidence that it’s not? Where’s your detailed AR4 refutation?
BTW the climate doesn’t have to prove anything – it doesn’t care what you think.
Bickers: Spencer’s little Senate presentation is a really light read on the whole subject of AGW
Just visiting. This blog is occupied by the most mind-boggling fools whose primary preoccupation is discovering who can dish the best abuse and ignore sense and honesty whilst trashing reputations and the planet. It’s a sad world indeed when you discover such loonies exist. Do the rest of the word a favour and stay here in your cyber fish bowl and maybe you can devour one another and remove yourselves from the gene pool.
“If warming/cooling is increasingly shown not to be connected to CO2” – where’s your evidence that it’s not?
Here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2HCNlongterm.jpg
And here:
(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg)
“Bickers where’s you evidence of a “cooling phase”. Table it in detail pls.”
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomoly.html
I haven’t updated for the June data yet, but it will only tip those trends down a little more, Gomer.
Luke, nope is the only answer. Your task was to define a CLIMATE CRISIS. You have yet to point to anything other than some disparate weather events.
Don’t change the subject and then attack on the new subject. It’s a tiresome debating trick not worth following.
The challenge was easy, but I have yet to see a crisis defined.
Gavin, you’ve done the Googling, so bring them out for us to look at in awe.
Climate crisis should have been a really easy thing to define, but after a whole day we are no where closer.
Is it time to call Gore or Hansen to solve this? (That’s my little joke!)
“Global drought index trend.”
Where?
USA:
(http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025711.shtml)
“Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.”
Australia:
(http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/5/index.html)
Note trend line over last 100 years (upwards)
As usual – you are making $hit up.
“As usual – you are making $hit up.”
You don’t understand. If there is any spot in Australia that is getting drier, then Gomer has his proof that AGW is real.
Ivan, Luke is only interested in:
1) Rainfall for the past 30 years.
2) Rain that falls in the right places.
3) The bleeding edge latest statistics so I don’t think 2005 will cut it.
Queue abuse.
CoRev: I won’t offer you a whole load of links when you can easily do it all for yourself however some good thinking beyond “self” is well illustrated here
“The longer I am involved in environmental protection, the more I realise the importance of democracy and the legal system” – Pan Yue
http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1167-Green-China-and-young-China-part-one-
Gavin, no one would argue with the environmental concerns brought up in that article. Please note that emissions were only mentioned once in the article, and the primary reason was to point out how energy inefficient Chinese industry is and how this isn’t sustainable from an energy perspective.
I could point you to many instances of environmental mismangement where the intentions were good but the outcomes disastrous.
2006 was record wheat crop
we recently have been drowning in a glut of wine.
2008 was a record sorhgum crop.
Cattle numbers are at pre 2002 drought levels and feedlot numbers are at a record 1.5mil.
Barley projections are good for this season, just short of the record 2003/4 crop.
Canola is also projected to be high.
what ongoing drought?? Australian farmers have traditionally had good years and bad. It’s par for the course.
“2006 was record wheat crop …”
Yes … yes. But these are facts.
Facts have no place in a religious argument.
Can we please get back to the emotion-charged ranting and raving.
gavin; I don’t think Spencer’s address is a light read; Spencer is dealing with one crucial issue; cloud-based negative feedback; he is succinct and he is sitting upon a growing mass of supporting evidence. The thing I find gratifying is that ENSO and PDO is starting to be recognised for its importance; it’s a disgrace IPCC hasn’t thrown its money at that research instead of CO2 which they concede is not up the job; ie AR4 FAQ 3.1; in fact IPCC has depended on +ve feedback from H2O; Spencer’s light read simply and specifically pulls that carpet out from their feet as well. Anyway, noone has seen fit to make a sensible response to this paper yet;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
“you could be in the wilderness for 5000 days and counting you know..”
So, numb-nuts, how’s the 5000-day Reich looking this morning?
I see in today’s papers that the good doctor has finally grown a brain and decided not to be a carbon-copy of Rudderless and Wrong.
Looks like the strategy of just sitting back and counting down the days may pay off after all.
Mind you, if I were an oxygen-thief at the CSIRO or BoM or Melbourne University I’d probably begin to worry a bit…
Since it is obvious that the very easily scared group.Fail to show a CLIMATE CRISIS.
I can rest easy that I am glad I am not easily scared….. and not easily suckered for the AGW nonsense either.
Once again James Peden comes along with commentary and you alarmists fall apart with evasive responses.
Mr. Peden along with Dr. Glassman and Viscount Monkton.Are proving to be excellent flypapers for alarmists.
I have personally engineered in a forum.Frothing replies to a Monkton paper and earlier a Glassman paper.That I started threads with.They threw everything at it except an actual counterpoint.
I see the same here with less namecalling.But gosh there are no rational answers to Pedens request.
There are no CLIMATE CRISIS.
No catastrophic warming trend is evident.
No catastrophic sea level increase is evident.
No Climate Crisis is evident.
Only easily fooled AGW believers are still looking for it.While the rest of us sane humans are watching the quiet sun.With growing concern.
How about getting off that creaky AGW bandwagon and plant your feet on solid sane ground instead?
Luke and the people at AGO are mesmerised by the computer modelling and paper published from these computer models.
However none of the computer models are a reasonable facsimile of physical reality, and the obsession with CO2 isn’t from a scientific conclusion but from the initial assumption made by Arhhnius in 1906 – an assumption that has never been proved to be correct.
Climate Science has much in common with Astronomy based on a big bang hypothesis – like co2 induced global warming, this event was also not observed, hence no scientific theory could be framed for it.
Science is about explaining observations of Nature, framing hypotheses and testing them.
AGW was never observed, but was a speculation by Arhhenius that ice ages were caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. This has never been observed. Keeling et al then extrapolated from this assumption and proposed CO2 global warming – again never observed at the time. Science was conscripted not to falisfy the AGW speculation, but to find evidence for it, and of which they have found an abundance.
But the initial theory has never been empirically verified.
Astronomical theories based on a big bang and climate science based on CO2 warming the atmosphere are two bodies of intellectual endeavour not based in empirical fact, but on imaginative speculations – both are categorically pseudosince, and both rely on consensus to establish (pseudo)scientific truths.
AGW is simply another millennial belief but this time instead of being based on loin-clothed fakirs parading with placards display the end is near, we have the far more interesting phenomenon of computer models prophesing the end times.
This is what happens when a science becomes disconnected from physical reality and empriricism.
The debate is not over the science but whether the Aristotelians or Socratists/Platonists hold sway in framing policy. At the moment the Socratists are in power, and no reasoned argument can persuade them that their conclusion are based on fictional assumptions.
So hang on for the ride of the millennia.
“This is what happens when a science becomes disconnected from physical reality and empriricism.”
Louis – that explains half of it (the ‘how’), but doesn’t explain the ‘why’. Apparently, a lot of people feel the need to believe in this horse$hit. It is – in effect – the world’s largest documented case of mass hysteria occasioned by self delusion. Behavioural scientists are going to have a field day raking over this for decades trying to come up with rational explanations for it.
Just one request – can you please stop referring to it as “Climate Science”. It’s really in the same bucket as “Creation Science”.
Ivan – “Just one request – can you please stop referring to it as “Climate Science”. It’s really in the same bucket as “Creation Science”.”
Now you are really talking crap of the highest order. Creation Science has nothing to do with science and says that an invisible being created all the Earth and the Universe.
If Climate Science was saying that the warming was caused by a deity of some sort then this would be true.
Sorry mate you have to have far more faith in the tooth fairy etc to deny the science that underpins AGW than to accept it. Not that you need any to accept it because the science says what the science says. You cannot make it go away just because you don’t like it.
Ender, it is a science, but very few sciences are literally hung on a single number. The climate sensitivity from CO2 has only been gleaned from the past 30 years of temperature and satellite data, and is still very much uncertain. Its currently under attack for being too high by increasingly focused evidence (the rebuttals to Spencer’s latest 2 papers have been weak to non-existent.)
Again, there aren’t too many sciences that would see billions of dollars pulled if a single coefficient were halved. Vested interests are huge.
Now here are a couple of little bright ideas to get away from all the tooth fairy stuff (for just a brief respite).
Why don’t we ask everyone who regularly posts here, regardless of whether they work in the public or private sector, to:
(1) declare, fair and square whether (a) they do actually work in a job which somehow relies on an acceptance of classical AGW (yes or no) and/or (b) whether their continued employment would still be fully guaranteed if they were just a bit sceptical, in their workplace, of some aspect of the whole catastrophic AGW orthodoxy (yes or no)?
(2) regardless of whether they have been posting for a long time or a brief time whether they have ever conceded or identified in any thread at any time that there may be a few flaws in some part of either (a) the prominent sceptical arguments put here or (b) the prominent AGW arguments put here (yes or no)?
I’ll kick the ball off as follows:
(1) All my clients don’t give a double damn whether I believe in all or part of the AGW thing. They have absolutely no idea whatsover of my position.
(2) I am a “lukewarmer” who concedes CO2 sensitivity may be as high as about 1.5 C and can see that Monckton is a dill and Miskolczi’s math is wrong. Otherwise I am a “mild sceptic”. I believe that there are numerous negative feedbacks and AGW is, and never will be, a global catastrophe.
NEXT!
Ender?..Louis?….Ivan?….SJT?….Cohenite?….Luke?
Luke
“BTW the climate doesn’t have to prove anything – it doesn’t care what you think.”
But it cares what you think? Right?
(1) My employer doesn’t give a rat’s ass whether I believe in all or part of the AGW thing. They know my position (highly sceptical), because they can’t help overhearing my comments.
(2) Don’t know. Not being the proponent of the argument, I don’t believe it is the ‘sceptics’ position to prove anything. Undoubtedly there will be flaws in ad hoc argumentation such as this – other than mine, that is.
…and, in the interests of full disclosure:
I voted for Kevin Rudd at the last election.
I won’t be voting for Kevin Rudd at the next election.
Well Steve – should I bother you’ll just say I’m lying anyway. But anyway – (1a) No – don’t rely on acceptance; (1b) employment not affected by scepticism; (2) yes there are flaws in both sceptical and AGW arguments.
And while we’re here – not a member of green groups, political parties, nor have conflicting investments e.g. in solar or wind power industries.
And pro-agriculture; pro-natural resource management; pro-solar renewables; pro clean coal; nuclear neutral.
I do believe that existing climate variability and extremes of weather have always and continue to wreak episodic havoc on human societies. So AGW represents a risk to making that worse and I’ve seen enough evidence to make me think a risk averse posture is reasonable.
At the end of the day you have to decide whether any action is worthwhile or not. And if you want absolute proof – well you won’t be getting it for 30-50 years.
Furthermore – temperature and rainfall are not delivered evenly, equitably and fairly across the globe. Wish some of the inmates here would contemplate that.
So if any of the AGW research helps with understanding climate variability (vis a vis anthropogenic change) then it’s well worth it whether AGW works out as projected or not.
My than Steve wanted but anyway…..
Marcus – not really – responding to Bickers who made the comment.
“History reminds us that solid ideas are easily defended, while lesser theories can only be defended with fear, intimidation, and ridicule.”
(1) As a self employed person doing IT and management consulting none of my clients, past or present would care what my views are, because the majority are mature enough to comprehend that the science is not in, by a long shot, or they dont have time to care.
(2) You have to be quite delusional to believe that some how anyone can model a complex inter related system such as the climate and be sure enough that the prediction 50 years out is a solid enough basis to corrupt the economy.
For real perversity however, when they are in effect are taking the output from a GCM and using that as input into a econometric model, and are then prepared to legislate the outcome, then all one can do is carry on trying to make a quid–and remember it at the next election.
I gave up writing on the blog a while ago, but I still read iton occassions. I started a believer but am now a sceptic. I am a teacher, apparently because i try and teach both sides i am a “fruitcake” or
“dickhead” depending on which teacher you talk to.
I suspect that if i went for a job elswhere as a geography teacher that if i expressed my scepticism I would be less likely to get the position……but I do not know that. The fact that I am openly sceptical and ask students to challenge their understanding does at times make it difficult for me to get on with some staff and i am frequently reminded that this is the biggest moral dilemma facing humanity …i always agree with them, but point out that I think so for completely the
opposite reasons!
regards T
1) Has no bearing on my employment whatsoever.
2) Both sides have some piss weak arguments.
3) I’ve never been funded by Big Oil and I don’t hunt baby animals in my spare time.
Steve
1. a) and b) Emphatically not
2. AGW isn’t a scientific theory since it was never observed requiring a theory to explain it. It is simply a technologically sophisticated belief system – a religion with silcon chips oracles.
I regard the debate between climate sceptics and believers to be within the ambit of dialectism, and nothing to do with science since debate ends in consensus which isn’t science.
(And I never vote for any political group or party that espouses any hue of socialism or statism).
Gawd – what a bunch of dudes ! (we all are)
“Gawd – what a bunch of dudes ! (we all are)”
How would we know?
The oxygen thieves are yet to check in. Probably checking with their supervisors if/how they should respond.
Well I reckon you’re wrong Ivan – I reckon we’re all just opinionated ornery bastards who know better. Indeed if you were dealing with the system you’d be getting a more sophisticated hit I would think. You’d would know you’d been wacked.
Anyway – la de dah – OK Stevey boy – double or nothing – if you were any good you’d get Jen to start an Open thread where we could find out what we agree on on (nothing with Louis I suspect 🙂 but giving him shit is good fun always) and what we don’t. One might think there was some common ground and we should narrow down the actual points. And if you were really any good we’d populate Jen’s Wiki with a decent set of arguments. I was going to, but we had a silly tiff with Jen, and then thought Paul would probably delete it nayway.
Then Toby could direct the poor lil’ chilluns here for some “honest” learning.
What say you – so called Dr Steve Short !
“Well I reckon you’re wrong Ivan -”
You reckon? Like someone working for the Ministry of Truth is going to say:
“My job is churning out proraganda to bolster government economic policy. My belief or otherwise in AGW is immaterial to my continued employment…”
What is your standard comment? ROTFL?
Luke,
You are right on that call – arguing with the devout is really a waste of time.
Steve; I’m an independently poor lawyer so I don’t check in with anyone; what first got me interested in AGW was an article by Clive Hamilton regaling the snot out of modern decadence; it occurred to me then and it has been confirmed by many later developments, that this was a seminal issue for certain ideologies which think little of democratic capitalism; on that basis I started checking the science and found it bureaucracised and obfuscated. In that respect I think this blog does a good job and that Watts and McIntyre deserve medals; not that there aren’t some formidable people arguing for AGW; Tamino probably deserves a doctorate or 2 written about him but lucia and Briggs seem to have his measure. The greatest ironies with this doomsday concept is that the people advocating mankind has the where-with-all to damage nature are the ones who maintain that humanity is nothing more than another animal; I’m not religious but I’m convinced humanity has an apotheosis within us; I think a lot of the AGW crowd don’t; I can still recall Gavin’s comment about my links to great buildings that they were ant-nests. The other irony is that, as per Lomborg, who I think does a great job, real environmental issues are being ignored while obscene resources are wasted on this chimera.
I think you are too hard on Miscolczi; Stockwell does a good analysis, and I think the cascade of recent -ve feedbacks, some supplied by you, sits well with the implications of Miscolczi, and I like Stewart’s Law.
This is now a thoroughly political issue but the deference to science will be its undoing; currently the method in the msm is to ignore the weight of countervailing evidence; in that respect hats off to Spencer and his recent testimony; although I’m non-plussed as to why everyone is ignoring this paper;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
“How would we know? The oxygen thieves are yet to check in. Probably checking with their supervisors if/how they should respond.”
No, those with better things to do with their time would not bother responding when idiots like you make comments like that. Most adults don’t have time for ignorant bullies like you.
Anyone who writes “(2) Don’t know. Not being the proponent of the argument, I don’t believe it is the ‘sceptics’ position to prove anything” is a complete fool and deserves to be treated like a kindergarten overstayer. Anyone who then writes “I voted for Kevin Rudd at the last election. I won’t be voting for Kevin Rudd at the next election” draws both pity and laughter. You knew what Rudd was on about before the election and yet you voted for him. Time to take responsibility bozzo and quit whining about it ad nauseum.
“No, those with better things to do with their time would not bother responding when idiots like you make comments like that. Most adults don’t have time for ignorant bullies like you.”
Yeah … yeah. All of a sudden they are adults and have better things to do with their time when they are asked to declare their position? Ho! Ho!
It would be less words to just say: “Sorry – I prefer to stay in the shadows and snipe.”
BTW – you don’t see anything inconsistent with attacking “ignorant bullies” with insults like:
“a complete fool”, or “kindergarten overstayer”, or “bozzo” (Bozo?). Apparently hurling abuse is the preserve of the AGW faithful. You’re not a cousin of Luke’s by any chance?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
Can you give us the gist? The abstract is pretty short and I don’t see any web reviews yet.
Joel; Louis put me onto the paper, so thanks to him for that;
The authors note that in Earth’s dense atmosphere 67% of surface heat is transported to the troposphere by convection, 25% by vapor condensation and 8% by radiation of other GHG’s. They define an adiabatic air exchange system between the lower, largely convectively heated air with upper cool air. The specific heat of raditively heated air has a slow and limited upward transfer whereas the heat transfer by convection is both rapid and vertically extensive. The convective exchange thus swamps the lower diffuse heating by radiation, and in effect any CO2 radiative heating will be as a response to the incremental increase in pressure caused by the increase in CO2; but this heating will also be negated by the process of CO2 absorption by the oceans and consequent carbonate fixation. As a result, instead of a slight increase in atmospheric pressure, one should expect a slight decrease with a corresponding insignificant cooling of climate.
“(2) I am a “lukewarmer” who concedes CO2 sensitivity may be as high as about 1.5 C and can see that Monckton is a dill and Miskolczi’s math is wrong. Otherwise I am a “mild sceptic”. I believe that there are numerous negative feedbacks and AGW is, and never will be, a global catastrophe.”
If you followed the recent climate conference, that featured the usual run of the mill hangers on and loonies, Pat Michaels more or less declared that he, too, was a luke warmer. Most of the cheer squad seemed to miss that declaration.
If the deniers want to be known as sceptics, it’s time they realised that they have to move on from accepting any argument that fits their prejudices, and reject the ragtag band of people who have no idea at all. Monckton, Hissink, Archibald, the list is long, toss them all out, and have a real debate on real issues.
“So the globe has ongoing crises with climate. Otherwise why is there emergency relief – the Burmese would simply say – oh yes – we swept the driveway and the power was back on in a few hours. Same in New Orleans. Same in US floods. Those Californian fires would have been out before you knew it. No problemo.””
Long term drought is not a weather event. An ‘event’ is just that, something that occurs quickly and is gone again. Long term drought is climate change.
Cohenite, sounds very interesting. Showing how CO2 actually works in the atmosphere as opposed to a laboratory is important work.
Do they have an atmospheric model of this process?
Cohenite
I don’t want to be too hard on Miskolczi but check out:
http://landshape.org/enm/radiative-equilibrium-miskolczi-part-4/#comment-146959
Where Neil King has, after much patient effort, discovered the math error in Miskolczi’s model. Our own Jan Pompe put up a stout yoeman’s effort in that thread.
You won’t be able to access it just now because Niche Modeling went down this arvo with a Denial of Service attack.
I guess David must have really pissed someone off – now I wonder why?
However not many people know that Miskolczi had earlier discovered quite a few sources of error in NASA’s MODTRANS spectral absorption lines database used to analyse sonde and satellite data and thus riled the Hansen clique in NASA so he is a hero nonetheless.
This relates to the John Harries 2001 – 2004 dodgy science that Travis likes to quote and other ‘cook the books for AGW’ spectral absorption stuff.
Joel; they develop their adiabatic model over a number of equations to a base formula which they verify by comparison of the theoretical temperature distribution in the troposphere of Earth (constructed based on their Eq. (11)) with the standard model based on experimental data. They also apply their formula to Venus.
Steve; I’ll look at your link.
OK – its up again (after over 41,000 hits – well done).
Cohenite re anthills: There is no one more scared of heights than me. When we place ourselves above the environment we take grave risks as seen in stage 16 of the Tour de France. Viewers should note that both air and vegetation gets thin on top of the Bonnet.
http://vodpod.com/watch/893854-tour-de-france-2008-stage-16-crash-on-the-col-de-la-bonette
What amuses me most is how some bloggers can just brush away the effort it takes to produce the next stage in our travels, roads, agriculture, cities etc that precede our lifestyle and armchair complacency.
I particularly wish that Ivan would contemplate this illustration on our perspective before he comes back with another wind up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/03/31/ecfvos31.xml
Steve: On your questions; I’m retired and have been contemplating the changes in my attitudes to various issues since about 1996. Hardware recycling was to be just a hobby then. It was the recent bushfires that rekindled my interest in political campaigning.
Probably the difference between us is the way we started to express our convictions. I have door knocked whole suburbs and stood in the minister’s home lounge, also stood in front of interstate semis and got some owner drivers to turn their load around.
In selling a product door to door though, the customer is always right so I often play the devil’s advocate.
Steve: Both contestants should have a good look at
“All the water and air in the world” in the link above
NEWS FLASH: WMO finds Retrospective cooling!
You have to hand it to those frauds and charlatans at the WMO. They have just published an article on their website from the NOAA entitled:
“Northern Wildfire Smoke May Cast Shadow on Arctic Warming”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080721_arcticfires.html
The gist of this article is that “Smoke transported to the Arctic from northern forest fires may cool the surface for several weeks to months at a time.”
What this is code for is that in the near future when they have to dissemble as to why the arctic ice cap hasn’t melted like last year (and hence no Al Gore media circus), they will point to this ‘study’ as their explanation. For comparison, see:
(http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=22&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=22&sy=2008)
>This relates to the John Harries 2001 – 2004 dodgy science that Travis likes to quote and other ‘cook the books for AGW’ spectral absorption stuff.
Sorry Steve, missed that. Care to explain?
I thought Harries corrected his own work in a later paper? “Cooked the books” indeed.
So I guess Monckton would a chef too then?
SJT
Really, we don”t have a clue? Au contraire it is you who is clueless – not having studied science nor been compelled to practise the scientific method, you dismiss us purely on the basis that we object to AGW – and your objection is not based on the science per se, but on the reliance of authority to dismiss us.
Rather I am struck but the clear political divide between AGW supporters and those who reject it.
Why is it that almost without exception supporters of AGW are extreme to partly left in political philosophy. How can this supposed issue of science divide so many on political grounds.
There is no divide in the acceptance of gravity – yet there is in AGW. Possibly the reason is that gravity is an empirical fact while AGW is an unproven belief that doubling atmospheric CO2 warms the atmosphere; Its implications are simply extrapolations from computer models which have an inbuilt assumption climate sensitivity.
That which is scientifically self evident does not require persuasion or debate – but belief only occurs when one does not KNOW and hence debate about whether or not something is true.
Any science that is based on consensus is not science. However if you have not been exposed to practical evidence based since, not been taught how to think, as opposed to what to think, then the serious cognitive dissonance among those who believe in AGW and its catastrophic implications is understandable.
There is concerted opposition to AGW not because of the bad science, which there is, but because the policies based on this bad science have the potential to send most of us back into the Middle Ages, with no significant reduction in atmospheric CO2.
One cannot ignore the public statements of those in the environmental movement who dream of an earth with a seriously reduced number of humans. Of course it is not fashionable nor politically correct to say this matter of factly, but the Eco-Elite, self appointed and engaged in stacking the various government bureacracies with their fellow travellers, are in charge and one should always be mindful that they their state wish of a culled humanity may not actually be fantasy.
Fortunately a democracy in which there remains some free speech, checks and balances can still be implemented to stop the impending madness. In Australia’s case it is quite likely that the emissions trading legislation for a start up in 2010 will get stalled in the Senate by the Greens who think it does not go far enough, and the Coalition who think it is plain stupid.
We live in interesting times.
(Nice to see inflation has increased again – good old Keynsianism).
Louis,
You will appreciate this one.
http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/standarizedthought.jpg
Ivan
Pay it. There seems to be a subtle word checking system here – science and since in my post above – I wonder how that happened – I double checked it before posting. Straaange.
Incidentally climate sceptics have just uncovered some research on Albedo of the earth, and a chnage in albedo of .1 causes a solar input change greater than that attributed to CO2. Albedo is essentially a physical variable but since no one knows how it is caused, it assumed a constant in the climate models.
More on this later this week, but AGW climate modelling seems to be doing an Admiral Belgrano.
G’Day folks. I am retired. Believe there is GW, some AGW, a skeptic on the amount of the AGW is from CO2, a hard skeptic on the catastrophic predictions and a hard skeptic on Climate Change. Climate is always changing, and the use of the term was too convenient and coincidental with the shift in temp. direction.
I see many blogs daily from both sides, so get a feel for what is being said, and the issue of the day.
CoRev, editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
Steve; that discussion might take more than one read; Neal King shows that VT, PE=2KE, cannot be accommodated by Miscolczi’s equations; but he appears to be close to reality;
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=268#p5125
The relevant FIG is 8.2; the upward and downward CO2 bands are in thermal equilibrium because the warm upward moving one contains potential energy plus kinetic energy equivalent to the top one.
A couple of other points; the discussion about flux was really a discussion about weather and LTE’s, which I have, no doubt clumsily, discussed in another post, in an attempt to refute Eli’s views on av temperature. Miscolczi is close to the mark in a lot of ways; Pat Cassen’s post says;
“aside from rendering the structure of the atmosphere moot, it seems to require a feedback in which, for the Earth, water vapor must decrease as temperature increases (p23):”…in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O…”, a very strange conclusion.” But that is waht is happening as NOAA’s atmospheric levels of RH show!
At posts 33 and 34 Eli and Doug discuss IR absorption by N2 and surface energy removal by conduction respectively; neither put the 2 together as the main method for heating of N2 and therein the atmosphere. Which brings me to the final solution by King involving the adiabatic atmospheres; the paper I have linked to above in discussion with Joel develops an adiabatic model in which VT is integral; it might be interesting to compare it with Miscolczi because, one thing for certain, The Semi-Transparent model is closer to reality than the conventional semi-infinite model.
“but because the policies based on this bad science have the potential to send most of us back into the Middle Ages,”
What a crock. And you call the AGW supporters alarmists?? Are you seriously going to tell us that “most” Australians are going to be living like people did in the Middle Ages? What are you basing this on? Modelling? So the SUV-owning, four bedroom house-occupying, yearly overseas-vacationing family are going to be reduced to doing their own dental work, owning a horse and cart, providing their own food, living in earthen dwellings with no power or running water and having their kids suffer from scurvy, dysentry and cholera? If you can provide proof that this is the scenario “most” of us will face, I will be inclined to believe you, but until then you are being alarmist and irrational.
“one should always be mindful that they their state wish of a culled humanity may not actually be fantasy.”
More rubbish. So many times you denialists compare those who care about the environment, its future and occupants with Hitler and Mugabe. Only the most extremist of individuals advocate culling humans (is killing people because they exist in surplus numbers). It is a fact that the more people there are, the more resources are required in order to feed, clothe, transport, house and care for them. Obviously you haven’t heard of the concept of carrying capacity. Obviously you don’t care about clean air, water and soil for future generations, let alone other occupants of the planet.
It comes down to money for you denialists. Nothing more. No altruism, just conceit and utter selfishness. You don’t give a rats about those that are already living in third world conditions, just so long as it is not YOU.
“Only the most extremist of individuals advocate culling humans…”
You think so? The have a watch / listen to this:
It is David Rockefeller talking. Pay particular attention to his comments at 2:40 onwards:
“a satisfactory way of stabilising world population and stimulating economic development in a manner that is sensitive to religious and moral considerations …”
Never thought of David Rockefeller as an “extremist” before.
Well, Jenn, et. al. this thread has lost its steam. Time for another.
I want to commend you on this thread, as it proved (or at the minimum showed the reality of the AGW emperors clothes) more than any other I have seen in months!
.. and Jacques Cousteau? Would you regard him as “the most extremist of individuals” as well?
http://www.overpopulation.org/older.html
Jacques Cousteau said, “to stabilize the world population we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,” he admitted, “but it’s just as bad not to say it.” This Hitlerian sentiment, published in UNESCO Courier in November 1991, is not rare among envirochondriacs.
…and … shock! horror! None other than Al Gore (1992 in “Earth in Balance.”)
“Clearly it is time for a global effort to create everywhere on earth the conditions conducive to stabilizing the population.”
You’re right. It is “the most extremist of individuals” after all!
OK back to drongoism from this morning.
Steve Short almost did a blog rescue but obviously on the shiraz again and hasn’t followed through saving our wretched souls. Hissink is banging on about reds under the bed or some shite. More philosophy of science dribble.
So back to pooning denialist newbs on the intertubes.
Hillbilly Tiler comes back with a borrowed graph from his single comment web site as evidence of “cooling” trend. What trend? You’re a moron.
Home Boy Ivan the trader follows at 8:53 with a graph of rainfall over the whole continent of Australia – what a goose. Scroll down your link you clown.
And also cites a nice piece from GRL on USA showing AGW support – results of a change to ENSO behaviour. Thanks for helping.
Joel thinks that 30 years isn’t a far time to look at a trend – well WTF – no pleasing some folks.
And like many international ignormai needs a quick lesson in Australian land use 101
Note that it’s not like the USA mate. Perhaps Ivan needs a reminder too.
Oh look – duh yellow is where duh cropping is. And look Oz is a big place too.
http://adl.brs.gov.au/mapserv/landuse/docs/Land_use_in_Australia_at_a_glance.pdf
Now it’s funny that there is no drought as I was sure my tax dollars were going out to support zillions in drought aid that doesn’t seem to stop.
National drought relief expenditure 1992-1999 $698,600,000 – Table 6 http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/theme-reports/atmosphere/atmosphere02-14.html
Australian Government expenditure on drought assistance in the five years to June 2006 is more than $1.2 billion. $430 million in additional drought assistance – 17 September 2007. Here’s the media releases … http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/drought/media/media_releases
Despite historic $12.9bn to save River Murray, it may be too late
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23957464-5006301,00.html
13 May 2008
DAFF08/057B
Farmers will continue to receive assistance from the effects of drought after the Rudd Government announced it is maintaining Exceptional Circumstances (EC) support in 2008-09.
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke said $760.9 million had been committed for EC assistance in the 2008-09 financial year.
“The Rudd Government is standing by our farmers, many of whom are still doing it tough, trying to manage their businesses and support their families in drought,” Mr Burke said.
“Despite some rain earlier this year in parts of Queensland and NSW, some parts of Australia are in their seventh consecutive year of drought.
“There are currently 84 Exceptional Circumstances-declared areas across the country and an additional 14 areas that are interim-declared – more than 69% of Australia’s agricultural land.”
http://www.maff.gov.au/media/media_releases/may_2008/rudd_government_continues_ec_drought_assistance_for_farmers
Let’s see who’s getting Exceptional Circumstances Support shall we…
http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/drought/ec Go on – click on the maps and find out who’s declared and who’s not.
How do you get declared –
An area or region becomes ‘declared’ as experiencing an Exceptional Circumstances event (see below for more information on how regions become EC declared). The EC declaration triggers short-term support for farmers in situations beyond the scope of normal risk management and when the future of significant numbers of farmers in a region is at risk. Support is also available to agriculture-dependent small businesses. Events triggering an EC declaration have an impact so severe and prolonged that they are likely to occur only once in every 20-25 years.
EC applications must demonstrate that the event
* was rare (a one in 20-25 year event) and severe
* resulted in a severe downturn in farm income over a prolonged period (eg. more than 12 months) for a significant number of farmers in a region or industry, and
* was not predictable or part of a process of structural adjustment (the policy does not cover downturns in commodity prices).
So there’s obviously a lot of rorting going on or some folks are hurting bad. And you might find out how many decades this has been going on?
Janama must be a cherry farmer coz he’s good at picking them.
Funny how he hasn’t mentioned cotton or rice production. I wonder why ! See ABARE report later.
Funny how he hasn’t mentioned the MDB report – latest http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/1366/Drought_Update_Issue_14_-_July_2008.pdf dang boy those inflows sure look a tad low ….
http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/crops/crops_08/crops_08.html
Tiler might look to see where those crops are grown again in colour just to burn it in that brain. See maps 2 & 3.
And actually 2006/07 kilo-tons of winter production looks a tad sick. Table C.
And don’t forget to check out this year’s projections while you’re there.
And what’s this 2006/07 summer crop production looks parlous too.
Keen observers might note that crops are grown over wide areas and sometimes regions will pick up rain where others don’t – making up the national stats. The devil is in the regional details and multi-year sequences.
Janama might advise us on regional farm income trends as an exercise.
As for animals and feedlots – well it’s a funny thing you know – farmers tend to sell off in droughts and Australia has things called see-my trailers – or road trains that move animals over large distances – like from north to south en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train to keep up supplies. So animals can come from anywhere – like north Queensland or the Northern Territory – so what do feed lot numbers really mean ?
Let’s have a look at NAMS and see what it reckons.
http://www.nams.gov.au/index.cfm?fa=analyses.show&dataType=analysis&analyses=85&mainCategories=15&subCategories=4&analysesList=26&showWeather=false&showSilo=false&showSurfaceWater=false&showGroundWaterLevel=false&showGroundWaterQuality=false&showDam=false&showdates=true&startMonth=7&startYear=2003&endMonth=6&endYear=2008
or pasture growth
http://www.nams.gov.au/index.cfm?fa=analyses.show&dataType=analysis&analyses=128&mainCategories=25&subCategories=9&analysesList=39&showWeather=false&showSilo=false&showSurfaceWater=false&showGroundWaterLevel=false&showGroundWaterQuality=false&showDam=false&showdates=false&startMonth=7&startYear=2007&endMonth=6&endYear=2008
Or BoM
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=deciles&area=aus&period=12month®ion=aus&time=latest
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=deciles&area=aus&period=36month®ion=aus&time=latest
How about a longer view: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs14.pdf Or 6 years of it – Figure 1 –note the worst on record – or how about 11 years of it. Figure 3.
And you reckon nothing is happening. (then there’s WA, SEQ, and the world…. (previous PDSI paper) then hurricanes)
Your calculated risk position is what ? – a shoulder shrug.
You utter clowns.
Laura; your intemperate remarks are not only offensive but quite wrong; the connection between the green movement, fascism and extreme misanthropy is well established and demonstrated constantly; who can forget the viragos of PETA aborting their children for the sake of the planet; and Lovelock, that dishevelled loon, exposing his cankerous hatred of humanity;
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0608-gardiner
But that is to be expected with the pedigree the greens have;
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
“Your calculated risk position is what ? – a shoulder shrug.”
Yawn! There’s not a single thing in here that you haven’t bored everyone to the point of utter and complete distraction with – many times – over the last what? months? years? We know there are drought conditions in SE Australia. Can we take that as read – and save you wearing out your keyboard?
The calculated risk position is this: If we are good little AGW religious adherents and dutifully pay our carbon tithes to the Warming gods:
1) When will the CO2 levels fall?
2) When will the drought break in SE Australia?
Doesn’t have to be exact — plus or minus 5 years will be good enough for starters.
You wouldn’t think that would be a big ask of a SCIENCE, now – would you?
Crap Cohenite – just extremist denialist astroturf drivel. Laura is spot on. Well said Laura.
“Laura is spot on. Well said Laura.”
Ahh .. it was on the tip of my tongue to ask if she was a cousin of yours. Thanks for clearing it up. But you need to give her some coaching in more effective ranting.
Huh? I didn’t abort my children; I don’t make the eugenic pronouncements that lovelock and ilk make; I don’t have the fascist ancestory; more to the point, your links don’t work.
Well obviously – you see not from the same gene pool as you – can we help it if you forget to diverge off the australopithecine path?
1) not for a long time
2) sometime – but the real question is how long till it’s back again
So here we have an excellent case study – much more than SE Australia – actually global. Now Ivan said it wasn’t happening this morning but this evening he says it’s obvious. You clown.
Just think how this will be when we chug on up to 9 billion humans and Africa and South America are at bursting point. We won’t be worrying what PETA and Lovelock say then old son.
So we already have climate crises – what you denialists want to do is to rachet the screws up a bit further. Indeed make it worse.
You won’t be happy till the Pacific is a permanent El Nino will you?
Tell me where’s all the new land coming from – ftp://ftp.iluci.org/LCLUC_APR2007/foley_lcluc_apr2007_presentation.pdf
Cohenite – if any links don’t work (coz the blog blows after 3 url’s) try to stitch them back up or ask me to repeat. Hey I thought lawyers were good at deciphering obscure codes?
Australopithecine may well be unimpressed with some of his epigones. Listening to a trade union official, AWU, on ‘our’ ABC; these guys know that AGW is going to bite their backsides hard and are beginning the dilution process. As I said this is not a science issue, but a political one contaminated by an ideology which has too many putrid dimensions. Even handed luke, tell your lady friend that she should read Clive Hamiltons “Growth Fetish”, which contradicts everything she bloviates about not recapturing the joys of the past; a chicken coup in every backyard!
Day started off calm and collegial, and then Luke, Creepie, el Creepo (whatever sock puppet he chooses to wear today) reverts to character.
Luke, we get it! There is a drought in SE Australia. There are many more all over the world. Always was. Always will be.
But since you think it is a climate crisis what is your proposal to control this persistent situation?
An interesting article demonstrating why it’s quite possible the general, normally gullible public (and media/politicians) will start to back track on AGW:
http://dailybayonet.blogs.com/the_daily_bayonet/2008/07/global-warmings-fatal-flaw.html
CoRev – you can make it worse ! It’s a risk calculation you have to make as the planet traverses from 6 billion to 9 billion persons and a few Australopithecine escapees. But I’m sure given USA and Canada will inevitably benefit from the changes as ENSO settles in (coz God is more likely to be WASP North American you see) you can feed the rest of us and pay for our desalination plants. Move over Tilo ! Rocky Mountain high –
look melting glaciers and forests full of expanding pine beetles. Dang wrong video for Tilo –
Yee ha ! Come on down now.
I say Bickers old chap – your article which has hooked you gullibly yourself says more Antarctic ice – errr nope….
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png Dang ! Looks like it’s in melt down !
How sad that this thread has descended into name calling/personal insults rather than an open and honest debate about whether there is any evidence of a ‘climate crisis’, the question Jim Peden asked this forum for help on.
Unfortunately, the AGW supporters can only point to localised weather events (SE Oz drought) as any form of evidence, which it is but only of weather!
We know that climate was warm in the ’30’s/’40’s and we had extreme weather events then, so there’s really nothing different about today.
However , mankind (and mother nature) have increased CO2 levels – mother natures bit (the largest) probably because of the cummulative warming since the LIA.
What’s in dispute here is whether CO2 (i) causes warming (doesn’t appear to from the historical record) or (ii) exacerbates it (if it does why has the world not warmed in the last 8-10 years and is now going into a cooling phase).
Unless the AGW brigade can answer this with science then their whole scare platform is a busted flush.
The next five years will be interesting and I want to see which way it goes in terms of (i) real climate observation, (ii) an opening up of the scientific debate & (iii) the media, politicians and AGW gravy train riders butting out until we have more scientific data
Luke, you’re trying to do it again. Shift the attention to another subject, then attack on the change. Nope! Not today. Try again tomorrow.
Climate Crisis? Anyone? Buehler, Buehler?
11 year is weather – yea sure mate. 30 year SW WA rainfall decline is weather. Yea sure. Worst on record isn’t enough? How about open your eyes and do some serious science reading instead of parroting blog bilge like you have just done on Antarctica and continue to do. Your unsubstantiated unreferenced opinion is not a science argument I’m afraid. Cooling phase evidence = zilch. Have you read Emmanuels’s papers – of course not. And sorry USA might have been as warm as the 30s and 40s but not everywhere else. I mean really Bickers – you want to be taken seriously? You’re just sprouting more denialist recycled rhetoric and tediously linking the science to politics and policy outcomes. Boring.
The “localised” event you mention is spread across a whole continent, and indeed a whole hemisphere, and involves major changes in the Pacific climate, Indian Ocean and Antarctic circulation systems – local ? yea sure.
No you’re a deliberate obscurantist CoRev – you’ve been given a very solid argument and all you’ve done is stonewall. No rebuttal except quips.
The reality is that there is nothing that you guys would accept as evidence of anything. You don’t read science. You don’t check things out. You live off recycled log bilge and op-eds. You don’t use balance of evidence. You’re political apparatchiks.
Peden doesn’t want any help. He believes what he wants to already.
Luke, which one of your arguments do you consider solid? Population, drought, another? Which one?
Drought is a localized event no matter how you look at it. Can it be climate? Yes. Is it a Climate Crisis? Not so likely. Too short temporally, and too localized. Can it be devastating and a crisis? Yes.
Now, if you do believe it to be a climate crisis, what was the Luke solution, again?
We’ve all shared our views, and we are not too far different. But, that doesn’t seem to stop some of us from calling each other names. Just another childish, foot stomping attempt at attention? Dunno!
James Peden was referring to a WOLDWIDE Climate Crisis.
The one you alarmists peddle for over 20 years.The one that has NOT COME TO PASS!
Give it up.You guys are running on empty.
Well pluck a chook, what a rave we’ve had overnight! Chickens in the back yard must be threatening something hey.
Did any of you bother to geek here?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/03/31/ecfvos31.xml
Small people playing with a very small planet with even smaller resources all over and everybody here it seems is hell bent on destroying each other into the bargain.
As the one with the day job continues to say; “can you imagine them running our nuclear power plants?” That would be a crisis.
That’s an interesting photo Gavin – thanks for posting. Actually the air photo would be different if you liquefied the air to equal the water – I gather if that were the case it would be 12″ deep over the whole planet.
Luke – your attitude and arrogance is not worth replying to. Can’t you find somewhere else to vent your spleen?
“James Peden was referring to a WOLDWIDE Climate Crisis.
The one you alarmists peddle for over 20 years.The one that has NOT COME TO PASS!
Give it up.You guys are running on empty.”
No, the one they have been trying to prevent for 20 years, dingbat. There was no prediction that it would happen 20 years ago, nor today. The build up to it is happening now, the CO2 content in the atmosphere is still going up every year.
So the world is going to end but not quite yet, SJT?
I’m with Janama about Luke, why don’t you join him SJT? Neither of you has anything interesting or substantial to say. Gavin seems to suffering from the first stages of dementia judging by the opaque nature of his posts. Go stand in front of some more trucks Gavin, better yet, jump out in front.
“So the world is going to end but not quite yet, SJT?
I’m with Janama about Luke, why don’t you join him SJT? Neither of you has anything interesting or substantial to say. Gavin seems to suffering from the first stages of dementia judging by the opaque nature of his posts. Go stand in front of some more trucks Gavin, better yet, jump out in front.”
No Luke has posted plenty of science, which is, as usual, ignored, because it’s not what you want to hear. That just about sums it up.
” the CO2 content in the atmosphere is still going up every year.”
While the temperature continues to trend down:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg
..which of course the AGW ‘denialists’ continue to ignore or disparage.
“No Luke has posted plenty of science.”
Here is Luke’s answer to a science-based question:
“1) not for a long time
2) sometime – but the real question is how long till it’s back again”
This is Luke’s “science”. Imagine for a moment asking Einstein to explain his famous equation:
“Well, we believe that the amount of energy released is somehow roughly proportional to the mass of an object – no, we’re pretty sure of that. But this also need to be multiplied by a really really big constant number. We’re not completely sure, but we think the relationship to the really really big constant is not linear – possibly closer to geometric – but we won’t know until we know what the really really big number is. All we know for sure – we think – is that when the transition from matter to energy occurs, there will be a f*cking big BANG!, so don’t stand too close.”
Global Warming “Science” meets Relativity.
gavin; thinking about your linked photos of the balled water and atmosphere and densities; this might interest you;
http://www.ampneycrucis.f9.co.uk/PARK/Population.htm
John Brunner wrote an interesting S-F novel called Stand on Zanzibar, which addressed the same issue; the green movement is at the fore-front of the population reduction movement under the pretext of protecting the planet; this priority is sometimes diluted by some of the more political greens who package the more harsh message under the guise of protecting the planet for future generations. But this is one of the paradigm consequences of AGW; eugenics. So, are we going to go the way of China? Or what other methods of population reduction and criteria for same are we going to choose?
Poor old Janama – serious analysis is a problem for you isn’t it !
But onto Sunset –
So now multi-year drought sequences aren’t climatic….
And the criteria are that every square inch of the planet has to be 50C, dry and experiencing a 200 km /hr wind – oh and under water.
“The one that has NOT COME TO PASS!” – a duh maybe that’s what we’re trying to avoid ….
…. clowns
Steve: “Where Neil King has, after much patient effort, discovered the math error in Miskolczi’s model.”
It wasn’t Neal King’s maths that concerned me it was his physics. The fact that it does not match what is observed i.e. outward atmospheric flux = 1/2 surface flux = 1/2 near surface KE based on average surface layer temperature. This failure to match observation should surely ring the alarm bells.
His maths can be painstaking an accurate but if the underlying physics is wrong it’s wasted effort.
I missed this gonzo comment from Ivan http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg – mate why not do a graph for the last 15 minutes. LOL I mean not even Moncky would try that one.
“why not do a graph for the last 15 minutes.”
I will if you think it would be helpful.
Perhaps we can put it next to your rainfall graphs for the MDB for the last 15 minutes.
Luke: “mate why not do a graph for the last 15 minutes.”
I wonder if you have notice that 15 minutes does not encompass a day let alone diurnal variation much less seasonal variation. Six years is a tad longer and does in fact encompass several seasonal cycles as well as an ENSO cycle (in fact 2).
Travis:
“>This relates to the John Harries 2001 – 2004 dodgy science that Travis likes to quote and other ‘cook the books for AGW’ spectral absorption stuff.
Sorry Steve, missed that. Care to explain?”
Luke:
“I thought Harries corrected his own work in a later paper? “Cooked the books” indeed.
So I guess Monckton would a chef too then?”
Rebuttal:
(1) I have already long since posted about this in another thread. I described how Miskolczi had got into trouble with NASA Langley (while a paid consultant to them in that very field – after all he wrote HITRANS) because, as a long standing expert on spectral absorbances he had been forever pointing out to them the problems with their absorption lines database etc. This is common knowledge in the relevant part of the physics community. It was/is even well known to Philipona et al. and the people at ETH Zurich (spent 3 years working in Switzerland – lots of contacts there in science) whose papers Luke is fond of quoting. Miskolczi thus was already ‘on the outer’ with the AGW crowd at Langley (i.e. before he wrote his papers on the Miskolczi model). This fact was well known amongst a wide circle of physicists – mostly likely Harries etc in the UK as well. In fact problems with absorbance line spectral databases have been around for years. NASA Langley immediately followed up with a big paper about the corrections to their spectral line database just after Miskolczi shot through. I gave the reference.
(2) As well as my post I had also just previously advised Luke in the private email of almost all the above facts (as he had chosen, some time earlier to establish a private correspondence with me to which I have invariably responded with civility).
Both Harries (2001) and his joint 2004 paper which greatly watered down the assertions in the 2001 eventually boil down to a difference in only one methane absorption line in the 2001 work and the 2004 paper shows clearly that even that is highly questionable. This has been blogged about at a number of reputable science blogs. On top of this it is like that the lines databases used in both instances contained significant problems – as Miskolczi and a number of others had been pointing out internally in the physics community over many years – even before 2001! This is another analogous situation to the Royer stomatal indices farce – some scientist can have the flaws in their work pointed out, in the same literature, for years if not decades but they still roll along churning out the papers. Why? Because the peer review system is far from perfect and science is riddled with mutual admiration cliques (the gods in the their own minds syndrome).
In this context, it is highly egregious for Travis and Luke to pretend ignorance. It cannot simply be put down to ignorance of the field (or lack of access to people familiar with the field).
(a) I am not responsible for people who post here but who are ‘flitting on’ so fast or have an attention span so transient they can’t be bothered to read all the posts present and past in a thread or past threads.
(b) I am also not responsible for people who think they can actually get away with baldly pretending (in this blog) they weren’t even advised of something privately.
“So I guess Monckton would a chef too then?”
I’d like to see the day that Monckton would ever admit he was wrong about anything. The man is physcologically incapable of it.
So, Steve and Jan; is Miscolczi right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons, or a bit of both?
Luke, have a solution for your local crisis?
Luke – here’s what Wiki has to say about Australia’s drought history.
“During the severe, Australia wide, 1902 drought the total sheep population dropped to fewer than 54,000,000 from a total of 106,000,000 sheep in 1891 and cattle numbers fell by more than 40 per cent. It was 1925 before the sheep numbers reached the hundred-million mark again.
At the time of Federation, Australia suffered a major drought. There had been a number of years of below average rainfall across most of Australia before the drought. During the drought the wheat crop was “all but lost” and the Darling River was dry at Bourke, New South Wales for over a year from April 1902 to May 1903. There was concern about Sydney’s water supply.[4] In the 1911-1915 period, Australia suffered a major drought which resulted in the failure of the 1914 wheat crop.[5]
During World War II, eastern Australia suffered dry conditions which lasted from 1937 through to 1947 with little respite.[6] From 1965-68 eastern Australia was again greatly affected by drought. Conditions had been dry over the centre of the continent since 1957, but spread elsewhere during the summer of 1964/1965. This drought contributed to the 1967 Tasmanian fires in which 62 people died in one day and 1,400 homes were lost.[7]
The drought in 1982-83 is regarded as the worst of the twentieth century for short-term rainfall deficiencies of up to one year and their overall impact. There were severe dust storms in north-western Victoria and severe bushfires in south-east Australia in February 1983 with 75 people killed.[8] This El-Nino related drought ended in March when a monsoon depression became an extratropical low and swept across Australia’s interior and on to the south-east in mid to late March.
A very severe drought occurred in the second half of 1991[9] which intensified in 1994 and 1995 to become the worst on record in Queensland.[10] This drought was influenced by a strong El Nino weather pattern and associated with high temperatures in July and August 1995, the fifth continuous year of drought in parts of Queensland. According to Primary Industries Minister, Ed Casey, “the drought affected region stretched in a 200 km to 300 km wide strip from Stanthorpe to Charters Towers”.[11] So few wheat and barley crops survived, about half the usual for that year, that grains had to be imported from other states.[12].
In June 1994, more than 10 towns had lost irrigation systems and some areas had gone five years without decent rainfall.[11]
A part of the upper Darling River system collapsed during this drought. By October 1994, the Condamine River was exhausted, reverting to a series of ponds. Across the state more than 13,000 properties, totaling 40% of Queensland was drought declared.[13] The flow past Goondiwindi was the lowest since 1940. Cotton farms near Moree and Narrabri had been allocated no water for irrigation which resulted in a major loss of production.[13] The town of Warwick was particularly affected.
Drought in the 21st century
Around 2000 Australia was prone to wet weather brought on by La Niña influenced weather patterns.
Green drought, caused by insufficient rain, Nov 2002 Then from 2003 a long, severe drought, again the worst on record[14] was experienced in many parts of Australia”
The statement that the long 2003 drought was the worst on record cites 14.
According to 14
“Last year was quite probably the worst drought in the history of Australia since federation”
quite probably…..since federation.
Again Luke – where is the climate crisis??
BTW – I recently spent some time talking with all the old buggers in my area – the 80+ crew.
Not one of them believed the climate was changing – we’ve had hotter years, we’ve had colder, we’ve had wetter, we’ve had drier was their response as the above wiki report supports.
Well done Ivan for twisting words around to suit your agenda. Your quotes do not mean in the slightest that these people advocate physically removing a large number of humans. They are talking about scenarios. You really do need to take some medication for whatever delusional, hateful condition you suffer from. It is very tiring for the rest of us.
“BTW – I recently spent some time talking with all the old buggers in my area – the 80+ crew.
Not one of them believed the climate was changing – we’ve had hotter years, we’ve had colder, we’ve had wetter, we’ve had drier was their response as the above wiki report supports.”
Yeah, science is a waste of time, isn’t it? I mean, what has science ever got us?
SJT: “Yeah, science is a waste of time, isn’t it? I mean, what has science ever got us?”
Phlligiston – for a while anyway. While science has granted us much progress not every theory that pops up stands the tests of time.
Cohenite
“So, Steve and Jan; is Miscolczi right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons, or a bit of both?”
Possibly a bit of both but I won’t comment further because (unlike some others here) I feel fairly uncomfortable about getting too deep into fields I have no competence in. Chemothermodynamics, biogeochemistry, geology, isotope geochemistry – these are my areas (+ fox terriers ;-).
I have been following the Niche Modeling discussion closely because I enjoy and am very comfortable with maths (1st degree double in maths/chem) but I cannot comment on the actual interpretation and at the end of the day the maths must be driven by the interpretation.
Far and way, Jan is your man to comment on this. He clearly has a rather good electrodynamics/radiation physics background. Other than yourself (and a lawyer too – I’m impressed) no one else here grasps this stuff very well it seems, regardless of the all the cherry pickin’, chicken pluckin’ and muvver……
Janama posts some excellent examples of why the drought is nothing unusual in a dry country and supports this with a perfectly reasonable statement from people who have been around a long time, and all SJT can say is “science is a waste of time”!
Take off the blinkers!!
I have thoughyt numerous times of responding to the inanely stupid comments that SJT makes, but decided to say nothing, but mate you truly take the cake for ……..
Having trouble posting so here is the second part of my rsponse:
As for being a cousin of Luke’s, my turn to yawn. The classic response to another individual daring to support AGW. How can there possibly be others apart from Luke, Ender and SJT? How could they possibly comment here on this blog, dominated by old farts who have had the good life for way too long and don’t want to lose it at any cost, even the livelihoods of others? You guys need more imagination. And a reality check.
PETA are regarded as an extremist group. I mentioned extremists Cohenite, but like idiot Ivan you are selective and manipulative (maybe you two are the same person? What an original way of dealing with an argument).Why don’t you attribute what is happening in Zimbabwe to fascist greens, or maybe the plight of the Australian Aborigines, or maybe the one child policy in China, or maybe even the fate of the Jews in WWII? Keep referring to your sci-fi novels as they appear to be providing you with lots of answers, however your comment, which illustrated extremists, was counter productive. Perhaps you need to do more for the little people in far away places, as that is the only reason I can see you would have found my comment offensive.
And yes, a chicken coup in every back yard is living like the Middle Ages. Capital punishment, dictatorship and putting village idiots like you and Ivan in a typical asylum of the era might be a pleasant step back to the past too.
The hypocrisy of you lot is illuminating. You see Luke as the only one guilty of personal attacks and dodging issues. In the meantime CoRev provides nothing but some sideline leering, Eyrie tells Gavin to stand in front of a truck, Janama relies on anecdotes and Ivan’s rants continuously contain kindergarten taunts. Pompous Cohenite? Of course it is when you lot are so biased, irresponsible and dishonest. Nothing anyone who does not share you views posts here is going ot impress, convince or educate you lot. It says a hell of a lot about you.
Steve Short – “However not many people know that Miskolczi had earlier discovered quite a few sources of error in NASA’s MODTRANS spectral absorption lines database”
So where is the paper? BTW if this is true then then the MSU data that everyone thinks is the gold standard is also not correct.
So please publish the peer reviewed paper that shows his criticisms.
“Janama posts some excellent examples of why the drought is nothing unusual in a dry country and supports this with a perfectly reasonable statement from people who have been around a long time, and all SJT can say is “science is a waste of time”!
Take off the blinkers!!
I have thoughyt numerous times of responding to the inanely stupid comments that SJT makes, but decided to say nothing, but mate you truly take the cake for ……..”
Fine, if you prefer anecdotal evidence over careful and methodical analysis……
>In this context, it is highly egregious for Travis and Luke to pretend ignorance. It cannot simply be put down to ignorance of the field (or lack of access to people familiar with the field).
So Steve Short, can you please remind me of where I quoted John Harries and related work? Being the well published, book chapter writing Dr you are, I trust you have your facts straight.
Laura, side line leering??? I think i like the line, and plan on using it in the future. Keeping the discussion on track is leering? Tsk, tsk, tsk!
Steve – “Possibly a bit of both but I won’t comment further because (unlike some others here) I feel fairly uncomfortable about getting too deep into fields I have no competence in. Chemothermodynamics, biogeochemistry, geology, isotope geochemistry – these are my areas (+ fox terriers ;-). ”
Really you seem to jump into Climate Science pretty readily. What is climate science not an area of specialty equal to any of the others that you are competent in.
laura; what a virago you are! You also adopt the moral superior ground which is symptomatic of the AGW supporters, and representitive of their arguments about AGW. AGW doesn’t exist; its basis is a deeply flawed syllogism:
(As per luke)What is happening with climate today has never happened before;
CO2 levels have never been this way before because of mankind’s nefarious, anti-natural life-style and numbers;
Therefore CO2/mankind’s lifestyle and numbers are causing AGW.
Anyone who believes that current conditions are markedly worse or different from 100 years ago is either a fanatic or a fool; or like you, very pleased with themselves. There is simply too much evidence out there about data manipulation and dodgy and ineffective methodology; if Steve McIntyre or Watts tell me that GISS/NASA/HadCrut/NOAA have been fiddling, I will read what they say, and then make up my own mind; so far what they have said has made sense, with a few exceptions such as Watt’s ill-advised attempt to correlate solar and temp; other people are doing that, Scafetta and West, Javariah, Dietz, Tung and Camp, Svensmark, Friis-Christensen. The AGW concept was never going to hold up because it contradicted itself; IPCC has recognised the logarithmic decline in CO2 heat ‘trapping’, which is why it has reverted to its “enhanced greenhouse” concept at AR4 FAQ 3.1 with its reliance on H2O; Spencer’s work on negative feedback has killed that; further work mentioned in this post about CO2 limitations and the paucity of the greenhouse concept, Miscolczi and the Chilingar et al paper on the adiabatic/convective model of atmospheric heat transference, indicate that AGW is not a valid concept. If you want to critique Western capitalistic life-style, fair enough; but don’t hide behind a wretched anti-science veneer like AGW. And BTW this sums up Ivan’s and mine relationship;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069372/
Steve; sorry about the Laura distraction; that Chilingar paper is worth looking at; if you are interested in it, Louis has the full copy; I also have one, so if you want to contact me, do so and I will send a copy; ditto for Jan and Joel.
Scrolling through the above, I suspect that the deepest comment was from Cohenite, who gave a link to an essay by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier. (www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html).
I have yet to read the essay in detail, but a scan through suggests that it is well worth reading.
I have suggested before that the political spectrum is actually a circle, with extreme ‘right’ and ‘left’ wings meeting at a place where psychopaths abound. In the 1930s many Nazi ‘brownshirts’ were former communists. They were known as ‘beefsteaks’ – brown outside, but red inside.
Political extremists are, of course, historically well known for their perversion of science.
I am ‘green’ but I hope in a moderate way. I do things like cleaning up rubbish, injecting trees against dieback, and trying to get some sanity into the management of bushfire.
I remember one young lady who joined our group, who was not noticeably keen on hard work, but wanted us to put pamphlets in people’s letter boxes telling them how to run their lives. She had a born again gleam in her eye. Happily she left when we proved unsupportive.
Jim Peden’s comments make sense to me. Luke won’t like this.
It seems to me the main contributors to realclimate.org are not qualified to comment on anything but computer model theory.
I can’t find any information on Gavin Schmidt that says he is anything more than a mathematician. If anyone knows differently, please advise. Also, William Connolly seems to be a computer programmer, yet he has editorial powers at Wikipedia. Is that correct?
BTW this is the paper that describes the latest edition of HITRAN. Perhaps Miskolczi has found errors in this as well?
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/Download/HITRAN04paper.pdf
Laura, that whole post just screams you think you’re better then everyone in here.
There’s definitely lots of trash talking from both sides in here, plenty coming from you as well.
Your contention that all the skeptics here are selfish and greedy is completely baseless.
There are plenty of links to science in this thread from both sides if you look through it. We’re just having a tanty at the moment. I’m not sure what you’ve contributed.
“Jim Peden’s comments make sense to me. Luke won’t like this.”
His comments are based on rank ignorance, since if he bothered to read the IPCC reports, he would know that the most of the problems are the ones that are projected to happen. This is only the start of the warming.
Cohenite – the Chilingar paper is tres amusant – an interesting bit of theory free of data and any modelling confirmation. It really it a bit tedious jumping head long into these new science papers shouting “The is it – this is the one !!”
Same with the Spencer paper – all this muttering about “why such little comment”. Well takes some time to digest that level of material – just like the climate system has some inertia – so does the thinking and science process. Most institutional work is in programs – you won’t get people darting off down gopher holes on every single new paper. Takes some time. I would see no conspiracy – just inertia of organisations.
Cohenite and Jan – what would help the blog on your contributions on greenhouse theory to package it up into a guest post. Would be meatier and more informative to get a line of thinking laid out ? I’m sure Jen would indulge you.
BTW going back a long long way to a discussion on the dodgy denier climate conference a while ago I asked if the list of peer reviewed papers that were going to be presented was available. Of course since it was a denier conference no such list was available.
Contrast this to to this list:
The 10th HITRAN
Database Conference
June 22 –June 24, 2008
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/Download/Proceedings-08.pdf
Where all the papers are presented along with their authors. Considering that Miskolczi is such an eminent scholar of spectroscopy then this would be the perfect platform to present a paper describing the errors that he found.
Guess what here are the Ms in the author list
Ma Q.,
Mahieux A.,
Malathy Devi V.,
Mandin J.-Y.,
Martin-Torres F. J.
McCarthy M. C.,
McHugh M.,
McKellar A.R.W.,
McManus J. B.,
Mendrok J.,
Michalsky J.,
Mikhailenko S. N.,
Miller C. E.,
Mlawer E.,
Moncet J.-L.,
Montmessin F.,
Hmmmm not there.
Google Scholar – “Your search – Miskolczi MODTRANS – did not match any articles.”
Perhaps Steve you can supply the paper now?
Miskolczi F. and R. Guzzi, 1993: Effect of Nonuniform Spectral Dome Transmittance on the Accuracy of Infrared Radiation Measurements Using Shielded Pyrradiometers and Pyrgeometers. Appl.
Opt., 34, pp 1598-1605.
Rizzi, R., Matracardi, M. and Miskolczi, F. 2002: Simulation of uplooking and downlooking high-resolution radiance spectra with two different radiative transfer models. Appl. Opt., 41(6), 940-956
Recent Results on Infrared Molecular Line Broadening and Shift Parameters
Book Series NATO Security through Science Series Publisher Springer Netherlands
Volume 2006
Book Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere for Environmental Security
Pages 185-201
SpringerLink Date Sunday, January 21, 2007
Mary Ann H. Smith4 Contact Information
(4) Science Directorate, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, USA
(5) NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 401A, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, USA
Abstract
Infrared instruments designed to monitor atmospheric pollutants from space use observed radiances in specific spectral regions for retrievals of global distributions and atmospheric concentration profiles of the gases of interest, including CO, CH4, O3, HCN, NO2 and H2O. However, particularly for the troposphere, errors in the spectral line broadening and shift parameters and in the line shape models used in the “forward calculation” can contribute significantly to the total errors in retrievals of atmospheric gas concentration profiles. Line parameters in the HITRAN database for many of the gases mentioned above were significantly updated in the 2000 and 2004 editions. Nevertheless, uncertainties remain in some spectral regions, particularly in the understanding of line shapes, line mixing, and the temperature dependences of line broadening and shift parameters. The recent updates of broadening and shift parameters in the spectroscopic databases are reviewed, and new laboratory results are discussed.
cohenite – “The AGW concept was never going to hold up because it contradicted itself; IPCC has recognised the logarithmic decline in CO2 heat ‘trapping’, which is why it has reverted to its “enhanced greenhouse” concept at AR4 FAQ 3.1 with its reliance on H2O; Spencer’s work on negative feedback has killed that; further work mentioned in this post about CO2 limitations and the paucity of the greenhouse concept, Miscolczi and the Chilingar et al paper on the adiabatic/convective model of atmospheric heat transference, indicate that AGW is not a valid concept.”
Actually what you are doing is hanging together a self consistent false hypothesis from speculative papers that tell you what you want to hear. Not bad really.
AGW science is consistent with a truly massive amount of peer reviewed work and presents the true picture with confirmation from observations, with the knowledge that we have now, of how greenhouse gases work in the atmosphere.
To overturn this you need more than a string of guesses and a couple of unconfirmed single papers. Plus you need a self consistent alternative model of how the atmosphere works which can be tested and gives better predictions and consistancy with observations than the current model. This you people have also failed to do.
If is fine to rant on about this paper and that one and how bad the surface temperature record is however by themselves they do not disprove AGW – you and the others will have to work a lot harder to do this.
Davey – yourself and Louis (and the others love all this political left/right stuff) … I dunno. Sort of shits me really. Is that really what goes on out there? Far out man.
Peden’s proposition is to position the question of climate risk to a position of absurdity. It totally misses the existing ongoing issues. It’s a non-question.
I see significant problems since European settlement in this country from lack of adaptation to climate variability and Australian landscapes and vegetation.
I’ve made the point that there are billions of dollars in all this – drought aid, National Heritage Trust, Caring for Country, Landcare, River Rescue, Reef Rescue – yadda yadda.
Major episodic land degradation episodes from inability to balance grazing herbivores with the landscape. e.g. SE Qld, Gascoyne, Central Australia, Western Division, Burdekin. Maybe about 20% of rangelands in a degraded condition.
Leaky landscapes producing salinity. SW WA, MDB
Overallocated water resources. MDB being the classic.
Inappropriate fire regimes. Too much in northern Australia, too little in southern Australia.
Most farming organisations want to know about climate change and drought policy. The extreme political wings want climate change shafted but then turn around and want better terms on conditions on carbon in trees and soil carbon credits. Can’t have it both ways?
So we’re in a situation where real climate risk decisions involving billions of dollars need to me made about real world issues affecting the now.
Those decisions often lock us into frameworks for investment of 30 to 50 years. e.g. major infrastructure.
You need some basis for risk management and resource allocation ? What’s your proposals?
Same issue on coastal development – there are issues with flooding, storm surge – from tropical cyclones and cut-off lows. How do you undertake any land planning on the coast. DO you let people build where ever they like and then expect govt to bail them out? So you have to make calculations on probabilities of exceedance and return periods, maximum envelopes of waters – how do you do it?
What left and right wing and commies got to do with it at all?
At some point you’ll have to decide whether you will factor in any climate science in your decision making.
The guys who did the new peanut industry development at Katherine ran a stack of climate analyses with their economic analyses to decide whether to make that investment. How would you suggest they do that task? It’s not about Al Gore or Tim Flannery or commies.
The moral bankruptcy of your position is to leave the field with no solution to progress any of these issues and to be happy with Peden’s non-question.
An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models
Ferenc M. Miskolczi. d , David D. Turner. e. a … Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Imperial College of Science, Technology and …
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~kratz/ref/p27jqsrt.pdf
Ferenc M. Miskolczi .19. PW12. UPDATES OF SPECTROSCOPIC DATA USED IN THE ILAS … Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Analytical Services Materials, Inc. Hampton VA, USA …
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/HITRAN/Download/Proceedings-02.pdf
Implementation of CO2 Q band line mixing computations into line-by-line atmospheric radiative transfer codes
MISKOLCZI Ferenc M. (1) ; MLYNCZAK Martin G. (2) ;
(1) Analytical Services & Materials Inc., One Enterprise Parkway, Suite 300, Hampton, VA 23666, ETATS-UNIS
(2) NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 420, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
In this paper, we discuss the computational difficulties of merging line-mixing models into line-by-line computations. We present the technical details of the upgrade of the High-resolution Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Code (HARTCODE) into an accurate reference line-by-line code for line mixing computations in the Q branches of the CO2. The implementation of line mixing was based on the model, database, and software that were developed at the Laboratoire de Physique Moleculaire et Applications (LPMA), and the HITRAN2K database absorption line compilation. In the recent version of the line mixing database 306 vibrational bands of eight CO2isotopes are included, and there are provisions for calculations using the first order and the more accurate relaxation operator method. The successful integration of the line mixing computations has been validated using airborne and ground-based high-resolution HIS radiance measurements. This exercise can also be regarded as the validation of the line mixing database for high resolution, nadir viewing thermal emission measurements.
Revue / Journal Title
IdŰjárás ISSN 0324-6329 CODEN IDOJA4
Source / Source
2004, vol. 108, no1, pp. 51-62 [12 page(s) (article)] (11 ref.)
Publisher Hungarian Meteorological Service
And more recently:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/itwg/groups/rtwg/rtairs.html
laura said: So many times you denialists compare those who care about the environment, its future and occupants with Hitler and Mugabe.
so what makes you think only AGW suporters have a monopoly on caring about the enivironment? Total arrogance!!
laura also said: It comes down to money for you denialists. Nothing more. No altruism, just conceit and utter selfishness.
how dare you accuse me – you don’t even know me! Where have I ever mentioned money on this site?
Yes luke – I posted some old buggers anecdotes AFTER I’d posted wiki’s definitions of Australia’s drought history. Anecdotes usually follow the facts!
Sorry missed Janama of 9:57 am – so much excitement on this thread – into the 200 plus comments – pretty good guys.
But thank you for that contribution and yes I agree with those anecdotes too. The Federation drought probably the one to compare with the current Millenium drought.
And yes – all droughts vary in spatial extent, location, severity and duration. Comparisons are difficult. And modern technology of transportation, machinery, and communication makes adaptation easier.
You can make arguments for sure that the Federation drought was more widespread, the 1982/83 drought was most severe or the current drought has probably given the worst recorded MDB inflows. So how to compare ?
But the climate science also tells us big changes in El Nino frequency, Indian Ocean and Antarctica too. Evaporative demand in the Millenium drought higher than Federation drought.
There’s enough of a smoking gun to implicate “some” AGW involvement in my opinion looking at the latest CSIRO and BoM science.
You won’t get a perfect 10 out of 10 answer. It’s a question of how much evidence you want.
The SW Western Australia rainfall decline is thought to be both AGW and natural causes. The science is not exclusive.
I have discussed this at length over on the recent two drought threads at Tamino’s Open Mind so not worth clogging here repeating- you can look if you wish. Happy to send you some of the papers if you wish to make contact via Jen. Up to you.
Steve Short – “Recent Results on Infrared Molecular Line Broadening and Shift Parameters”
First of all you said he found errors in MODTRANS. OK thats great however now you are presenting a paper that says that HITRAN has some minor inconsistancies that need to be resolved.
I fail to see how this makes him a hero. The whole purpose of updates and conferences is to make the database better – ie:science in progress.
as I look out my window I can see a D9 bulldozer making it’s way across open grazing pasture. It’s scouring trenches that will be planted with monoculture gum trees.
It’s creating a global warming carbon sink that can be traded on Kev’s new scheme.
I sense I can hear the old pioneers rolling in their graves as they cleared that land by hand many years ago. I’m sure they don’t like the plantation idea any more than I do. As all the land is turned over to investment companies the town’s services will go as the number of farmers and demand for services grinds to a halt. Soon all that’s left will be rows of trees, no wildlife, no employment, no town.
Thanks AGW supporters.
Steve Short – and still you have failed to produce anything other than the normal working of science updating the databases. I still fail to see any connection with denier science claiming that the models used to calculate the infrared absorption of greenhouse gases to be wrong.
so much excitement on this thread
glad you are excited – the rest of us are just pissed off with your carrying on.
Ender: “I still fail to see”
None so blind as those who do not wish to see.
This should be enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spectral_line
or
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EinsteinCoefficients.html
Virago eh? No wonder few women post here Cohenite. Well done. I suspect after that shot it is you who are pleased with themself. If I were on moral superior ground I’d be standing next to you lot. No thanks.
I most certainly do not think I am better than anyone else here. That is completely baseless and your opinion. For a start I have not condemned those here not working in science as some sort of unworthy prols like some others have. Remember?
Joel, that’s ok, I wouldn’t expect you to know what I’ve “contributed”. There is obviously a club here that requires certain gestures, beliefs and genders to be a member. Heaven help any new posters who may not share that club membership-they automatically have nothing to contribute.
“Thanks AGW supporters.” How dare you accuse me- you do not even know me! I did not ask Kevin to put the guy in the bulldozer to seed a plantation monoculture of eucalpyts. Get the picture? Another club rule.
“cohenite – “The AGW concept was never going to hold up because it contradicted itself; IPCC has recognised the logarithmic decline in CO2 heat ‘trapping’, which is why it has reverted to its “enhanced greenhouse” concept at AR4 FAQ 3.1 with its reliance on H2O;”
You are re-writing history there, usual conspiracy theory lunacy. It was the discovery of the enhanced greenhouse effect that started all this, not the other way around.
Steve, thanks for answering Ender’s question. Now please answer mine. You brought my name into the fray, so some courtesy by addressing my query should not be too much to ask.
Ender
MODTRANS is a 1 cm-1 RTM i.e. Radiative Transfer Model. There are various versions. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODTRAN
HITRAN is not a model. It is a critically reviewed database. See:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/
The earlier version of MODTRANS version 3.5 used up until a few years ago typically used a database whose provenance is not well known and certainly predates HITRANS2000. Depending upon the version MODTRAN can use various databases including now HITRAN.
The construction, critical reviewing and updating of databases is precisely where, in science, the really exciting stuff goes on because any model is only as good as the data upon which it draws.
This was and is, the issue.
You obviously don’t have a clue about this field nor indeed about how models, most of which now have multi-database capability are typically employed in general in science.
“Katrina hit land as a pretty standard CAT 3 and hurricane intensity isn’t measured by the measure of property damage at any rate.”
Katrina had been a CAT5, it was undergoing an eyewall replacement cycle. That is when the storm is so powerful it tears it’s inner wall apart and builds a new one. During that process the speed is cut down. They were lucky that happened, because if it had hit as a CAT5, it would have been a lot worse.
“The earlier version of MODTRANS version 3.5 used up until a few years ago typically used a database whose provenance is not well known and certainly predates HITRANS2000. Depending upon the version MODTRAN can use various databases including now HITRAN.
The construction, critical reviewing and updating of databases is precisely where, in science, the really exciting stuff goes on because any model is only as good as the data upon which it draws.
This was and is, the issue. ”
What earth shattering errors were discovered?
Janama – thanks for 1:32am. I was referring to the Wiki drought anecdotes – being “Short account of an incident”. (not your BTW)
ender; I’m a bit non-plussed as to why you raise HITRAN which gives spectral and atomic properties; AGW doesn’t restrict itself to conformity with these properties but supposes molecular behaviour which seems to contradict various laws to to with behaviour of molecules and gases and radiative and thermal balances, such as Kirchhoff, Virial and Stewart’s Law; Miscoloczi has developed a model which incorporates elements of these Laws in attempting to rebut the “enhanced Greenhouse” concept; other Laws which are relevant here are Stefan Boltzman which we have looked at before in terms of the logarithmic decline of temp forcing from increasing CO2 and Wien’s law, which doesn’t get much of a look in. IPCC ignore it and maintain that increased CO2 will have an incipient runaway response by virtue of +ve feedbacks; see any of McIntyre’s discussions, such as this one; FIG 4 is instructive;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2562#more=2562
IPCC speak of the broadening of CO2 absorption with increased temp, but I wonder whether we can’t combine Wien and HITRAN to either verify or rebut that; if we assume the ave temp is 16C and note that IPCC predicts at least a 2C increase in temp with a doubling of CO2, what happens to the wavelength peak and CO2 sensitivity with that temp increase;
~peak T=2.898x 10-3 m.k
If the temp is 16C =289.15K then the wavelength at which the radiation curve peaks is: ~peak = 1.002247×10^-5 m=10022.47 nm= 10.02247 microns.
At 18C =291.15K ~peak= 0.995363×10^-5 m=9953.632 nm=9.953632 microns.
Has the temp adjusted peak movement bypassed the absorption sensitivity of the doubled CO2?
luke; have you read the Chilingar paper? It references its model with a comparison to real data from both Earth and Venus to confirm the adiabatic/convective model parameters.
Laura: “There is obviously a club here that requires certain gestures, beliefs and genders to be a member. Heaven help any new posters who may not share that club membership”
A brief note for new chums; beware of those who depend entirely on “science” as science comes after the “event” in any case. Buffs who love the stuff like feedback from clouds etc remain head in the clouds when it comes to recognizing the practical.
Having worked for researchers some of whom dominated their field with a purely mathematical approach I can say it gets rather boring trying to maintain relationships in such an elitist club. We can also say that in academia the push and shove between competing teams is as much like the Tour de France as any other race we know. On the bike; it’s worth knowing who not to sit behind beforehand too.
This math/science thing can be dazzling if that’s all you want however I got through a lot of engineering on a daily basis without it. Good measurement is often more dependent on picking the plug out of your probe than calculation how it got to be a weird one after the test. Cooperation between technical staff is another important measure.
Doing stuff entirely on your own is not all that rewarding either when considering a good team generally has a lot more to share. I can recall being caught in the middle when competing contractors failed to build our first LNG rig to the original CryoVac specs.
Calculus did not help anyone resolve that dispute so the whole plant was cut up and rebuilt on the spot. Can we afford to do that in all aspects of carbon trading?
it’s pretty minimal
Perhaps Cohenite you need to be telling us what a GCM radiation model actually looks like and how these new issues affect that ?
It’s laughable reading realclimates “concerns” regarding the accuracy of radiosonde. Suddenly it’s important to Gavin what model thermometer is used; whether the sensor is or isn’t subject to direct sunlight; whether it’s housing is white plastic or cardboard.
Makes me wonder what happens inside his head everyday as he trundles off to ride herd on the SST network. He certainly isn’t concerned with the thermometers on land. It could be that Gavin is content with the heat signature of the surface stations the way they are. The messier the better to cover your tracks while “adjusting up”.
On the other hand sonde data is too darned cold to support Gavin’s theory, and too straight forward in operation to support his method. Been a thorn in his side for years. He says as much in this link, fourth paragraph. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/the-tropical-lapse-rate-quandary/
“i>The non-warming troposphere has been a thorn in the side of climate detection and attribution efforts to date.i>”
Every night Gavin “adjusts up” the radiosonde data, in his dreams. – That’s an opinion.
Steve Short – “HITRAN is not a model. It is a critically reviewed database. See:”
When did I say that HITRAN was anything other than a database? The only reason HITRAN came up, other than an example of a real scientific conference, is because I could not work out what you were talking about. You said that Miskolczi found errors in MODTRANS and that made him a hero. You then mentioned work he did on HITRANS. You have still failed to produce a paper detailing these errors that he found and the implications to AGW.
“You obviously don’t have a clue about this field nor indeed about how models, most of which now have multi-database capability are typically employed in general in science.”
Maybe however at least I answer questions when I can. You have still not replied to my simple question of how the climate can change.
http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/data_and_services/software/epic/epic.htm
Software for numerical atmosphere models
EPIC Model – The Explicit Planetary Isentropic
Coordinate atmospheric model. A general
circulation model designed for planetary
atmospheric studies.
AND
Mars GCM – Mars General Circulation Model.
http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/PDS/data/mogc_0001
Are two GCM’s available for download to the public from the NASA website Atmospheres/ http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/
Just in case somebody needed one.
James – just like the satellite guys weren’t interested in fixing their satellite data until http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170 – be fair !
The factors affecting radiosondes are important.
cohenite – “IPCC ignore it and maintain that increased CO2 will have an incipient runaway response by virtue of +ve feedbacks; see any of McIntyre’s discussions, such as this one; FIG 4 is instructive;”
Please supply the documentation that supports this wild accusation. No-one in the climate community supposes that we will have a runaway event. You are confusing pos feedbacks and assuming that they will run away forever. As Steve Short has been saying there are damping effects in the Earth’s ocean/atmosphere that usually prevent this however they are not strong enough to prevent the historical changes in global average temperatures that have been observed. Temperatures will rise and fall constrained by negative feedbacks and amplified by positive feedbacks.
In short you don’t have to have a runaway event to effect people’s lives. As you point out the effect of CO2 is logarithmic however as I have been trying to pound into you over many many threads it is not a simple logarithmic function because of the nature of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. At the start of the standard log function the rise of the curve is quite linear until later where the curve flattens out. We are still firmly in the start of the curve due to the pressure broadening and other effects of altitude and pressure present in the real atmosphere. Also the curve is not a simple y=logx but contains other terms and constants that change the shape of the curve. We will not start to feel the effects of saturation until the concentration of CO2 gets beyond 1000ppm or so. While it is under this the radiative response to increasing levels of CO2 is approximated by a straight line.
Take your radiative forcing arguments to open thread http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/open_thread_10.php ? – some interesting comments.
James – “The non-warming troposphere has been a thorn in the side of climate detection and attribution efforts to date.i>”
Every night Gavin “adjusts up” the radiosonde data, in his dreams. – That’s an opinion.”
Note the date however. A later article details the errors.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
“Three papers this week in Science Express, Mears et al, Santer et al (on which I’m a co-author) and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved – in favour of the models.”
And in another article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/more-satellite-stuff/
“The first part of the Christy and Spencer letter simply admits the error that Mears et al. found back in August. Nothing new there (so why is it being published in Science?); though they are somewhat coy about the nature of their error: but judging from the rather blunter reply from Mears and Wentz, it was a simple sign error. M+W point out that C+S first introduced their error in 1998, in response to a Wentz and Schnabel paper, which pointed out a previous C+S error, related to orbital decay. Christy has used the erroneous data in testimony to the Senate trying to cast doubt on the quality of climate models; it will be interesting to see if this is now corrected. C+S attempt to argue that their new data has a trend “that is within the +/- 0.05″ error margin of the previous trend.”
Finally new work has laid it to rest:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZWxTxZyCvRSo4uPvh6LDgaMxvXQ
“In the new study, climate scientists Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University use a more accurate method to show that temperature changes in the upper troposphere since 1970 — about 0.65 degrees Centigrade per decade — are in fact clearly in sync with most climate change models.
Rather than measuring temperature directly, which had yielded inconsistent results, they used wind variations as a proxy.
“We take an alternative approach by using trends in winds to infer those of temperature,” say the authors.”
>Maybe however at least I answer questions when I can. You have still not replied to my simple question of how the climate can change.
He can’t answer my very simple question either Ender. Relating to:-
‘This relates to the John Harries 2001 – 2004 dodgy science that Travis likes to quote and other ‘cook the books for AGW’ spectral absorption stuff.’
and
‘In this context, it is highly egregious for Travis and Luke to pretend ignorance. It cannot simply be put down to ignorance of the field (or lack of access to people familiar with the field).’
He chose to drag my name into a thread I had not participated on and misrepresented me. If he can’t supply the evidence of where I have cited Harries, then he should apologise.
I have to wonder about his claim of personal emails too, and whether he is trying to construct more porkies to continue to make himself look somehow superior. In fact I have to wonder about a lot of what he writes, but maybe I should contact his NZ friend for verification.
ender; you are droll; I can tell when you are getting worked up, your posts become more declatory and imperious; you are also disingenuous; Runaway is the lifeblood of the AGW publicity machine; Hansen and tipping points – wasn’t Hansen a consultant on “The Day After”? And every second AGW reference has a reference to Venus; the recent NASA paper by Hafemeister and Schwartz does this, compares what is happening on Earth with what has happened on Venus; I have explained before that Venus is not a runaway greenhouse, that its conditions are a result of atmospheric pressure and prior volcanic and tectonic overturn with solar proximity, but this does not stop IPCC having its imprimatur attached to this dirty trick; for a more detailed examination of how IPCC science is underscored by the ruanaway idea;
http://climatesci.org/2008/04/08/has-the-ipcc-inflated-the-feedback-factor-a-guest-weblog-by-christopher-monckton/
Of especial delight is FIG 3; feedback inflation by IPCC; BTW you are quite wrong about the logarithmic decline as I have explained to you many times; it is an exponential decline to an asymptopic state.
“It’s laughable reading realclimates “concerns” regarding the accuracy of radiosonde. Suddenly it’s important to Gavin what model thermometer is used; whether the sensor is or isn’t subject to direct sunlight; whether it’s housing is white plastic or cardboard.
Makes me wonder what happens inside his head everyday as he trundles off to ride herd on the SST network. He certainly isn’t concerned with the thermometers on land. It could be that Gavin is content with the heat signature of the surface stations the way they are. The messier the better to cover your tracks while “adjusting up”.”
No, he’s obviously got concerns with UHI and other factors, that’s why they are taken into account when publishing the respective temperature records. Do such concerns get taken into account with satellites? You had better believe it, the satellite data is the end result of a long list of adjustments.
Ender we never talk. How the hell are you?
I’m good too.
Ok enough of the small talk.
A]What do we call a wind in the upper troposphere which removes heat from the system (ie off planet)?
B] What do we call it when that wind trend along with ghg’s leaving, behind no AGW predicted tropical hotspot?
a) We call it a negative feedback.
b) We call it the basis for Lord Monckton’s estimate of the climate feedback.
B] What do we call it when that wind trends along with ghgs leaving behind no AGW predicted tropical hotspot?
* fixed that
James all answered in the latest Monky-gate report http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/langswitch_lang/th
Gavin talks about a few different issues regarding radiosonde that might throw the thermometer out of wack.
Sometimes the balloon passes through a cloud and gets wet. The water gets frozen insulating the thrmistor from the cold as the balloon rises through subzero layers of atmosphere.
Sometimes the thermistor, which is on a boom, is exposed to the direct sunlight.
But these issues are HEAT BIASES.
THE PROBLEM is that radiosonde are too darn cold.
You correct out those issues the radiosonde data is even colder and further out of agreement with gw theory.
James Mayeau said***James – just like the satellite guys weren’t interested in fixing their satellite data until http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170 – be fair ! The factors affecting radiosondes are important.***
Speaking of being fair, your link is from 2005 and the article it points to is typical of the arguements used by computer modelers, especially Gavin Schmidt. BTW…I’m still waiting for an answer as to whether he’s a mathematician, or what.
Here are two current articles on UAH satellite data:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/08/musings-on-satellite-temperatures/ and
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#satellite-temps
Near the bottom of the page in the second link you will find Figure 9, which is a current record of the UAH data from 1979 to the present. The first link shows that the RSS and UAH satellites are now in step. The RSS data had to be scaled back as well. It’s interesting that the RSS and UAH teams help each other out while computer modelers try to discredit the real data.
Both links make something crystal clear:
1)Lower tropospheric warming is lagging surface warming significantly. Schmidt can claim all he wants that the trends between surface and atmosphere are in step, the important thing is that the surface is warmer than the troposphere by quite a bit, which puts the boots to his model theory.
2)Figure 9 on the second link shows clearly that we have had no ‘net’ warming since 1998. That flies in the face of the CO2 warming theory which requires ever increasing atmospheric temperatures for increasing CO2 density.
The IPCC did a coverup job on the satellite data in AR4. That doesn’t surprise me since Kevin Trenberth is a lead author in the atmospheric working group and he and John Christy don’t agree on global warming. He was Christy’s mentor while the latter was a grad student. In fact, it was Trenberth who questioned the satellite data in the tropics, using purely statistical arguements, as did Fu later.
Much has been made of inaccuracies in the satellite and sonde data, but we’re talking minor errors, which have been fixed. The reference in the realclimate article linked to above refers to thermistors as being cheap thermometers. Nonsense. Thermisters are used in lab thermometers and are very accurate.
Of course, Schmidt is sweating about the sondes since they are backing up the accuracy of the satellites. The difference is that satellites do a much better job of covering the globe, much better than surface stations or sondes.
The reason why I started with the 2005 page is because I am doing a forensic study of the perversion which is gavin’s brain.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Laura,
Regarding your comment that “there is obviously a club here that requires certain gestures, beliefs and genders to be a member”, let me point out the following.
As far as I’m aware, you don’t know me personally and I don’t know you personally – at least I hope not. I haven’t seen your tag on this blog before, so as far as I know these recent comments are your first. But in the space of less than twelve hours, you have accused me of being:
“conceited”, “selfish”, “medicated”, “delusional”, “hateful”, “old fart”, “idiot”, “village idiot”, “selective”, “manipulative”, duplicious (no I am not Cohenite), “hypocrite”, “ranter”, “biased”, (the only one, apparently) “irresponsible”, “dishonest”, and “uneducated”. That’s 17 insults of various intensity in only 3 posts – which must be an all time record. What will we have to look forward to on day 2, I wonder? (By the way – I take exception to the ‘old fart’ bit).
You then go on to categorise my contribution as “kindergarten taunts”. Well, I would suggest you also have a good look at your own efforts while you are on the case.
My very good friend Luke and I have been engaging in a robust debate about some highly esoteric points of theology over the last 4 months. If he doesn’t seem to have a problem with this, I fail to see what your issue is. Luke is big enough and ugly enough (certainly ugly enough) to defend himself and I imagine he is somewhat embarassed that people will now think he has to hide behind a woman’s skirts.
I was unaware that God had died and left you in charge, but if that is indeed the case, then please inform everyone here of the details and we will defer to your superior authority. Indeed, if you had bothered to go back through the blog for any distance, you’d realise that Luke currently holds the distance record for “kindergarten taunts” – and far worse – so you have no credibility whatsoever in picking me out of the crowd to the exclusion of the main offender.
“Well done Ivan for twisting words around to suit your agenda.”
The last thing the world needs is yet another ignorant apologist who feels the need to reinvent history. The words are the words that came out of the mouths of the people quoted – no amount of manipulation by you is going to change that, or indeed the meaning. In the case of Cousteau, he even went on to qualify his remarks to remove all possible doubt as to what was on his mind. Sorry if none of this fits with any of your pre-conceived ideas. Instead of just falling off your twig and ranting at all and sundry who happen to disagree with these comfortable ideas of yours, you’d be better off using the time to inform yourself on this issue. And then you might learn that the ones quoted so far in this thread on this subject are the tip of the iceberg. It’s your choice, of course, but if you are going to simply launch into a torrent of abusive insults at anyone that disagrees with you, then you are probably going to have an interesting time blogging here. You’ll have Luke getting jealous, for a start- he doesn’t like competition.
“So the SUV-owning, four bedroom house-occupying, yearly overseas-vacationing family..”
Like the vast majority of the population in Australia, I don’t own a SUV, nor a four bedroom house – nor take vacations overseas every year, for that matter. I have far more modest expectations than that. Which is probably why I don’t share the AGW crowd’s “save the planet” guilt trip. I am far more concerned that there is a future for my kids than I am by any self-delusional hypocrisy occasioned by agonising over AGW.
And if you had bothered to take 4-5 minutes to read my post at 1:39PM on the 22nd, you’d see what my concerns are on this issue and you could have spared us all this endless diatribe about the Middle Ages.
Have a nice life.
Minor errors – cooling to warming? LOL
And speaking of being in step aren’t most of the sources?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.146/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.238/mean:12
So what’s the deal really?
Exactly my point Gordon.
Check out the fourth and fifth paragraph after the “What can the Radiosonde data tell us?” header of the 2005 link.
Gavin : “This is a clear indication that, back in the 1960’s and 1970’s especially, the sun shining on the instruments was making readings too high. This problem disappeared by the late 1990’s.”
“The key thing here is not simply the existence of this problem, but the change over time. It turns out that in the tropics the artificial boost in the early readings was just about equal, on average, to the increase in surface temperature over the 1979-97 period (the trend in solar heating bias was -0.16 K/decade averaged from 850-300 hPa). In other words, this effect by itself could explain why reported temperatures did not increase.”
Did you catch that? He’s talking about Lord Monckton’s sensitivity estimate. Gavin knew that the radiosonde was showing a real world feedback, correcting for the gw effect, way back in 2005.
That is unless you actually believe that the little sonde hanging thingy prefered facing sunward in the 60’s, but gradually changed it’s mind through the 70’s 80’s and 90’s.
Guys: this refers to the Channel 4 programme shown in the UK (circa 18 months ago) The Great Gobal Warming Swindle:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/850566/an-inconvenient-ruling.thtml
Dearest Ivan – Yes certainly very very ugly and mean. Shaved head. Pierced everything. But women’s skirts? Wazzat about?
Ivan – fair cop – look it’s a ratio 10 of you versus one of me – so you’d have to work out the insults per ratio of attackers. I protest.
Couldn’t have expressed it better
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200807231515/energy-and-environment/climatology-versus-climatism.html
luke; this is a more interesting set of graphs which quite clearly shows that your inference that there was a magic get together of the data sources is not right; FIGs 1 and 3 are the interesting one, with your smoothed one in the centre; the top one clearly shows the tainting that occurs with different base periods;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#baselines
The bottom one clearly shows the heating bias that persists in the most recent period with the land and sea data based on that base-period.
The trend story is the same … zzzzzz
Bickers old chap – did you read the bio at the bottom of your post – mate only Exxon would be better.
Vinod K. Dar writes for Right Side News and is an energy industry professional and has published articles for electric and gas industry journals and trade press for more than 25 years. He is the Managing Director of DAR & COMPANY, founded in 1990. He has operating experience in gas and electric trading, marketing, retailing and merchant generation, and has been CEO of two energy trading and marketing companies. Mr Dar has served on the Boards of five publicly traded energy and consulting firms.
LOL
“Bickers old chap – did you read the bio at the bottom of your post – mate only Exxon would be better.’
Why all this paranoia about people who have done real work for a living?
After all, didn’t Lenny Bernstein (i.e. Saint Leonard of IPCC) work for Mobil all his useful life? According to your logic, all of AR4 is therefore corrupted and should be scrapped. (We wish!)
What’s up with Jen and the boys? They all out on holiday?
Sorry Ivan, wrong yet again. I don’t wear skirts. But you are a suitable match for Cohenite with bringing in gender-biased remarks, so well done to you too and thanks for helping to prove a point. Your childish comment re God dying and leaving me in charge proves another two.
In response to the rest of your own “diatribe”-yawn. Nothing new, same old hypocrisy, selectivity and posturing.
You have managed to graduate though. Not kindergarten, but grade 6 for the little “have a nice life” remark. You are obviously not an old fart, my apologies.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii
Is the ninth paragraph Gavin specificly refers to the new iteritive approach to fudging tropical radiosonde data (switching it for “virtual heat” using winds as a proxy for temperature) as a consistency check.
Gavin : “Sherwood et al (pdf) take a different, iterative, approach that involves using the wind shear measurements (taken at the same time as the temperatures) as a CONSISTENCY CHECK.”
You see how he did that? He’s not fudging numbers or playing nentendo climate change, no, no, no. What he’s doing is ‘checking it’.
Not changing anything – just ‘checking it’.
Sounds so innocent that way.
Hardly criminal at all when you say it that way.
“We’re just checking. Be gone in a minute.”
Then you turn Gavin around and find he’s clutching your hubcaps.
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~rja29/Papers/Allen&SherwoodNgeo08.pdf
Sherwood, undetered by reality, outlines his method for erasing the radiosonde data in the paragraph titled “Using Winds as a Proxy for Temperature”.
We take an alternative approach by using trends in winds to infer
those of temperature.”
Does that sound like ‘checking’ to you?
Let’s go back to Gavin.
Further down on the RC link under update:
Gavin : “As luck would have it, a commentary from Peter Thorne and a paper from Allen and Sherwood have just come out in Nature Geoscience. In it they extend the idea mentioned above of using wind shear as a CHECK on the temperature trends and come up with a another new estimate of the changes. ”
There’s that word again.
Let’s see what you have hidden behind your back, dude.
“What? You don’t trust me?” says Gavin.
Not for a second.
(caps are for emphasis)
Mid-late Holocene sea-level variability in eastern Australia
A re-analysis of sea-level data from eastern Australia based on 115 calibrated C-14 ages is used to constrain the origin, timing and magnitude of sea-level change over the last 7000 years. We demonstrate that the Holocene sea-level highstand of +1.0–1.5 m was reached ∼7000 cal yr bp and fell to its present position after 2000 yr bp. These findings are in contrast to most previous studies that relied on smaller datasets and did not include the now common conversion of conventional C-14 ages to calendar years. During this ∼5000 year period of high sea level, growth hiatuses in oyster beds and tubeworms and lower elevations of coral microatolls are interpreted to represent short-lived oscillations in sea-level of up to 1 m during two intervals, beginning c. 4800 and 3000 cal yr bp. The rates of sea-level rise and fall (1–2 mm yr−1) during these centennial-scale oscillations are comparable with current rates of sea-level rise. The origin of the oscillations is enigmatic but most likely the result of oceanographic and climatic changes, including wind strengths, ice ablation, and melt-water contributions of both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
Terra Nova
Terra Nova
Volume 20 Issue 1, Pages 74 – 81
Published Online: 22 Jan 2008
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119409940/abstract
292 comments: Have we found the climate crisis yet??
Thinking of other things to ‘check’.
Luke can I check your wallet.
Now don’t worry. I wouldn’t ‘adjust’ your money.
All I want to do is ‘check it’.
The trend is the same; and there is over 1C difference between the land/sea and the satellites; if that difference were maintained for 100 years what would we get; let’s assume no +ve feedbacks, which is going to drastically lower the value, but just a compounding increase; I think this is an appropriate way of calculating the increase since AGW is going to cost so much we may as well use financial calculations;
A= P(1+r/n)nt
P= the principal amount, which in this case is the existing 1C difference,
r= the rate of ‘interest’; I thought a reasonable IPCC consistent amount would be .1C increase per decade, so .01C per annum;
t= the number of years; IPCC thinks on the long term, so let’s say 100 years, compounded monthly;
So; A= 1(1+.01/100)1200 = 3.318. Over 100 years the 2 sets of data will be only 3.318C out of synch; nothing.
Ender:
“….You have still failed to produce a paper detailing these errors that he found and the implications to AGW.”
Oh yeah? To repeat:
An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models
Ferenc M. Miskolczi. d , David D. Turner. e. a … Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Imperial College of Science, Technology and …
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~kratz/ref/p27jqsrt.pdf
Ferenc M. Miskolczi .19. PW12. UPDATES OF SPECTROSCOPIC DATA USED IN… Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Analytical Services Materials, Inc. Hampton VA, USA …
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/HITRAN/Download/Proceedings-02.pdf
Implementation of CO2 Q band line mixing computations into line-by-line atmospheric radiative transfer codes
MISKOLCZI Ferenc M. (1) ; MLYNCZAK Martin G. (2) ;
(1) Analytical Services & Materials Inc., One Enterprise Parkway, Suite 300, Hampton, VA 23666.
(2) NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 420, Hampton, VA 23681-2199.
Resulting in:
Recent Results on Infrared Molecular Line Broadening and Shift Parameters
Book Series NATO Security through Science Series Publisher Springer Netherlands
Volume 2006
Book Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere for Environmental Security
Pages 185-201
SpringerLink Date Sunday, January 21, 2007
Mary Ann H. Smith4 Contact Information
(4) Science Directorate, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, USA
(5) NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 401A, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, USA
Keep disingenuously playing dumb, I’m happy to keep rubbing your nose in it.
James, please tell me you’ve read this:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radiosondes.html
The wind technique was copied from Pielke’s work from TWO previous papers. Of course according to SJT Pielke is just getting dumber and dumber so I don’t know how we reconcile that.
Pielke and his co-authors were given no credit, indeed this was heralded as a “new” method. Pielke is writing up a paper to document their flawed analysis.
Come on Laura, post something constructive. We’re happy to be your punching bag if you contribute. And I don’t think its that unexpected that the skeptics outnumber the warmists on a SKEPTICS BLOG!
And honestly, Luke is always going “yawn”, zzzzz zzzz. You can’t fault Ivan for thinking you’re a cousin. (Or even Luke as he does like to switch names frequently). As for sexism, ummmmm, name of the blog?!?
Cohenite, I’m interested in the paper. Almost missed your post in this marathon comment fest.
Steve Short – “Keep disingenuously playing dumb, I’m happy to keep rubbing your nose in it.”
Obviously I am completely stupid as I cannot see in either of these two papers an earth shattering error revealed. I do see a scientist working with others to refine and improve a database.
Perhaps you can explain it in baby talk for the stupid ones.
My favourite quote:
“More precisely, the relationship between the winds and the temperature is derived from the very same models that are shown to disagree with the actual temperature measurements by the balloons and satellites. So the arguments they show only support the compatibility of one particular theoretical prediction with the observations – namely the quantity describing winds as predicted by the very same models.”
Joel; if Jennifer will send me your e-mail I will forward you a copy; unless you want to contact Louis direct; I think his e-mail is in one of the entries above; is that alright with you Louis?
Dear Dr Steve, please humour me with an apology for misrepresenting me in order to make some point to suit your cause on this, one of the very best environmental blogs on the planet. Surely you can cough up a sorry when you have been at fault? This may not be a peer-reviewed paper in Science or Nature, but it is archived, in the public domain, and you have chosen to play in the arena. Play fair Steve.
This has ended up being a good “Open Thread”, but we sure are a long way from defining that ole Climate Crisis.
Jim Peden, you have hit on one of the cornerstone questions.
Now on to the next catastrophe, oh, I almost forgot we have it already, Acidification of the Seas.
CoRev, editor (side line leering)
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
So, let me get this straight; Sherwood and Allen can’t find the hotspot/greenhouse signature; so they propose a new wind based method of causing greenhouse temp increases; they set parameters so that if the wind model is correct then a greenhouse temp will appear, and on the basis of their model declare that the greenhouse temp signature is there? So now the models don’t analyse and understand climate, they cause it.
“but we sure are a long way from defining that ole Climate Crisis.”
Found it … one of the 6th graders had it.
http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/foulweather.jpg
Thanks for the chuckle Joel. The “yawns” started after Ivan and co automatically concluded I was Luke or related to him in some way.
The blog is named after Jennifer Marohasy, who founded it. Paul and Neil have been co-moderators only relatively recently. Should it be called “the Three Amigos take on Politics and the Environment” to make it appear less sexist to a male poster? Point taken about it being a skeptic’s blog.
I am not a scholar but rather one of the “gullible” plebs deniers like to think exist in the background serving them at supermarket checkouts or cleaning their hotel rooms, only to one day be miraculously snapped out of the spin spun by Gore, Rudd and others, awakening like a Sleeping Beauty to an Emerald City. Don’t count on the meek workers one day waking up to what the denialists believe. I see it more as Kansas and a Sleeper from Woody Allen’s film. A Brave New World with plenty of replicant wildlife to fill the void left behind when reality is gone. (Enough sci-fi references for Cohenite there).
So I try and read and learn and that is why I came to this blog. I see ettiquette faults on both sides, but I have to say in all honesty it is the AGW supporters who have provided the most convincing arguments and maintained consistency in the debate.
Might as well end transmission from the island with some bed time music (or wake up?) – thinking of Tiler and CoRev. Nighty night creeps.
“So now the models don’t analyse and understand climate, they cause it.”
You are surprised by this? The warmers have been living in their game space, to the exclusion of reality, for a long time now.
Both these pieces by Phil Stott are brilliant, highly intelligent and incisive explanations of the AGW mythology:
http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html
From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.
In the 1970s, the fear was “global cooling.” The Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, “Warning: Earth’s climate is changing faster than even experts expect,” while The New York Times announced, “A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.” Sound familiar? Global warming represents the latest doom-laden “crisis,” one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways.
But neither history nor science bolsters such an apocalyptic faith.
History and Science:
Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases. Outside the tropics, variability should decrease in a warmer world. If this is a “crisis,” then the world is in permanent “crisis,” but will be less prone to “crisis” with warming.
Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, most rapidly about 12,000 years ago. In recent centuries, the average rate has been relatively uniform. The rate was higher during the first half of the 20th century than during the second. At around a couple of millimetres per year, it is a residual of much larger positive and negative changes locally. The risk from global warming is less than that from other factors (primarily geological).
The impact on agriculture is equivocal. India warmed during the second half of the 20th century, yet agricultural output increased markedly. The impact on disease is dubious. Infectious diseases, like malaria, are not so much a matter of temperature as of poverty and public health. Malaria remains endemic in Siberia, and was once so in Michigan and Europe. Exposure to cold is generally more dangerous.
So, does the claim that humans are the primary cause of recent warming imply “crisis”? The impact on temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of human-induced greenhouse gases does not relate directly to emission rate, nor even to CO2 levels, but rather to the radiative (or greenhouse) impact. Doubling CO2 is a convenient benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 – 6.4 C warming.
What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans.
Indeed the system requires no external driver to fluctuate by a fraction of a degree because of ocean disequilibrium with the atmosphere. There are also alternative drivers relating to cosmic rays, the sun, water vapor and clouds. Moreover, it is worth remembering that modelers even find it difficult to account for the medieval warm period.
The Real Crisis:
Our so-called “crisis” is thus neither a product of current observations nor of projections.
But does it matter if global warming is a “crisis” or not? Aren’t we threatened by a serious temperature rise? Shouldn’t we act anyway, because we are stewards of the environment?
Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. This does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting about “saving the planet.” What is wrong with us that we downplay this human misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not happen even a hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we can and must act.
The global warming “crisis” is misguided. In hubristically seeking to “control” climate, we foolishly abandon age-old adaptations to inexorable change. There is no way we can predictably manage this most complex of coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems. The inconvenient truth is that “doing something” (emitting gases) at the margins and “not doing something” (not emitting gases) are equally unpredictable.
Climate change is a norm, not an exception. It is both an opportunity and a challenge. The real crises for 4 billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria of the pampered rich.
We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. The “crisis” is the global warming political agenda, not climate chang
“Actually what you are doing is hanging together a self consistent false hypothesis from speculative papers that tell you what you want to hear.”
No Ender, that’s what you are doing.
“Rather than measuring temperature directly, which had yielded inconsistent results, they used wind variations as a proxy.”
Anyone that would use a proxy that itself depends on wind measurements that could also have errors, and then declares that satellite and radiosonde measurements are incorrect is a true fruitcake.
“AGW science is consistent with a truly massive amount of peer reviewed work”
Incestous work at best. For example, 50 climate reconstructions that all use the same tree ring series that is proven to be faulty are simply one error multiplied 50 times, they are not independent sources of support for each other.
“To overturn this you need more than a string of guesses and a couple of unconfirmed single papers.”
Your failure to understand the sound reasoning behind the work does not turn it into guesses.
“Plus you need a self consistent alternative model of how the atmosphere works which can be tested and gives better predictions and consistancy with observations than the current model. This you people have also failed to do.”
Wrong again. Spencers explanation are self consistent. He has provided alternative explanations for the observed data. And they are better that those of the warmers models.
Luke:
“Leaky landscapes producing salinity. SW WA, MDB
Overallocated water resources. MDB being the classic.
Inappropriate fire regimes. Too much in northern Australia, too little in southern Australia.”
Nice list of whines Luke, and I hope you get them resolved. But what do they have to do with greehouse theory?
Is this just another attempt to pat yourself on the back for your pretentious humanitarianism.
“Warning: Earth’s climate is changing faster than even experts expect,”
I particularly love that one Bickers. I have seen that “even faster than they expect” thing used about a thousand times now. Trenberth used it a couple of days ago in his congressional testimony. But it is based on one single item – the Artic meltoff of 2007 – because all of the other indicators are happening much more slowly than the models predict.
The Canadians commissioned two studies that showed that the 2007 reduction in sea ice was due to winds and currents. But once again the warmers cared nothing about the facts, and therefore went on a rant about the Arctic sea ice melt while simultaeously ignoring the record Antartic sea ice. Then they were so convinced by their own idiotic press that they went on to predict more records this year here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/most-experts-foresee-a-repeat-at-least-of-2007-arctic-ice-loss/
Only 5 weeks later, as the stupidity of the main stream AGW experts was being exposed by the reality of a lack of melting in the Arctic, the “experts” reversed themselves and in the face of the obvious, decided that the same level of melt that occured in 07 was not going to happen.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/ice-update-and-unfiltered-us-climate-report/
Laura: “. . . automatically concluded I was Luke or related to him in some way”.
Well you obviously have to be Luke. Who else would be dense enough to say:
“I have to say in all honesty it is the AGW supporters who have provided the most convincing arguments and maintained consistency in the debate.”
Must be his inner girlie-man showing itself. What’s next? Are we going to hear some pearls of wisdom on interior decorating, fashion or flower arrangement? Would probably be a good thing too, as anything he had to say on these topics would have to have more merit than his rantings on the state of the climate!
That’s about the size of it cohenite.
Joel Thanks for finding that Molt post for me. I read it back in June but somehow couldn’t find it again (Search engine issues). Luckily I remembered just enough of it to blast Tim Lambert when he tried to sneak Sherwood and Allen through as a critique of Lord Monckton’s APS piece.
Tilo:
The same stupid punters haranging on over the arctic melt last year find themselves in a similar embarrasing position over water levels in the Great Lakes.
Levels did of course drop last summer following the El Nino winter with low ice cover, high evaporation and low snow melt. Of course the mantra from the warmers was egads climate change!, droughts happening, the lakes are disappearing, we’re all going to die, blah, blah, blah.
So what ‘s the reality this year?
Lake levels have rebounded nicely this year with a cold winter and higher than normal precipitation.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/mh_sc_cl.gif
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/superior.gif
If the stupid gits had bothered to check history it’s pretty obvious that yes, lake levels do change and quite rapidly up and down all the time!
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/lowlevels/plot/Michigan-Huron.gif
(this year’s rebound not yet shown in the data!)
“Are we going to hear some pearls of wisdom on interior decorating, fashion or flower arrangement?”
Big mistake. Laura has been furiously inviting everyone to a pig wrestling contest. But she is a master at pig wrestling, and like the proverbial pigs, she loves the mud. You are about to get a heavy thrashing about what a filthy, neanderthal, sexist you are. And Laura will be in the throes of ecstasy while she is doing it.
Mark:
“The same stupid punters haranging on over the arctic melt last year find themselves in a similar embarrasing position over water levels in the Great Lakes.”
Of course there are also the predictions about when the next solar cycle will start by NASA physiscist David Hathaway. He has now had to move his target date 4 times since Solar Cycle 24 just won’t take over for 23.
By now someone has got to be furiously rewriting the AGW playbook. It will be modified to say that no one is allowed to make predictions that can be verified in less than 20 years; since whenever they do they invariably end up in embarrasing themselves.
“Big mistake. Laura has been furiously inviting everyone to a pig wrestling contest. But she is a master at pig wrestling, and like the proverbial pigs, she loves the mud. You are about to get a heavy thrashing about what a filthy, neanderthal, sexist you are. And Laura will be in the throes of ecstasy while she is doing it.”
I see the quality of troll is improving.
SooooWeeee!!!! Bring it on!!!!
Ah, Mark and Tilo. Need to kick someone do you, so went for the only female contributor here? That’s four chalked up, and I’m still deciding on James, but going by past posts, we may need to make it five. Not bad for you deniers. More points proven. Keep them coming guys, you only make yourselves look stupider (quite an achievement), and reinforce what I said about the supporters. And don’t flatter yourself Tilo, pigs are intelligent animals, and I certainly haven’t been wrestling any of those here.
Stoot’s comments are about as stupid as you can get
“Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds” – so what is he or any sceptics doing about these problems. Zippo. It’s simply a diversionary blame shift. The mock concern by denialists on these issues is nauseating.
“In hubristically seeking to “control” climate, we foolishly abandon age-old adaptations to inexorable change” – WHAT – like dying ! See human history.
Control climate – is Stott mental. “Control?”
Your collective comments overnight about Laura are rank guys. Think it says something about your own perverse ideas of fun. Typical denialist gutter morals – what professionals (not).
Actually Luke, if you bothered to read my post with any degree of care, you should have realized my dig was at you, not Laura!
But aren’t you gallant running to the defense of a lonely ecofreak chick!
RC = Gibberish
Luke
Because you never posted under your real name, masquerading under different pseudonyms here simply means that any new poster in the AGW camp, writing under a pseudonym is automatically assumed to be you.
Hence they will be treated accordingly by the sceptics here.
This surprises you?
Just desserts if you ask me.
AGW supporters here have only one skill – the ability to recite verse and chapter of the AGW litany without having a clue to the meanings contained therein.
Much like a religious acolyte or student in a Maddrassa or some other monastery mindlessly reciting the holy texts from constant repetition.
That climate minister Penny Wong continues to base her decisions on “scientific consensus” shows how little the AGW camp understands science.
This is because it isn’t science.
“RC = Gibberish”
That solves that problem quite easily, doesn’t it.
Luke
No you are the mental one – any one who has multiple personalities as you do – could be described as having that unfortunate affliction.
“Ecofreak chick” now? Keep ’em coming Mark. Highly imaginative and mature.
I am writing under a pseudonym Louis? That’s news to me, but you guys have all the facts. So Louis because one regular poster has changed his name (which seems to be allowed under blog rules, unless YOU are now changing them), you are condemning all who do not share your POV to the same treatment as you dish out to Luke? That seems to be typical denialist behaviour, here and elsewhere. I see you are speaking for all the denialists here too.
“Keep them coming guys, you only make yourselves look stupider (quite an achievement), and reinforce what I said about the supporters.”
We know Gomer. These are the kind of pigs that are your intellectual peers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037391/Activist-tries-superglue-Gordon-Brown.html
Way to go Louis!! Bring in the ‘mental’ terminology and let’s beat the crap out of mental illness sufferers and women. Zippo!
Well state something then that would NOT lead us to believe you’re an ecofreak chick!
Cohenite:
“So, let me get this straight; Sherwood and Allen can’t find the hotspot/greenhouse signature; so they propose a new wind based method of causing greenhouse temp increases; they set parameters so that if the wind model is correct then a greenhouse temp will appear, and on the basis of their model declare that the greenhouse temp signature is there? So now the models don’t analyse and understand climate, they cause it.”
The wind shear vertically through a layer, also known as the thermal wind, is a good way of calculating the mean temperature difference between two columns of air. It is straight, simple physics.
The problem is that to get absolute temperatures you need real absolute temperature measurements at some level.
This is mentioned in the Allen&Sherwood paper at the bottom of page 1/top of page 2.
“To the extent that absolute temperature trends are fairly well known at high northern latitudes this technique enables recovery of trends at other latitudes including the tropics.”
So throw out the direct radiosonde measurements and use another *temperature* dataset instead. Sure hope the other one is better, or is it the GISS arctic surface trend?
Hmm, another paper that concludes that most of the warming that the IPCC is blaming on AGW, is actually due to ocean effects. Another source of support for Roy Spencer’s explanation.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
Laura: “Need to kick someone do you, so went for the only female contributor here?”
Forgive these soldiers of reason, it’s the age thing. They are still waiting to achieve something somewhere.
Oh yes there is a crisis, some people are going to be left behind in scramble for long term sustainability. Standing on your wallet is bound to be more difficult as society wakes up.
Laura: “I see ettiquette faults on both sides”
What, like you using the term “denier”. Here, that makes it open season on you!
Do you need anger management Mark? I see you subscribe to the same school as Louis-one size fits all. And typically of deniers such as your good self, no point in trying to change your minds.
Thank you Gavin, always the wise gentleman.
“so went for the only female contributor here?”
How do you flatter yourself that you are a contributer? Having read all of your posts I haven’t seen a single sentence that contributes to the AGW debate. There is nothing to you but all of the rehashed guilt and intimidation techniques of the fascist left that every one of us has heard a million times before. Since you know exactly zero about the AGW debate you simply figured that all of your worn out methods could be brought to bear on one more left wing cause. You thought that maybe you could simply insult and bully a few more people into either going along with your stupidity or at a minimum bully them into shutting up. Of course the old sexist accusation is a tried and true tool for phonies like you. It is your own exercise in bigotry, since you know very well that all of us speak completely differently to women who make sense, who know something about the subject they are engaged in, and who treat others with respect – like Jennifer.
laura; you will have to add Motl to that sexist list;
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/female-alarmists-spam-nature.html
Is there any point in making AGW a gender indicative issue? In your intial post you pulled the guilt lever about the conditions of third world countries and how sceptics were condemning the 3rd world to further hardship; the sad thing is that in the 3rd world it is the poorest who suffer the most in any situation affecting living standards; and the poorest in the 3rd world are inevitably women; alleviation of inequality is a product of improved living conditions because to a large extent improvements in living conditions act as a +ve feedback to political and social rights (some Islamic countries do contradict this, but that is another story); the fact is AGW, and the economic measures proposed to deal with this ‘problem’, has not made a convincing argument that economic conditions generally, but especially in the 3rd world, will not be worsened by these proposed measures; given this I can’t see how you can justifiably play the sexist card.
Laura: “I see ettiquette faults on both sides”
Mark,
The bigger fault of etiquette on Laura’s part is that after 8 posts in two days she has contributed zero in terms of analysis, debate, commentary of even sensible point of view. Most of the ranters in the AGW camp can at least come up with an occasional logical statement (i.e. noun + verb) – misguided though it may be. After re-reading her posts I think James Mayeau is on the money – she is only here for the brawl. She is not in the least constrained by knowledge – a Luke without content. At least Luke and Ender will amuse us by making $hit up when they have nothing to contribute. But having said that, I am impressed by anyone that can muster 17 insults in only a couple of posts without repeating themselves (if you ignore the “idiot” / “village idiot” overlap, that is).
Laura: Do you need anger management Mark?
No but you obviously need some perspective! By using the term denier, you equate those who have a totally legitimate right to question an unproven theory (more like an idealogy) that supposes that man made emissions of CO2 are causing a catastrophic change to the earth’s climate system with the systematic and brutal murder of six million Jews in the second world war by the German fascists. The ironic thing is that is the alarmist side in this debate that are the fascists. You sure you want to be on that side?
“In your intial post you pulled the guilt lever about the conditions of third world countries and how sceptics were condemning the 3rd world to further hardship”
Did I? With >300 posts here I am not scrolling through it to draw out the numerous examples of where deniers have claimed supporters are condemning the world’s rich and poor to hardship. You have your sides wrong. I responded to a comment Louis made about supporters sending most of us back to the Middle Ages. Is that true? I wrote that the planet has finite resources. Is this not true? Do you see third world conditions improving if we carry on as is and there are no AGW-related changes to economies, agriculture, industry? Seriously?
I would not expect you or Mark, or Tilo or others to recognise any sexist “card”. Most men who make sexist comments to women fail to see that what they have said or written is sexist, regardless of the woman expressing offense. It’s standard, recognised practice, and is something that will always exist. I would hardly expect any of you to admit you were out of line! Receiving sexist behaviour and attitudes is something almost every woman has to endure throughout her life, regardless of religion, race or socio-economic status. Folk like you perpetuate it, deny it and make it hard for the decent guys.
“There is nothing to you but all of the rehashed guilt and intimidation techniques of the fascist left that every one of us has heard a million times before.”
That’s right, no guilt and intimidation techniques from your side at all eh? Like you haven’t rehashed your ranting millions of times before??
“Since you know exactly zero about the AGW debate you simply figured that all of your worn out methods could be brought to bear on one more left wing cause.”
That is some rant Tilo. I know zero? Is that another denialist “fact”, based on assumption and opinion and bias? I was honest and admitted I was no scholar. It would be a good thing if some here recognised the limits of their knowledge base regarding issues in the sciences.
“It is your own exercise in bigotry, since you know very well that all of us speak completely differently to women who make sense, who know something about the subject they are engaged in, and who treat others with respect – like Jennifer.”
LOL! Since when has respect been upheld on this blog for men or women?? Yes, I know “very well” how you speak to the very few women contributors here! In trying to learn about the issues I used the archive option. It provides some fascinating insights into how the denialist men here treat women who know something about a subject! Another point well proven. Did you rally want to speak for the others regarding how it is ok to treat women “differently” who in your opinion do not show respect, make sense or know something about the subject they are engaged in???
“Do you see third world conditions improving if we carry on as is and there are no AGW-related changes to economies, agriculture, industry? Seriously?”
Absolutely. The AGW agenda is to deprive the third world of the development opportunities enjoyed by the first world. If they have no coal-fired power stations, they have no reliable electricity. If the have no reliable electricity, they have no industry. If they have no industry, they can’t compete with the first world and they can’t lift themselves out of poverty. Conversely, if they don’t lift themselves out of poverty, they are condemned to declining living standards and declining populations (like – you mean the two are connected after all???)
“I wrote that the planet has finite resources. Is this not true?”
Depends on what resources you mean. There is enough coal to last hundreds of year – probably thousands, if we can keep it away from the third world.
“I am not scrolling through it..”
Yeah – yeah. Let’s not be informed – let’s just rant and throw insults at everyone. Very 7th grade.
Finite resources. – Interesting thought –
Except for the occasional meteorite the Earth has had the same resources over 4.5 billion years.
We recycle.
“Except for the occasional meteorite the Earth has had the same resources over 4.5 billion years.”
Here we go — more denialist garbage.
Don’t you know that according to the Bible, the earth was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C??
So how could we possibly have been recycling for 4.5 billion years?
Let’s stop feeding the Laura troll, OK?
“Did you rally want to speak for the others regarding how it is ok to treat women “differently” who in your opinion do not show respect, make sense or know something about the subject they are engaged in???”
Again with the idiotic logic. And again with the attempts to turn something you know nothing about into a debate about sexism. The narrowing of the topic to the treatment of women is exclusively your own. We treat everyone who makes no sense, knows nothing about the topic they are engaged in, and who treats others with disrespect exactly as we treat you. Luke is your perfect example. The idea that you could come here, insult everyone, and then hide behind your feminity when they responded in kind is a clear example of what the hypocritical left always does.
“It provides some fascinating insights into how the denialist men here treat women who know something about a subject! Another point well proven.”
Proven within your vacuous head perhaps. We require a little more evidence.
I just had a thought.
On my last encounter with the Rabett I banged on him pretty good over his abuse of women.
In the 80’s a popular soap opera featured the rocky relationship of Luke & Laura.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_and_Laura_Spencer
Josh would be about the right age and temprament to be into 80’s soaps. Luke was gushingly deferential and fawning toward the Rabett.
What are the chances that the two banditos, most married to their secret identities, would cook up a plot to turn the tables. Could Laura be Josh trying his hand at a little crossdressing?
Laura; this was originally, a post about the furphy of climate crisis; I suggested that the concept of runaway was embematic of IPCC propaganda about AGW and was taken to task by ender; I think I satisfactorily responded to him that in fact the apocalypse went hand-in-hand with AGW terminology; the post ambled around the issue of forcing and Monckton’s alleged error in confusing temp and forcing; I proposed another look at Wien and spectral absorption limitations, but luke linked to a debate at Deltoid about forcing, and ender pulled out the Sherwood paper which has proved a bit of a debacle and the hares were running about model defects. So, let me ask you; is there is a clear, unassailable statement/conclusion about CO2 forcing, with or without feedback from the IPCC side which can rebut Spencer’s recent work? It seems to me we are no closer to having a firm understanding as to how CO2 can work its magic then when Arrhenius started poking about over 100 years ago (I wish he’d stayed in bed actually); one thing is certain; the IPCC predictions and forecasting and hindcasting are dismal and have been contradicted at every turn by actual weather. Given this, the vast amount of money that is going to be spent on dealing with this completely unproven and non-exsitent problem is a measure of the lack of a moral compass within the AGW philosophy; that money could be utilised to alleviate the real environmental issues of energy and water deprivation; I recommend that you spend a quiet week reading Lomborg’s 2 books, “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”.
Ivan , when I say “We recycle.” It’s in the royal Gaia sense of “We”.
So Ivan how long has coal-powered technology been around for? How long has the third world been deprived of electricity and industry? How come some still don’t have it and live in the third world? Is this because of AGW supporters or environmentalists?
“Depends on what resources you mean. There is enough coal to last hundreds of year – probably thousands, if we can keep it away from the third world.”
I can’t believe you wrote this! Wait, yes I can!
“Yeah – yeah. Let’s not be informed”
Ivan do you deny that your folk have here and on other threads claimed that belief in AGW will send us back to the Middle Ages or third world conditions? For a start I responded to one of these very comments made by Louis. Are you that much in denial??
Are you serious about the Jew/Holocaust analogy Mark? There seems to be hangups about labels by your side. If it’s not pseudonyms it’s being somehow associated with WWII. We’ll ignore the Hitler/Nazi tags you give away, not to mention Mugabe.
So no gender-biased insults here Tilo? If you insult me with equal terms, sure I’ll wear it, but you haven’t. You are obviously a denialist.
“I recommend that you spend a quiet week reading Lomborg’s 2 books, “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”.”
Have a talk to Luke as well – he has a lot of material. Perhaps when he is finished colouring it in, he could lend it to you.
I’ll look into your recommended reading Cohenite.
I’ve found an observable manifestation of the “climate crisis”.
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/NASA-vegetation.htm
NASA Satellite Discovers Massive Vegetation Die Off
Vegetation die-off (areas of reddish-brown) in New England observed by NASA satellite, revealing the negative influence of heating oil use on normally healthy vegetation.
(Greenbelt, Maryland) A new sensor on a NASA Earth-orbiting satellite has for the first time observed a global-scale die off of vegetation, a new article in Science magazine reports this week.
“We were amazed at the continental scale that this die off occupied”, said Dr. John Jorgenson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The relatively rapid change in vegetation characteristics was observed from late summer through the fall, when the multi-million dollar NASA instrument recorded a distinct change in vegetation color from green to various shades of yellow, brown, orange, and red.
“While there have been anecdotal reports for many years of this die-off phenomenon, those reports have been restricted to local regions. We have, for the first time, documented the global scale of the event, which covers much of the Northern Hemisphere during the months of September and October”, said Dr. Jorgenson.
While the exact mechanism for the phenomenon is unclear, the researchers believe that it is related to increasing fossil fuel use, especially home heating oil, during the fall when temperatures turn cooler. “We know that particulate pollution from the burning of fuel oil can have a negative effect on healthy vegetation, and so the correlation between heating fuel use and vegetation die-off constitutes ‘smoking gun’ evidence for this association”, Jorgenson said.
Bolstering this theory, Jorgenson claimed, is the observed return of vegetation health in the spring as temperatures warm and heating oil use drops to near zero.
The new findings will likely help fuel increasing calls for restrictions on the widespread and indiscriminant use of fossil fuels, due to their proven connection to uncontrollable climate changes, such as tsunamis and killer hurricanes.
When contacted for comment on the new results, discredited global warming skeptic Dr. John Michaels told this reporter, “I think the NASA scientists should investigate the possibility that this die-off is directly related to decreasing levels of sunlight and the resulting cold temperatures as winter approachers”. When told of Dr. Michaels’ theory, Jorgeson replied, “Well of course he would say that…everyone knows he is in the pocket of ‘big oil’. Besides, how else would you explain the fact that the die-off does not occur in tropical locations, where heating oil use is virtually unheard of?”
My head hurts.
Its no surprise that a newcomer arrives and declares “I have to say in all honesty it is the AGW supporters who have provided the most convincing arguments and maintained consistency in the debate.”
Televised political debates are a classic example. Fill one room with Labor suppporters and the other with Liberal. At the end of the debate, each room will think their side won.
Call it mutually reinforcing logic, call it cognitive dissonance, I don’t care. But if I honestly look at all the comments published here and I was new to the subject, there’s no way you could pick a side. Most people have already made up their mind, the only true converts are those who were on the fence.
Anyway, as far as the poor issue goes, China and India have got their priorities straight and I don’t think there’s any changing that for 20+ years. The Indians certainly haven’t identified any climate crises in their latest climate report.
Anyone see the way Spencer was treated by the Democrats in the latest Senate committee? They had no grasp of the concepts he was speaking of, all they could say is “think of the children!.
Ivan; you’re wicked; but I like it.
What 3rd world? that’s so 80s.
“Anyone see the way Spencer was treated by the Democrats in the latest Senate committee? They had no grasp of the concepts he was speaking of, all they could say is “think of the children!.”
I noticed that they mostly steered clear of him and directed their leading questions to Trenberth, who was ready to feed them the Koolaid they were after. You can be certain that his projects will be well funded.
Sexist? Nahhhh sweetiepie! We treat all morons with equal disdain. Just ask Luke, Ender, SJT, Gavin et al.
“Are you serious about the Jew/Holocaust analogy Mark?”
Yep! Read this!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
So don’t use the term “denier”! Otherwise we’ll have to retort with something stronger than “chick”. You’ve been warned!
Now nighty-night!
Sexist? Nahhhh sweetiepie! We treat all morons with equal disdain. Just ask Luke, Ender, SJT, Gavin et al.
“Are you serious about the Jew/Holocaust analogy Mark?”
Yep! Read this!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
So don’t use the term “denier”! Otherwise we’ll have to retort with something stronger than “chick”. You’ve been warned!
Now nighty-night!
I’m so glad you share your books with Luke Ivan. Sharing can be very hard for your intellectual age group.
Threats now Mark? How fitting. You are a real charmer who does your club proud. You seem to be in denial about many and varied issues. It is people like you who earn your side the tag deniers.
Wonderful, James. That works on so many levels.
Lomborg is a believer, he just doesn’t think trying to reduce CO2 is worth the cost.
As for the effects of CO2 I’ve seen somewhat credible estimates that range from 0.4 deg C to about 1.2 deg C for CO2 on its own for the rise in mean surface temperature whatever that means, for CO2 doubling.
So we’re back to positive feedbacks causing a greater rise except there doesn’t seem to be much observational evidence for the positive feedbacks and the extra heat that should be observed appears to be hiding somewhere. It seems that the feedbacks could as easily be quite strongly negative. As the data gathered is subject to so much interpretation and sometimes the same data is argued to represent two contradictory points of view it might be that there isn’t really much happening.
I see lots of long bows being drawn to explain away any inconvenient observations and zero evidence of a planet wide “climate crisis” however much anyone tries to point to regional events as being indicators, as they have all occurred before.
As for the politics, a bloke I once knew had a fair bit to do with politicians. His take was that they were like small children always ready to grab a shiny new idea as if it was a new toy. Climate change is just the latest fad and they can seem to be responsible and activist at the same time while “saving the planet”. They haven’t thought too far ahead though as we’re not all silly enough to buy into this nonsense and it will dawn on enough people eventually that the proposed course of action will impoverish them and their children. Then there will arise an economic growth political party. It is just that there will be a lot of damage in the meantime and untold millions of unnecessarily diminished lives. Don’t expect any apologies from the fearmongers.
Fortunately western economies are rich and can withstand a certain amount of foolishness. The danger is that that certain amount gets exceeded. Just like families or individuals can make a certain number of bad or foolish decisions without necessarily disastrous results. Do it too often and the results will be Bad.
It seems to me that western economies are on the brink of takeoff where economies based on scarcity are about to be replaced by economies of abundance. This has pretty much happened already to manufactured goods. The number one problem for any manufacturer isn’t making stuff, it’s finding someone to buy it, even at low prices.
The result of this will be a population largely independent of handouts from government. No wonder the collectivists are so keen on “climate crisis”.
Gosh, I look away for a moment and some new blog troll has trotted out her dreary rendition of the usual casuist green crap. Laura thinks she is delivering the latest mantra from bull$hitistan for the first time. Yaawwn.
We are not deniers, Laura. As far as you and your climate zombie cohorts go, we are your anti-christ. We will, indeed, rub your collective noses in your mediocrity when the next maunder minimum is unambiguously present. And then we will start the purge.
In the mean time, shouldn’t you be off somewhere attending to some trifle that is more suited to your intellectual depth?
Actually, Ian, speaking as someone with professional qualification in linguistics, I’d have to say that Laura’s syntax is almost a 95% match with Luke’s.
Most people, especially semi-literate trolls, don’t have a conscious grasp of the grammatical and syntactical structures they repeatedly rely upon. Thus, Luke reveals his alternative identities like a perp too stupid to wear gloves leaves finger prints.
Luke has a history of creating alt avatars, especially ones from minority groups, in the hopes of provoking inappropriate remarks. Pretty common garden variety troll behavior. Don’t take the bait.
Although Luke does sometimes provide a “useful idiot” to bounce a good point off. He almost never makes a really strong logical argument for anything, while he always attempts to hand wave the debate into dead end digressions.
He certainly isn’t above using every below the belt troll technique he can imagine in order to drag down the level of debate. After all, he’s on a holy mission to Save the Planet. All’s fair given the high stakes involved.
Luke isn’t here for a debate, folks. He’s here to debase the debate.
The science is settled!
“In the 1970s, the fear was “global cooling.””
Are you sure you aren’t referring to the ’00s? Because that’s what a lot of deniers are claiming right now.
“Are you sure you aren’t referring to the ’00s?”
No .. no. Definitely the 70s:
“New Ice Age Coming-—It’s Already Getting Colder” – Los Angeles Times – Oct 24, 1971
“Another Ice Age?” – Time Magazine – Time – Jun 24, 1974
“Debate Over New Ice Age Heating Up” – Los Angeles Times – Sep 7, 1975
“Coming of the Great American Ice Age” – Washington Post – Jul 11, 1974
“The New Ice Age” – Time Magazine – Time – Sep 3, 1973
“Earth Facing Ice Age? Mars May Hold Clues” – Los Angeles Times – ProQuest Archiver – Apr 23, 1972
“New ice age almost upon us?” – Christian Science Monitor – Nov 14, 1979
“Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age” – Los Angeles Times – Sep 24, 1972
“We’re slipping into an Ice Age” – Chicago Tribune – Jan 14, 1979
.. not to mention the Newsweek article, already done to death.
Well Wes I often wondered why you sounded like you were walking around with a spoon up your bum and talking like a pimped up ponce. Makes sense now.
Anyway Wes if you are so smart how come you haven’t noticed that I’ve actually been undercover the whole time. I am actually Ivan.
But I am furious with Motty – look we’re the anti-christs aren’t we? I’m going have to get my wardrobe changed (again). And I thought we were doing the purging and silencing dissent. Now listen up guys – let’s be clear who is doing what stereotype or we might have to have harsh words.
And the only reason I’m still here is to get the thread to 400 comments.
I have to agree with Eyrie on the politics of AGW. There is little evidence of catastrophic AGW, (see the last 250 comments as proof!)
There must be a reason for the mass delusion that is sweeping the west. Paul pointed out last week that irrational AGW terror has now become an official psychiatric condition in Australia. Note: The AGW delusion seems have much lower rates of infection in the east. India and China seem immune.
The big clue is the relatively new Orwellian phrase, “climate change.” Much less specific than AGW theory, climate change manifests itself in every hailstone, flood, drought, rouge wave and even cold spells. Every weather event becomes supporting evidence. Luke cites a single thoroughly ordinary hurricane, Katrina, as evidence of catastrophic AGW, and no one even blinks. The acceptance of this kind of anecdotal false logic as reason is a sign of our times. We are neck deep in a society-wide state of mass delusion.
Since by definition the climate is always changing we can now live in a permanent state of fear. Since to stop climate change is utterly impossible the War Against Climate Change can go on forever. Who could possible benefit from a permanent state of war and fear against a spectral enemy that can never be defeated?
Unconsciously channeling a character from a George Orwell novel, Luke said last week, “If we warmers had our way yes we would pass a law to stop any dissenters from voting. It’s for their own good you know. We should probably stop them having children too.”
As impotent and silly as Luke is, this thought expressed by a thoroughly ordinary citizen in our democracy should send a chill down your spine.
Luke’s brutally revealing comment encapsulates the authoritarian direction the human polity is always wont to drift, since time immemorial. We take our economic liberties, our civil rights and our democracy for granted at our peril.
“Are you sure you aren’t referring to the ’00s?”
Unless it’s the 1900s you’re talking about. In fact, I’ve got some bad news for all you gubmint science boys that think you’re on a mission from God to save the planet: check this out:
“It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
“The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”
It’s all been done many times before.
Read on .. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
And how can you possibly debase a debate further when it’s populated by denialist morons. If Steve Short wasn’t here there’d be no point at all. The rest of you are less than useless. Like a troop of gibbering baboons, jumping up and down and flashing their lurid buttocks as if that’s an argument.
Well Wes it’s perfectly obvious that Katrina is caused by AGW. What evidence is there to the contrary?
Luke, baby, you are the master of the dialectic Freudian Slip!
” jumping up and down and flashing their lurid buttocks as if that’s an argument.”
ROTFL
James Mayeau…thanks for response. I have a great deal of difficulty taking anything Gavin Schmidt says seriously. The first time I saw him was on a YouTube flick featuring a debate between him, Richard Sommerville and Brenda Ekwurzel, on one side, and Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton and Phillip Stott on the other.
Lindzen opened the debate with an intelligent scientific appraisal of the situation, and that’s about all we got on the science. The rest was rhetorical in content, appealing to emotion and pushing the IPCC line that the majority must be right. Schmidt said nothing about the science, he used allegories and took a couple of cheap shots at his opponents. He had the temerity to refer people to realclimate.org for answers. I don’t think he had any intention of debating Lindzen.
I have asked twice if anyone can confirm Schmidts credentials. As far as I can determine, he has a Ph.D.in mathematics, and that hardly qualifies him as an expert on climate. I can see him having expertise in fitting the climate into an equation for a computer program, but that’s exactly what has caused all the controversy in climate science. Essentially, mathematicians and computer programmers are telling us the world is wrong, as measured by satellites and thermometers in weather balloons, and their programs are right.
That’s arrogance of the highest order. Dr. Joanne Simpson just retired from NASA after studying clouds and cloud models since the 1940’s. She has expressed her skepticism at the ability of computer models to replicate the climate. One of the debaters, I think it was Somerville, said we know exactly how the greenhouse effect works. Horsefeathers!! He was infering the science is settled.
As Spencer said, the precipitation cycles that move water vapour around in the atmosphere, and run the greenhouse effect, are so complex that no one knows exactly how they work. Dr. Simpson, an expert in cloud theory concurred. You simply cannot replicate systems of that complexity in a computer program, at least not with the computing power available today or the understanding of complex weather systems.
Gavin Schmidt was taken to task by Jeffrey A. Glassman, who has a PhD from the UCLA Engineering Department of Systems Science, specializing in electronics, applied mathematics, applied physics, communication and information theory. Another name for engineering, which is applied science, is problem solving. Engineers are so adept at solving problems that they often fit easily into other disciplines. I think Schmidt bit more off than he could chew when he decided to take on Glassman.
Glassman put out this post:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#I_
which has compelling evidence that computer model theory, which is based on CO2 forcing, has not accounted for reabsorption of anthropogenic CO2 back into the oceans. He also seems to indicate that the entire science comes from James Hansen’s NASA GISS lab of which Schmidt is an underling.
Schmidt’s response to Glassman was brief, and the pertinent points are listed by Glassman in his response to Schmidt:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Glassman takes Schmidt’s understanding of climate issues apart one by one and reveals him to me as someone who gets by confusing the uneducated. Schmidt resorts to mathematical series to explain a feedback system but he meets his match with an engineer who is an expert in such systems.
A very theoretical example of feedback in the atmosphere is man-made CO2 warming the oceans enough to evapourate more water vapour. The extra vapour increases the greenhouse effect which warms the planet more. More CO2 means more water vapour and higher temperatures. It’s a self-sustaining system being fed by CO2, the essential component for the feedback.
Schmidt seems to confuse a model based on differential equations for the real thing. You can blow up a motor by over-revving it, or an electronics circuit with uncontrolled positive feedback. You can also model those conditions using a computer program based on a differential equation. To suggest the same mechanism is available on this planet (a tipping point), and about to happen, is no different than yelling, “Fire!!”, in a movie theatre. They are both forms of public mischief.
Schmidt makes an issue of ‘cherry picking’, a reference to a scientist selecting data that suits his cause and rejected data that doesn’t. His collegue, Mann, at realclimate, did a lot of that with his hockey stick graph. In the debate mentioned earlier, Schmidt ridiculed Phillip Stott for infering that cosmic rays could be contributing to global warming and claimed the astrophysicists studying that science were wrong. A mathematician infering an astrophysicist knows nothing about his specialty is arrogant.
Glassman quotes him from an article on realclimate responding to a question. The questioner asked why current temperatures were not reflecting the 30% increase in CO2 since the pre industrial period. Schmidt came back with vague references to a variable orbit in the past, which changed the seasons and affected temperatures but claimed that could not be compared to the situation today.
I find Schmidt’s answers are always off the cuff and vague. In fact, I agree with Glassman that his understanding of basic physics is lacking. That’s understandable if he is a mathematician. Schmidt and his fellow computer modelers seem to be inventing their own science, which to me is a much scarier proposition than extreme global warming. They seem convinced that everything comes down to a mathematical equation in the same way that naive scientists think nature obeys their laws.
He works for James Hansen, an Al Gore favourite, whose theories are really out there. Hansen started the modern hysteria in 1988 with his testimony before a Gore-chaired panel warning of catastrophe. By 1998 he had to withdraw his forecasts and by 2003 had admitted that future temperature increases would be modest. Still, he goes on talking about catastrophic ice cap melts that couldn’t possibly happen with his modest forecast in warming.
It’s becoming apparent to me that pro CO2/warming advocates are pushing their agenda through rhetoric. In the debate I mentioned, all of the pro side used nothing but emotion and IPCC propaganda to get their points across. I would think one of them would have enough intellligence and guts to argue the point with Lindzen on the science, but none of them did.
I would think there’s a good reason for that. If someone like Schmidt argued science with Lindzen, one of the top climate scientists in the world, he’d make a complete fool out of himself, as did Bill Nye, the Science Guy. That’s why Schmidt, in my estimation, takes the low road, ridiculing legitimate science that does not agree with his narrow and incorrect views.
I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Schmidt’s only concern with radiosondes is how to discredit them. A major effort was made to do exactly that in the last IPCC assessment. Real scientists would be interested in comparing notes and helping each other with their theories. Schmidt should visit John Christy and Roy Spencer, who I’m sure would be quite willing to compare notes on satellite data versus computer projections. I don’t think Schmidt has that kind of maturity, however.
Women are a minority group Wes? Hmmm…they sure are treated as such here. If he sets himself up to attract inappropriate remarks, you fools certainly obliged!!! But as someone who is only 14 years old, I guess I am a minority group too, so it’s fitting that I am Luke and he is Laura and she is ….I lose count of all the individuals you guys claim are really the one person. Must be frightening to be faced with more than three people who disagree with you. What is frightening is the turkey gobble that starts from one of you and then spreads throughout the coup. Gobble, gobble gobble!!!Off with their heads!
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for Steve’s apology…
Travis
so you are a snotty nosed youth here, hmm, a clip over the ears should be your lot in life.
Luke here’s your opening argument on this thread:
“Just significant ongoing climate variability issues tending to worsen in the centennial afternoon with a tendency to later developing extremes in the probability distribution in the future.”
Apparently, you offered this comment as your best cognitive assessment of our current climate predicament.
The problem is that it is meaningless glibberish. It’s not even a sentence in any known language.
Thus, it isn’t a surprise that using the same powers of logical thought construction you arrived the conclusion that hurricanes are primarily forced by AGW.
Now you prove you have little empathy for the gestalt of scientific method.
Luke sez, “Well Wes it’s perfectly obvious that Katrina is caused by AGW. What evidence is there to the contrary?
That’s a hackneyed hypothesis repeated mindlessly from a moviee you watched with a hurricane on the DVD cover. DUh. perfectly obvious, dude…., if it is so “perfectly obvious” it will be easy for you to prove it. It’s not for me to disprove it.
But if you insist: Since Atlantic hurricanes have been a common phenomena for millennia before the event of AGW, that alone proves that hurricanes aren’t forced by AGW, or ipso facto, hurricanes would be a phenomena of only that last 50 years… And look, mum, no hyperlinks needed!
Perhaps, your type of inverted logic is at work with the whole theory of AGW. Do you think it is up to the “deniers” to disprove the theory rather than the AGW supporters’ obligation to prove it true first?????
“Your collective comments overnight about Laura are rank guys. Think it says something about your own perverse ideas of fun. Typical denialist gutter morals – what professionals (not).
Posted by: Luke at July 25, 2008 07:06 AM”
Pretty good from the one who called Kristen Byrne a “skank”.
“The first time I saw him was on a YouTube flick featuring a debate between him, Richard Sommerville and Brenda Ekwurzel, on one side, and Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton and Phillip Stott on the other.”
Gordon Robertson, I saw that debate too. Afterwards, the huge audience, (more than 1,000 people?) mostly supportive of the AGW orthodoxy voted for who had presented the best argument in the debate. The sceptics won hands down!
Any wonder that Hansen refuses invitation to the debate the science? AGW theory is disintegrating as time passes on with no movement forward on climate sensitivity to CO2, troposphere warming predictions and as you note, the generally shaky virtual reality evidence.
Funny that, because most real scientists are eager to debate the facts with true pseudo-scientific claimants. For instance, can anyone imagine Richard Dawkins running away from a debate with creationists???
When scientists refuse debate, hide and manipulate data and method and demand scientific inquiry to end, they are no longer scientists but high priest promoting a dogma.
The science is settled. The debate is over.
Yes, the science is settled. The debate is over. Let the bully boys loose….
When the couple (referred to herein as “the permit applicant”) first purchased their inner city three level dwelling, it faced opposite a small one-storey windowless building. However, a few years later, the urban planning department of their local council granted a permit to allow a developer to convert the one storey building into a three-storey apartment block. According to the permit applicant this “shortsighted” decision immediately resulted a loss of their amenity due to overlooking issues caused by the heights and proximity of the two buildings which were situated less than 18 meters apart from one another in a very narrow street. [see image exhibits] Not wanting to be driven out of home in addition to being compromised by a potential devaluation in property value, the permit applicant applied to have a privacy screen erected above the existing 1.17 meter high balustrade to the first floor balcony but were refused a permit and issued with a Notice Of Refusal (NOR) by their local planning authority. In most municipalities the simple construction of a screening device wouldn’t require a planning or building permit, however, this area was located in Heritage Overlay 327 (North Fitzroy Precinct) so a planning permit was required to carry out works.
Since this Article was written, the media has widely reported a City Of Yarra decision to approve Professor Ross Garnaut’s permit application for a modern structure in a heritage sensitive area with Yarra City.
Considering how seemingly impossible it is to get something as minor as a privacy screen approved by City Of Yarra in a semi industrial street, how does the City Of Yarra planning department justify a entire modern structure in a rich heritage character filled area? The fact that Yarra City has approved Professor Garnaut’s application in this case, despite the strong objections of ten neighbors who make a case for stringent heritage policing is a question which needs to be answered.
“We decided to publish the results of our counter-exploration on the internet – but in a somewhat uniquely different fashion. Knowing that most folks aren’t geeks, and may have little understanding of science or math, we’re going to attempt to teach some of the essential physics and such as we go along. Readers with little or no mathematical or scientific training may find it challenging, but if you have a general understanding of introductory college or even solid high school level chemistry or physics, you should have no problem in following this amazing tale. The brighter readers, even without a science background, should be able to follow, as well. Smart folks learn faster than most”.
The Middlebury Community Network
Ed. James A. Peden – better known as Jim or “Dad”
Seeking rosey cheeked lassies and likely lads for a bit of vaudeville.
I think it is time for a good old fashioned media stunt to highlight climate cretinism. If anyone in the Brisbane area can spare a full day and is up for a bit of fun at the expense of climate fools they should drop me a line with their contact details via Jennifer.
C’mon, ya know you’ll love it. There are buffoons just waiting to be sent up.
luke’s comments bout Katrina are, unfortunately, par for the course; the despicable Gore has used similar tactics with the Myanmar cyclone;
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2008/080507gore_lie_cyclone.html
Gordon; that was a great debate; of interest was Humbert’s graceless comments afterwards; I’ll find a link for that afterwards, but in respect of Schmidt, lucia is giving him regular whippings;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-schmidt-corrects-for-enso-ipcc-projections-still-falsify/
Ian plus soap box on the day hey.
BTW What’s up with your blog for those who want a go?
Steve,
I think you are being a bit harsh.
The Great Guano isn’t doing any of this for purely selfish reasons, of course — oh, no! no!
He’s doing all this for ecologically and environmentally sensitive reasons – what with impending Global Warming. A model of altruism which the rest of us should follow:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23673745-11949,00.html
>so you are a snotty nosed youth here, hmm, a clip over the ears should be your lot in life.
I carry a hankie with me at all times Louis.
So Steve, you can be bothered to bring my name into your debate and misrepresent me to suit your agenda, but you can’t be bothered offering an apology? Is it beneath you or something to actually admit in public you were wrong? Tsk.
“Polar bear populations are at near record levels and seem healthy, and even I have seen them playing around on floating ice chunks in the Arctic summer. They are a terrestrial animal, after all, as anyone can see who visits the Churchill area in the summer and takes a polar bear cruise on one of their giant bear-proof buses.”
From: Melting Under pressure: The Real Scoop on Climate Warming and Polar Bears. Ian Stirling and Andrew E. Derocher. The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2008.
-Females first breed at four to six years of age and usually have two cubs that stay with their mother for two and a half years before weaning; therefore females cannot breed more than every three years. Both sexes can live 20 to 25 years or more, and over most of their range, their primary prey is ringed seals and beared seals. Polar bears are uniquely adapted to thrive on sea ice and are dependent on it as a platform for hunting seals, seasonal movements, summer refuge areas, finding mates, and breeding.
-They still inhabit the majority of their original habitat and their worldwide abundance, in 19 subpopulations, is estimated at 20, 000 to 25, 000 (IUCN/SCC Polar Bear Specialist Group 2006).
-Habitat loss of sea ice is the central justification for the listing of polar bears as threatened.
-Contrarian articles denying the negative effects of climate warming on polar bears generally exhibit a poor understanding of polar bear ecology and selectively use information out of context, which results in public confusion about the real threat to polar bears due to loss of sea ice.
-Further confusion was introduced in Nunavut, Canada, when local ecological knowledge reported sightings of more polar bears around certain settlements in recent years. This was interpreted as evidence that the populations were increasing, which led to allowable harvest levels being increased, despite scientific evidence that the populations were declining in two areas and a lack of current population data for a third population (Stirling and Parkinson 2006).
-It is simply not possible to develop a population perspective from anecdotal observations of polar bears. Regional observations may also be affected by factors difficult to measure locally, such as large-scale shifts in the distribution and abundance of prey species or of sea ice.
-In Nunavut, the jurisdiction with the largest harvest of polar bears worldwide, most populations have not been monitored long enough to assess a trend in numbers, let alone possible effects of climate change. Because the inventory cycle for population assessment in Nunavut is every 15 years, most populations lack two estimates made sufficiently far apart to allow determination of whether they are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Additional concerns arise from using model projections to estimate future population trends in relation to harvesting, based on short-term mark-recapture studies, because they cannot account for unknown but likely fluctuations in environmental conditions.
-Inuit and scientists agree that climate warming is having a significant negative impact on sea ice in the Arctic.
-Significant loss in the total ice habitat will have profound negative effects on polar bears.
-In several polar bear populations in Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin and Eastern Arctic areas of Canada, the ice melts completely in summer, forcing all bears in those populations to spend several months on shore until freeze-up in autumn (Stirling and Parkinson 2006). Toward the southern extent of polar bear range, in Western Hudson Bay, polar bears feed extensively on the sea ice during spring and early summer before the ice melts. Then, all bears in the population fast while on shore for at least four months until the sea ice refreezes and the bears can resume hunting. Pregnant females fast for eight months, during which time they give birth to cubs weighing approximately 0.6kg and nurse them up to 10 to 12kg when they leave their maternity dens and return to the sea ice to hunt seals again.
-Breakup of the sea ice in Western Hudson Bay now occurs about three weeks earlier on average than it did only 30 years ago.
-The trend toward progressively earlier breakup of the sea ice has had significant effects on the polar bears of Western Hudson Bay. The most significant time for polar bears to feed on ringed seals is from late spring to breakup, when newly weaned ringed seal pups, up to 50 percent fat by wet weight and still naïve to predators, are abundant. Thus, over the last 30 years, the polar bears in Western Hudson Bay have been forced to abandon hunting seals on the sea ice at the most important time of year and begin their fast on land following breakup at progressively earlier dates. There is a significant negative relationship between the date of breakup and the condition of both adult male polar bears and adult females accompanied by dependent young (Stirling et al. 1999). Also, as a consequence of steadily declining conditions, the average mass of lone (and suspected pregnant) adult female polar bears has declined from approximately 290kg in 1980 to about 230kg in 2004 (Stirling and Parkinson 2006). Derocher et al. (1992) reported that no female weighing less than 189kg in the fall was recorded with cubs the following year, suggesting that polar bear females below that mass will no longer reproduce. More recently, Regehr et al. (2007) demonstrated that the decline in survival of cubs and subadults was significantly correlated to breakup date, ie., the earlier the breakup, the poorer the survival. The progressively earlier breakup brought on by climate warming, in combination with the failure to adjust a harvest rate that was no loner sustainable, caused the population to decline from about 1, 200 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004. A similar pattern of earlier breakup of sea ice is now evident in southern Hudson Bay (Gagnon and Gough 2005), and a corresponding decline in the condition of polar bears of different age and sex classes between mid-1980s and the mid-2000s has been reported (Obbard et al. 2006).
-In Hudson Bay/Foxe Basin and the Eastern Canadian Arctic (Baffin Bay and Davis Strait region), the sea ice melts completely each summer. Bears survive the summer using their stored fat with opportunistic augmentation by scavenging, feeding on vegetation, and sometimes hunting other marine mammals. However they obtain the vast majority of their annual energy intake by hunting seals from the sea ice surface. Thus, suggestions that today’s polar bear populations will be able to obtain replacement energy sources are fanciful: Polar bears on land in Western Hudson Bay are in a hibernation-like physiological state of fasting (Ramsay and Stirling 1988).
-Claims by some that climate warming has increased the size of the subpopulation in Davis Strait, Canada, are unsupported by data. An ongoing mark-recapture study indicates that the population of polar bears there is larger than previously thought. However, polar bear are probably more abundant in Davis Strait because of the combined effects of a large increase in the harp seal population and the conservative harvest level, which has been in place for decades (Stirling and Parkinson 2006). Yet neither possible factor that could stimulate an increase in numbers is related to climate warming.
-Against this extensive backdrop of long-term studies that document the negative effects of continued climate warming on sea ice and polar bears, and projections by the IPCC that those trends will continue, the press continues to cite minority contrarian opinions as if they have equal credibility. One oft repeated example is, “Of the 13 [polar bear populations] in Canada, 11 are either stable or increasing in size” (eg., Edmonton Journal, 31 December 2006, among other publications). In fact, at the 2005 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group in Seattle, scientists and managers from the five Arctic nations with polar bears unanimously agreed to a status report that concluded that of the 13 populations within Canada, or shared with Greenland, two were severely depleted from previous over harvesting and were being managed for recovery, five were declining, and the rest were recorded as stable, except for one which was reported as increasing based on a computer projection model using extrapolated demographic data.
-Polar bear are large animals and they got that was by eating seals, not berries. Their survival in anything like the numbers present today is dependent on large and accessible seal populations and vast areas of ice from which to hunt.
-Large numbers of polar bears require enormous numbers of ringed seals or equivalents (most species of which also require ice for pupping and molting). In crude numbers, 20, 000 polar bears would require about 900, 000 ringed seals (or ringed seal equivalents) each year, the majority of which would be pups. Although the total population size of ringed seals is unknown, estimates range between 5 and 7 million. Like polar bears, however, they are highly evolved to live and breed in association with sea ice so that their reproductive success and total population size will almost certainly decline as the sea ice disappears.
-For polar bears, habitat loss is the most critical single concern. Highly specialized species are particularly vulnerable to extinction if their environment changes, and polar bears fit that prescription.
From: Polar Bear Numbers Set to Fall. Rachel Courtland, Nature May 2008 vol 453/22.
-Researchers note that polar bears range across a variety of nations, each with its own conservation approaches, and a variety of habitats, each of which will be effected differently by climate change.
-“I don’t believe the polar bear will go extinct, but in some areas they will be heavily reduced and may disappear,” says veterinary biologist Christian Sonne of the National Environmental Research Institute in Roskilde, Denmark. Factors other than global warming compound stress on the bears, including the accumulation in fat of polychlorinated biphenyls and other pollutants that lower reproductive capacity and weaken their immune system.
-“Some populations are clearly in far more trouble than others,” says biologist Ian Stirling of the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton, Alberta.
-Bears that spend the majority of their time on ice may have to migrate long distances to maintain their lifestyle, an additional stress if food is scarce. But polar bear populations in the Canadian archipelago may be fairly stable in the next few decades, as projections suggest that summer sea ice there will be more persistent.
-West of Hudson Bay, young bears are less likely to survive after earlier sea-ice break-ups, a process which now occurs roughly three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago. South of the bay, the mass-to-body-length ratio of bears in Ontario has more than halved since the early 1980s.
-Some bear populations may be able to adapt by spending more time on land, but much depends on how quickly the Arctic ice changes.
-“Polar bears in some sense are behaviourally flexible, but they are also really specialized to hunt on sea ice.”
Norway has an outright ban on hunting. The United States, Greenland (under home rule from Denmark) and Canada permit limited hunting. Russia has outlawed polar bear hunts, but illegal kills are thought to be common.
-Next year, officials in the bear’s range states plan to meet in Tromsø, Norway, to discuss management options. It will be the first such meeting in 28 years.
Gordon, G’day mate; I would not hang my hat on the Glassman CO2 ACQUITTAL on Rocket Scientist’s Journal, because the whole thing hangs on curious interpretations of half a million years worth of data from Vostok ice cores that form the right arm of his AGW prosecution. On the left hand he veers away from science and into politics.
A good read down the RS blog comments should offer further clues.
Travie,
You claim you are 14 years old? OOOOkay.
My mummy told me in 1914 that “children should be seen, not heard.” I didn’t understand at the time, but later I realized that there are adult complexities that pimple cream can’t cure. To actually have an informed Point of View on science and socio-politics requires a certain level of maturity and advanced education that only comes with time. I’m sure with diligence you will get there someday.
As a fourteen year old your contributions here should aim to be as polite as you might be expected to behave in your grand mum’s parlor during afternoon tea. O.K? Or no biscuits for you!
The esteemed Dr. Short doesn’t owe you an apology. In fact, you owe him an apology for your bad language. Uncle Louis, if he could, would twist your ear until you apologized.
So be a good boy, and come back in 2018 when you have a uni degree to grace us with your pubescent petulance.
>You claim you are 14 years old? OOOOkay.
Nope. That’s what I keep getting told I am by the resident expert on all things, Ian Mott. He is almost as good as you are at being boorish. And you are almost as good as Steve is at being pompous.
Blah, blah, blah…
>The esteemed Dr. Short doesn’t owe you an apology. In fact, you owe him an apology for your bad language. Uncle Louis, if he could, would twist your ear until you apologized.
Violence against minors and minority groups. Nice. This thread has it all. The so-called Dr Short does indeed owe me an apology Wesley. Does he need you for a ra-ra squad? Can you please point out where I have used bad language towards our ‘esteemed’ scientist who ‘supposedly’ is very good at factual evidence but not very good at social graces?
My mummy told me just nod when an old person tries to lecture you. It makes the whole process pass quicker and gives them a sense of worth. My post grad supervisor told me to pity those of the old school ways as they don’t have much left to find comfort in 🙂
And Wessy wonk – so endth the lesson – not only were you wrong but you missed by a parsec – you only select what fits your affirmation bias – you observe but you don’t see – that’s why your interminable philosophical rantings on AGW are utter crap – they’re a fabrication feedback from your decrepit neuronal processes.
So Libby, polar bears eat baby seals. The bastards!
I guess “The Wildlife Professional” is a publication representing the interests of taxpayer funded park rangers? They wouldn’t have an axe to grind by any chance? So many ifs, maybes and could be’s in that article.
I did read that polar bears have been around for about 250,000 years so they managed to survive a couple of interglacials and the holocene optimum.
I think the bears might be doing OK. BTW what did they do before garbage dumps?
Anyway last I heard they aren’t even a separate species as they can breed with their close relatives a little further south.
And yes SJT, global cooling was the fashion in the 1970’s. I worked in atmospheric science research in 1976 and 1977. Some bloke called Stephen Schneider was pushing that line then. I recall it because I remember thinking that just perhaps we could do something about it with heroic efforts and the Saturn V production line hadn’t been shut down for long and maybe orbital mirrors could help(the guys from Peenemunde were still working for NASA then so the rockets would work unlike the current looming NASA debacle).
Global cooling, however, didn’t have quite the political constituency that warming has today. The world had a few other things to worry about, like thermonuclear destruction at the hands of a bunch of gangsters running a collectivist government a.k.a the Soviet Union. If you don’t remember being at least a little worried about this, you weren’t paying attention.
Now that the gangsters have folded their tents and gone and the western world is far richer and not really under external threat(Islamofascists are no match for the Wehrmacht or Red Army as an external threat)our society is giving way to imaginary fears and running off the rails. I believe George Orwell predicted this.
Tragic really when we’re on the threshold of no longer “only One Earth”. Or as I read on another blog today ” Earth First! We’ll mine the other planets later.”
According to Russian polar bear scientists in the IUCN specialist group , more than the half of the worldwide population of PBs are in danger , if the melting of sea ice continues. This was stated in February 2008.
The highest risk groups / subpopulations are PBs in Svalbard, Southern Canada and Northeast Siberia.
Only subpopulations in northern Canada , northwest Siberia and on Greenland are CURRENTLY out of danger , according to the scientists.
” One must recall thay it is the long time perspective that is important” , states the Russian IUCN delegate.
And as Libby states , there will be a big PB summit in Tromsö , because the Norwegians are extremely worried about the situation for the polar bears.
Main work on PBs is carried out by Norwegian Polar Institute.
Ann,
I spent some time in the north of Russia with relatives last year.
I can categorically tell you, that both, the brown and the polar bears have a great deal more to fear from men than from climate!
Ministers and staff in Moskva have no idea and if they have, they don’t care!
You have to be there to see it, and better be quiet about it too while you are there!
Lomborg and Polar Bears and the folly of spending money on a condition of neurosis;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/05/eabjorn105.xml
Lomborg would be completely on the mark if he resiled a bit from his mild warmist position.
Seems like a dumb article from the Telegraph, Cohenite. AFAIK Lomborg has always believed the CO2/warming link, just that it isn’t that bad and there are far better things to spend the money on.
Laura, Travis, El Creepo, Luke, et al. has succeeded in getting to you folks. Leave him alone and he can’t feed. His approach is to needle just for the response. Don’t give it to him. The discussion has mostly degraded to taunts to his multiple personalities. Give it a break.
He couldn’t answer the basic question. Remember it? What, where, define a “Climate Crisis.”
Just from his thread AGW is shown to be completely bunk.
Well CoRev I think you got more than a comprehensive answer and all we’ve had is dribble from you guys. Long boring speeches about commies and reds under the bed. Amateur psychology – so boring – so tedious. I mean the level of discussion here is really just pathetic. Steve Short almost had it off the deck briefly. Reality is that none of you have ever had to make a serious climate risk analysis in your life. So all of this is just a big theory wank for you.
And unless you actually are more stupid than I thought – I’d suggest you’re at least dealing with 5 opponents. And don’t forget I am Ivan too ! Fooled ya huh?
Gordon Robertson, an excellent, knowledgeable post.
The UNrealclimate with the likes of this fool Schmidt, head kicker Ladbury and the supercilious Pierre joker always come back to the use of the moral high ground political argument to fend off debate with what they call “skeptics ” because, in their words, it would actually “give the appearance that these skeptics have something to say that’s actually worth debating”. lol
On one such occasion i tried to post some questions about this Pierre joker’s misunderstanding of the albedo effect of clouds over Antarctica that any decent scientist would certainly understand. My posts were all deleted. Other efforts to raise plausible arguments concerning positive feedbacks and how they make for an unstable situation …… something like continually pushing someone up on a swing, were also deleted without comment.
I’d say if UNrealclimate is promoting science (lol) then as scientists the first rule is that you should not fool yourself but this Schmidt and Co have easily found themselves and deviously attempted to fool others.
My,
Acrimonious is it not”
How about looking at Albedo measurements?
Polar Bears is it?
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/
That’s the research that said they would be gone by 2050, mind you, they note that if we stopped shooting them, they’d make it to 2075.
Polar Bears is it?
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/
That’s the research that said they would be gone by 2050, mind you, they note that if we stopped shooting them, they’d make it to 2075.
damn!
Luke, an answer to the original question would have put this whole thing to bed. Now, after 400+ comments we are no closer & the owners of this blog must be laughing because they have had to do nothing to up their hit rate. Nice!
Libby,
I wouldn’t waste too much time on anything authored by either Ian Stirling or Andrew Derocher. They are a couple of gubmit hacks that work for Environment Canada – which is even more fraudulent and bent out of shape than our own CSIRO/Ministry of Truth.
Whereas the CSIRO goes in for mainly amateruish and transparent government propaganda frauds (like petrol being $8 a litre), Environment Canada engages in wholesale fraud of a far more professional standard.
This pair of frauds and crooks have their fingerprints all over the polar bear picture fraud that accompanied the launch of the IPCC WG1 press conference in Paris in Feb 2007.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-433170/Global-warming-sees-polar-bears-stranded-melting-ice.html
Nothing that they are associated with should be believed in any way, shape or form.
Eyrie; my point exactly; but the Libby and Anne seemed upset about the bears, which obviously have nothing to worry about; at least in respect of the climate. Speaking of bears poor old Monckton gets a pizzling from both sides; even those who know AGW is a by product of ennui and neurotic ideology; I thought his APS piece wasn’t bad; apparently he misinterpreted FIG 9 or something to do with greenhouse fingerprints; but he is generally right; the troposphere has not done what it was supposed to do; neither has the surface for that matter, and the stratosphere is a product of volcanoes and ozone.
Laura = Luke = Ivan = Wes also Cohenite = Eyre = Jan = whoever
Any stretch of the imagination will do in all these arguments.
“So Libby, polar bears eat baby seals.”
When I read the article, that is what it said (although I knew that beforehand).
“I guess “The Wildlife Professional” is a publication representing the interests of taxpayer funded park rangers?”
The article, which is what most people concern themselves with, was written by Stirling (who has studied polar bears for 36 years), and Derocher (who has studied them for 24).
“They wouldn’t have an axe to grind by any chance? So many ifs, maybes and could be’s in that article.”
No idea whether they have an axe to grind. Write to them and ask. Science tends to have a lot of questions, and even unresolved ones.
“I did read that polar bears have been around for about 250,000 years so they managed to survive a couple of interglacials and the holocene optimum.”
I guess if it happened in the past it will happen in the future. Good thinking.
“I think the bears might be doing OK.”
How many years have you been working on PBs? I have cited two articles here, as this issue has not been addressed with regards to the topics JP listed. Perhaps you could provide your own articles, written by suitably-qualified people or containing their work?
“BTW what did they do before garbage dumps?”
You obviously didn’t bother to read the article, so I’m not sure what your point is.
“Anyway last I heard they aren’t even a separate species as they can breed with their close relatives a little further south.”
Then all will be ok wont it?
Thank you for providing the link Janama.
“Most people have already made up their mind, the only true converts are those who were on the fence.”
Too true Joel! You can’t teach a dead parrot.
“Laura = Luke = Ivan = Wes also Cohenite = Eyre = Jan = whoever”
Gavin,
Just to satisfy your curiosity: it was Professor Plum in the Conservatory with the Rope.
Prof. Plum was an alumnus of the School of Earth Sciences at Melbourne University – which is why he is such a reprehensible character.
“Nothing that they are associated with should be believed in any way, shape or form.”
So what’s the truth Ivan? What informatin for relianle and experiencesd sources can yuo provide?
“but the Libby and Anne seemed upset about the bears, which obviously have nothing to worry about; at least in respect of the climate.”
Nowhere did I say that I, personally, was worried about the bears Cohenite. Nice try. If you can provide information to show that the bears have nothing to worry about in regards to the climate, then it will put a valid debate on the table. And you wonder why you get labelled as denialists?!
In case you couldn’t interprete over-tiredness Ivan:
So what’s the truth? What information from reliable and experienced sources can you provide?
Libby; I did link to a review of Lomborg’s “Cool It” earlier on; in this Lomborg makes a convincing argument that the bear’s numbers are increasing and are most threatened by hunting; make of that what you want.
Great piece, especially the bit of the Goracle.
Question to AGW supporters re Gore: ‘Have you smelt a rat yet?’ If he’s at true believer why the need to make money out of ‘greening’; surely he’s above all that!
I know when I’m being suckered and I’m not falling for the Gore’s ‘snake oil’ salesman’s pitch
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/story/614195.html
” …Lomborg makes a convincing argument that the bear’s numbers are increasing and are most threatened by hunting; make of that what you want.”- Cohenite
Geeez, can’t believe that I*m really going into this idiotic neo conservative propaganda again…
I have stated over and over again on this site and in neo conervative papers , that the ONLY reason that PB numbers have increased is becuase their numbers were so low some decades ago that a hunting ban was introduced in most places , or at least a smaller PG quota!
Ooops, sorry for all my spelling errors!
Libby,
Try this for starters:
The photo was taken by Amanda Byrd in Aug 2004.
(http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/dispatch2004/dispatch02.html)
It was stolen by Dan Crosbie (of Environment Canada), who was present when it was taken
(http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/dispatch2004/dispatch01.html)
..as related by Amanda Byrd herself:
(http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0706_byrd.pdf)
Very shortly after the photo found its way into Environment Canada’s grubby hands, Ian Sterling teamed with Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center to study how “changes in sea ice might be affecting polar bear populations in the arctic”, (how coincidental would that be?) and published their study in Sept 2006.
(http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/polar_bears.html)
This report is at odds with the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report, issued in 2004.
(http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/overview.html)
The ACIA report only expresses general concerns about loss of PB habitat through melting ice.
The PB photo was sat on for another 5 months – until the WG1 press conference (another coincidence). And whose name shows up all over the news releases commenting on the lamentable state of polar bears? You guessed it – the very same man who “teamed” with NASA to produce the dodgy report.
There is more, but this is the basic “who knew what” trail. Every time you follow an IPCC story, you find crooks and frauds.
To all of you who support AGW – please understand why many lay people like me are sceptical of the latest AGW doomsday scenerio:
1. In the ’70’s we were told by the media, scientists and governments that we were heading for another Ice Age – what happened – nothing
2. Same culprits when it came to AIDS – millions in the West were going to die – what happened -very little
3. Ditto SARS
4. Ditto Bird Flu
And I’m sure there are many other scare stories that failed to materialise also.
So, is it any surprise that millions of people (who don’t automatically swallow the latest scare story wholesale), especialy from the media and politicians, are sceptical of AGW.
Unfortunately, we have witnessed on many of these occasions that many of those doing the scaremongering stand to gain, monetarily, politically or otherwise. This applies to AGW. Take a close look at the Goracle – he doesn’t do what he preaches. He burns fossil fuels at a rate many times greater than the average consumer and appears to have a vested interest, via his investment company, in selling the AGW scare story – snake oil salesman anyone!!
Like many people on this post I started out a couple of years ago buying into the AGW pitch, but started to look under the hood when I saw ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ fronted by a politician. The more I dug into what drives climate and climate change the more I became sceptical – and that is where I remain until I see a much more open, rather than closed debate on this + Governments deliberately funding those scientists that question AGW so we have a more balanced scientific debate.
I recommend many people to go the archives and check out old PB threads.
One conservationist wrote that ” Sterling is not a greenie” , make what you want of that.
And I fully agree with bickers re the bird flu scare , as working with birds myself.
Ivan, thanks I will check out your links later. I will also ask some colleagues to verify. Too tired now.
Cohenite, I’d be more inclined to believe the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group. Personally I would believe that habitat loss effects on bear prey is most of an issue, with contaminants and hunting down the list. I think there are many factors at play, and as stated in the Nature article, variable with each population.
I am in agreement with Luke in that there are many other plant and animal speces in far worse shape than polar bears, however I was responding to the topic at hand.
Ann, don’t worry about it. Remember the dead bird (no offence to avian critters). In fact it’s all quite amusing in way.
No Ann, Stirling is certainly not a greenie! I’m wading through some literature provided by Travis on another thread so will see if that gets up and posted. Gnite!
Good point CoRev. Mea Culpa. You understand trolls well. Best to ignore them rather than feed their need for attention. It’s so tempting though. Of course, if they’re just a single lonely kid at a keyboard somewhere, I suppose that’s so pitiful that any rhetorical victory is rendered, well, pathetic…
Meanwhile, Ann and Libby are NOT trolls, just misguided people who love animals. PB’s may be in trouble in the East, but to confuse human population pressures on bear habitat with AGW is to ask Australians to sacrifice their economy to save a bear. Utter nonsense.
or much worse…
Save a bear, starve a village in India. That sort of zero sum thinking should have past into the annuals of history along with the concepts of Malthus and the slide rule. No?
AGW true believers love to claim that they have the solution. But what if they don’t?
What if their solution, i.e. zero economic growth (but only for the creative Western nations), ultimately leads to the demise of the environment by destroying any chance of the rapid technological evolution that the world desparately needs now and that can only happen if the global economy is healthy, not crippled by punitive and futile carbon taxes?
Any rational analysis will show that if we stop developing our economic evolution now, or worse, regress to failed centralized policies of the past then the world will truly tip over into an environmental holocaust. Yet that is exactly the solution the enviro-collectivists propose. To make the paradigm shift to new, higher levels of clean energy production and distribution models requires accelerating economic progress, rather than inhibiting of individual creativity through guilt-think regulations.
Why do those who wish to save the polar bears only imagine that it can be done through centralized authoritarian regulation of the economy? Are we so disconnected from history that we really imagine powerful central government is more fair and efficient than individual innovation and freedom?
Since when did we come to believe that federal politicians, armies of technocrats, former rock stars and billionaire jetsetters were wiser and more altruistic than the guy in his shed inventing the next paradigm shift?
What part of creative evolution don’t those afraid of AGW understand? The solutions are out there already. Creativity happens in minorities not collectives. Consensus is the death of invention, not its womb.
The last person on the planet to understand The Next Big Thing will be a federal government bureaucrat. And his/her only interest will be how to TAX it! This is simply a historical law of human nature. So why is there all this misplaced faith in governmental technocracy to control the climate????
Perhaps it has something to do with a decline in our human self-awareness. A psychologist I know claims that the problem with half his patients is that they lack a sense of the subtle. They pursue happiness directly through spending, eating, drinking, sex or whatever. They’re so literal in their pursuit of happiness they have forgotten, or were never taught, that real happiness is achieved indirectly through personal achievement and deeply committed relationships. They all want to know the same thing: If it makes you happy then why the hell am I so sad?
Our national culture has lost its subtle intelligence too. We demand that our federal government mandate the weather, outlaw drought and save the polar bears. If only it were that simple, we really would be living in the Land of Oz. I suspect that some of us would still be sad.
“That sort of zero sum thinking should have past into the annuals of history along with the concepts of Malthus and the slide rule. No?”
The rest maybe yes but slide rules no they might start to come in handy when the power failures start happening.
Gavin, Ender, and Luke,
Apparently you do not pay attention to the very SCIENCE you claim shows that we are destroying our planet.
There is a particular FINGERPRINT that all the HOTTER models show. This fingerprint is a combination of a decreasing trend in stratospheric temperatures (we got that), increasing height in tropopause (we got that), “hot spot” in troposphere with a trend greater than surface.
OOOOOOPPPPPPSSSS!!!! Surface temperature has a higher trend than anywhere else in the trop. I guess you really need realistic physics built into those models before they will match reality instead of a WARMERS FANTASY!! Without evidence of that “hot spot” we have no evidence of the building heat retention overwhelming convection/conduction/radiative heat transfer!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Aren’t you relieved that you can relax and enjoy expelling CO2 with every breath?? REVEL in improving biomass of the earth while driving your SUV and flying to really neat places on vacation…
A few hungry polar bears do not a climate crisis make!
“Meanwhile, Ann and Libby are NOT trolls, just misguided people who love animals. PB’s may be in trouble in the East, but to confuse human population pressures on bear habitat with AGW is to ask Australians to sacrifice their economy to save a bear. Utter nonsense.”
Wes, I supplied information here. What evidence do you have to suport that Ann and I are misguided? What information will you supply to support your beliefs about polar bears? Or are you happy just to snipe from the sidelines? In fact there is nothing in the two articles here that mentions AGW Wes.
“Why do those who wish to save the polar bears only imagine that it can be done through centralized authoritarian regulation of the economy?
If you are insinuating that this includes Ann and I, again I hope you provide some evidence to support this.
“Our national culture has lost its subtle intelligence too. We demand that our federal government mandate the weather, outlaw drought and save the polar bears. If only it were that simple, we really would be living in the Land of Oz.”
Who is the “we” Wes? I certainly do not demand that Kevin save the polar bears. Again, you wonder why you are referred to as denialists.
Hi Again Ivan,
Regarding the photo, the claim it was “stolen” comes down to one person’s word against another other. The media could also have been at fault and it may even have been an issue of who “technically” owns any photos from a field trip. I am not saying your story is wrong, I am saying that it is largely heresay. It’s wise to put “gossip” in its correct context.
Regarding Stirling and Derocher, forgive my cynicism, but going by what you have written concerning AGW/climate change so far, I would not expect you to believe anything these two researchers wrote or said. Stirling is very well respected by marine mammalogists. A notoriously bitchy and judgemental lot, he is pretty much unanimously accepted as being a good scientist conducting sound research. As Ann and I have pointed out, he is not a greenie. Being implicated with a “photo fraud” does not automatically qualify you (or your work) as a “crook” or “fraud”.
“Nothing that they are associated with should be believed in any way, shape or form.”
A lot of what has been written here comes down to personal opinions and beliefs, and these seem to be pretty much set.
Yoda was right about Anakin too.
Wes – what can I say – try at 2:40 mins here
So far the response regarding Libby’s PB info in response to the initial comment by Jim Peden:-
Eyrie doesn’t read the information provided, makes assumptions about funding and agendas and provides his own ‘facts’ in troll-like fashion.
Ann provides some further information regarding subpopulations of PBs and points to the archives as a source of more information on this topic, and mentions a few home truths regarding the culture here 🙂
Marcus relates personal info about brown and PBs in Russia (see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/23/2311524.htm for PBs when they revert back to being ‘grizzlies’).
Cohenite provides a link to the Telegraph and an article about Prof Lomborg’s book. Lomborg being a well-known PB specialist who refers to 11 out of the 13 PB subpops in Canada as being stable and increasing in number (regardless of what the range states that have PBs think and what the researchers write). He makes a ‘convincing argument’, based on what the IUCN PB Specialist Group doesn’t say. He also supports Eyrie’s unsubstantiated facts, makes assumptions about Libby and Ann and says PBs will be fine without any supporting evidence.
Janama provides a link to some PB literature. Haven’t downloaded them all. First one I did (not written by Stirling or Deroche) says:-
‘Changes in individual stature and body mass
can affect reproduction and survival and have
been shown to be early indicators of changes in
status and trends of polar bear populations. We
recorded body length, skull size, and mass of
polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during
capture/recapture studies conducted in the
southern Beaufort Sea of Alaska (SB) between
1982 and 2006. We calculated a body condition
index (BCI) which reflects trends in mass
relative to length. We also recorded the number
of dependent young accompanying females in the
spring and fall as an indicator of cub recruitment.
Previous work suggested stature of some sex and
age classes of bears in the SB had changed
between early and latter portions of this study but did not investigate trends in or causes of those changes. Here, we investigate whether these measurements changed over time or in relation to sea ice extent. Because our study required bears to be repeatedly immobilized and captured, we tested whether frequency of capture could have affected these measurements. Mass, length, skull size, and BCI of growing males (aged 3-10), mass and skull size of cubs-of-the year, and the number of yearlings per female in the spring and fall were all positively related to the percent of days in which sea ice covered the continental shelf. Skull sizes and/or lengths of adult and subadult males and females decreased over time during the study. Adult body mass was not related to sea ice cover and did not show a trend with time. BCI of adult females exhibited a positive trend over time reflecting a decline in length without a parallel trend in mass. Though cub production increased over time, the number of cubs-of-the-year (COYs) per female in the fall and yearlings per female in the spring declined suggesting reduced cub survival. Bears with prior capture history were either larger or similar in stature and mass to bears captured for the first time, indicating that research activities did not influence trends in the data. Declines in mass and BCI of subadult males, declines in growth of males and females, and declines in cub recruitment suggest that polar bears of the Southern Beaufort Sea have experienced a declining trend in nutritional status. The significant relationship between several of these measurements and sea ice cover over the continental shelf suggests that nutritional limitations may be associated with changing sea-ice conditions.’
Ivan advises Libby that two scentists who have been studying PBs for yonks are frauds, hacks and crooks. They simply can’t be trusted because of a photo.
Wes trolls in and exclaims that Ann and Libby are NOT trolls but misguided animal lovers. He obviously didn’t read the information supplied but provides his own take without any supporting evidence. He also does the third world thing poor Laura was hounded about. How many villages in India have you fed Wes? Good posturing and inserted compassion. BTW the sole reason I voted for Kev was so that he could save PBs and codemn Gilbert’s potoroos to extinction.
Yoda proves he really is a sock puppet.
Baseless opinions, assumptions, sneers, attacks on authors, posters and funders do not make a very convincing argument guys.
Oh and Steve is still refusing to accept he was wrong. Proud academics do their reputation no favours, especially when they rely on smeering those of others. Tsk.
Keiran…thanks for comments. Don’t feel bad about being blocked from realclimate. Check this out:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=419
I’m sure you are familiar with the hockey stick debate, or should I say, demolition? Michael Mann refuses to concede that he might have made an error and defends/justifies his pseudo-science at realclimate. When Steve McIntyre, of McIntyre and McKitrick, who demolished his math and methodology, try to post on realclimate, he is blocked as well. The link above is a post on McIntyre’s site asking if Gavin Schmidt is honest.
Realclimate are not looking for real science. They are more of an activist group spreading rhetoric. I just read that Michael Mann only got his PH.D in 1998, yet he was invited as an IPCC author and managed to get his graph prominently advertised. Some peer review process!!
Travis, go live with the poor polars should he! Continue the hunting ban they must!
Luke-what can I say – try at 0:29 mins here
“Regarding the photo, the claim it was “stolen” comes down to one person’s word against another other.”
Not really. If you read through the material you will find that not only does Crosbie admit that he stole the photo, he also ‘stole’ the credits – i.e. he passed it off as his own.
These are the sort of deceitful people that the AGW crowd immediately jump to the defence of. Even before they have bothered to check out the facts, they are making up excuses for them and their behaviour.
“I am not saying your story is wrong, I am saying that it is largely heresay”
It’s not – read the material before you apologise and make excuses for them.
“The media could also have been at fault..”
The media were in on it – at least at the end when the IPCC held their press conference (i.e. their “unequivocal” press conference) and the photo was magically produced to provide a highly emotional and graphic illustration of the message that they were trying to get across. And to deflect questions away from the actual ‘content’ (there wasn’t any). The media bought it – hook, line and sinker!
“Ivan advises Libby that two scentists who have been studying PBs for yonks are frauds, hacks and crooks. They simply can’t be trusted because of a photo.”
No – not simply the photo. If they have been studying PBs for yonks, why haven’t they raised concerns before 2005? Why didn’t they contribute these concerns to the ACIA the year before?? Any answer to that one, numb-nuts?
The photo is what ties the fraud together – it isn’t the fraud in and of itself. When you follow the trail of whose fingerprints were on the photo, and then who did what as a result of seeing the photo, the fraud becomes obvious. The fact that NASA/Goddard (the house of re-inventing data is involved), should be enough to set alarm bells ringing for anyone.
But – as is usual from the AGW hysterics – whatever we do, don’t let’s investigate anything and get to the facts. Let’s just start ranting and hollering and drowning everyone out as soon as anything questionable emerges.
I like the term deniar. Also I am fond of the term alarmist. They are direct and to the point.
It cuts down on confusion.
Yesterday I saw a site dedicated to the persuit of optimum population through re education preferably but by governmental force if necessary.
Why is it that ecologists never do a study on the sustainability of polar bears. Does it even make sense to allow a carnivore of that size to exist on the planet? Just how many of the Earth’s finite resources does it take to carry that species?
” If they been studying polar bears for years , why haven’t they raised concerns before 2005?”- Ivan
I have looked at PB papers by Sterling from 2002.
As I live in Scandinavia I check out facts on PBs on this Norwegian scientific site , that is unbiased , for example their latest issue on PBs was called ” tropical insects more endangered than PBs”. ( Back again to the Panda factor).
This site has excellent PB info back from 2002.
http://www.forskning.no/index_search_html?searchString=isbj%C3%B8rn
PS. Do you guys remember that in one of my comments I wrote that PBs in Hopen ( Svalbard) didn’t give birth to any PB cubs in 2006 , due to bad ice conditions?????
“To all of you who support AGW – please understand why many lay people like me are sceptical of the latest AGW doomsday scenerio:
1. In the ’70’s we were told by the media, scientists and governments that we were heading for another Ice Age – what happened – nothing
2. Same culprits when it came to AIDS – millions in the West were going to die – what happened -very little
3. Ditto SARS
4. Ditto Bird Flu
And I’m sure there are many other scare stories that failed to materialise also.”
No, the same scientists did not tell you about another Ice Age. There was speculation that one may be coming, the press, as usual, spin that into there is another one coming. They sell more papers that way. After investigating that speculation, as scientsts do, they found there was no ice age coming. End of story. If you have a problem, it is with the press.
Aids is killing millions, where health measures and public awareness is not up to modern standards, in Africa. Raising public awareness, inventing new drugs, etc, appears to have contained AIDS in the West. There are concerns that complacency may lead to a resurgence in the disease, however. I don’t know why you are complaining that a public education program worked. Bizarre.
SARS was contained, and was a serious disease we didn’t need. A scare, but quick action prevented a pandemic. Once again, success means there was no threat, apparently.
Scientsts are waiting for the next flu pandemic. The last big one, after WWI, killed more people than the war did. They believe that bird flu is a likely source of the next big outbreak, and in this modern world, it will kill a lot more people than the last mass outbreak. It all depends on if the virus, which we know is very deadly, adapts to human to human transmission. Give it enough chances, and it will do that. Contain it, and the chances are reduced.
I’m afraid SJT , that the Sars and bird flu issue need a new thread .
This latest bird flu hysterics has only benefitted big pharmaceutical companies. It is very difficult to catch the bird flu. I have closely followed the issue . The wild birds die before they can fly long distances etc.
The only outcome of this hysterics has been that there has been a big culling of wild birds that have not been affected by the flu , and billions of domestic poultry have been confined to cages indoors.
Having photos or data “stolen” or credited to someone else is not unusual Ivan. I’ve experienced it myself. It is not right, but it happens. I’d like to know where I apologised for them, but that’s your opinion. There is nothing wrong with giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when you are so obviously biased about this issue. There are usually more than two sides to every story (although I have only been seeing one throughout most of this thread).
Speaking of facts Ivan, let’s drop the side issue of a photo, which has nothing to do with the science. Let’s have your credibly-sourced information here regarding polar bears.
“If they have been studying PBs for yonks, why haven’t they raised concerns before 2005?”
I’m sure “numb-nuts” will answer himself, but in going through the available literature, you may get some answers and learn something rather than resorting to ad-homs and assumptions.
“These are the sort of deceitful people that the AGW crowd immediately jump to the defence of.” “But – as is usual from the AGW hysterics – whatever we do, don’t let’s investigate anything and get to the facts.”
If you are lumping me in with the “AGW crowd” Ivan, you had better have your facts straight. Based on the evidence so far, I am highly doubtful.
“Let’s just start ranting and hollering and drowning everyone out as soon as anything questionable emerges.”
Er, yeah, I’ll leave that to you Ivan.
“This latest bird flu hysterics has only benefitted big pharmaceutical companies. It is very difficult to catch the bird flu. I have closely followed the issue . The wild birds die before they can fly long distances etc.”
That was what I said, it is difficult to catch the bird flu, *now*. Flu is a virus that is always mutating. I get a flu shot every year, and every year it’s different to the previous year.
We already know that bird flu can be transmitted to humans. We know that when it is, it is deadly. We know that flu mutates quickly. Put that chain together and the potential for a dealy global flu pandemic is quite real. It is entirely possible that it will never happen, but do we take that risk? As I said, the flu epidemic after WWI killed more people than WWI did.
But remember SJT , that the humans that have died from bird flu , have eaten the contaminated cadavers of birds etc….
Yes, I know. But flu constantly mutates, that’s it’s specialty.
BirdLife International’s statement on Avian Flu:
http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/avian_flu/index.html
Sorry for the off topics.
The Polar Bear is a pinup for AGW and that fact manifests one of the damaging faults of AGW; as Lomborg notes, the focus on AGW takes attention and resources away from real environmental issues; so too with PB’s; there are other animal populations in distress; a couple of issues are raised by this; the first is prioritising humans and animals; if progress for humans involves the destruction of habitat and the loss of species, should that progress be mitigated? Depends on the definition of progress; one of the tenents of this AGW debate is a questioning of the material lifestyle; I prefer to see it as the keeping nature at bay life-style, with the down-side of conspicuous consumption and flaunting of wealth by some nit-wits (many of whom have jumped on the AGW bandwagon to assuage their guilt and massage their ego and need for relevance) a price to be paid; but if a species or 2 survives only in zoos, or not at all, because a living standard increase is managed (ie less children die from preventable diseases, adults too, and some of the amenities of life such as fresh water and power are available), then so be it.
An interesting dilemma emerges in this with the rights of indigenous peoples, who are generally favoured by the AGW advocates because indigenous people are tagged as being more natural in their lifestyle and have less Westen decadence, including a right to hunt animals which are often endangered, being given precedence; Japan has pulled this indigenous ‘right’ with the whales; indigenous Australians with the Dugongs, and the Unuit with the polar bears as a recent paper by Dowsley, Martha, Wenzel and George show;
http://www.highbeam.com/Arctic/publications.aspx
That link deals with other threatened animals as well. For me the PB issue is not so much about AGW, which obviously I think is a load of cobblers, but the wider issue of self-appraisal of humanity and our interaction with nature; as has become evident, in a match up with humanity, there are a lot of humans on the bear’s side; to them it really is a black and white issue.
SJT….Aids is killing millions, where health measures and public awareness is not up to modern standards, in Africa. Raising public awareness, inventing new drugs, etc, appears to have contained AIDS in the West. There are concerns that complacency may lead to a resurgence in the disease, however. I don’t know why you are complaining that a public education program worked. Bizarre.
Sorry to hijack this thread but I feel the HIV/AIDS paradigm demonstrates exactly what is going on with the current global warming hysteria. Scientists who don’t accept the paradigm have been labeled flat-earthers and deniers, and Peter Duesberg, the premier denier, a top-class scientist, has lost his funding and is relegated to supervising undergraduate science labs. He is not allowed to have grad students
We’re just beginning to attack the global warming nonsense, the HIV/AIDS hoax attack began about 20 years ago. AIDS is not killing anyone in Africa and the reason it seems to be under control in North America is that the projected epidemic did not happen. HIV was projected to spread to the heterosexual community and it did not. Not one nurse or health care worker has died from AIDS, but 60% of AIDS deaths involve male homosexuals and 30% are from IV drug users. Did someone say lifestyle?.
Once again, the medical community and activists spread the word that a harmless virus, if it exists at all, was responsible for defeating the immune system and allowing opportunistic infections (AIDS) such as cancer, tuberculosis, etc. to infect the human body.
The HIV/AIDS paradigm is a perfect example of what is going on today with global warming. Robert Gallo, who was researching a viral cause of cancer, and who made a Michael Mann-type mistake in that research, was handed the job of finding what caused AIDS by the Reagan administration in 1983. Although the popular consensus at the time pointed to AIDS being a lifestyle issue, Gallo went looking for a viral cause and claimed he found it, even though no peer review was ever applied.
Kary Mullis, the Nobelist who invented the PCR method for DNA amplification has been looking for one paper that shows how HIV causes AIDS. He confronted Luc Montagnier, the scientists co-credited with discovering HIV, and he couldn’t tell Mullis where to find one. BTW…Montagnier changed his mind on HIV long ago, claiming it would require some kind of co-factor with HIV to cause AIDS.
Look here on the theory and decide for yourself:
http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos is an Australian scientist who claims HIV was not properly identified and that it is still not identified or isolated. Although Peter Duesberg, a high profile microbiologists, started the attack on the HIV/AIDS paradigm, and thinks HIV does exist, Stephan Lanka, a German biologists disagrees.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/slanka.htm
See reply to Duesberg.
Lanka is a total maverick and he’s either a nut case or innovatively brilliant. I’m leaning to the latter.
Duesberg studied death statistics in Africa and concluded that less than 1% of Africans are dying from what is refered to as AIDS. He doesn’t think it is AIDS, but a long-known illness (Slim’s disease, or wasting syndrome) suffered by Africans due to bad water and malnutrition. It was the World Health Organization which applied…guess what….a computer model to the situation and arrived at the pandemic nonsense.
In North America, two tests are required as an HIV diagnosis. One of the test requires the sample serum to be diluted 400 times, otherwise everyone would test positive for HIV. Neither of the test are required in Africa and are seldom used. It’s tough enough to make a diagnosis with the tests, how does one make it without them?
Earlier this century, circa 1915, a federal US health investigator was sent to investigate an outbreak of pellagra in the southern US. He immediately identified the cause as a diet problem, but medical authorities persisted in looking for a viral/bacterial cause for another 30 years. They only stopped when it was finally dicovered that pellagra was caused by a B-vitamin deficiency.
Sound familiar? Today, we have good scientists pointing out that CO2 could not possibly cause the current warming, and they are being dismissed as deniers.
“There is nothing wrong with giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when you are so obviously biased about this issue.”
It’s nothing to do with bias – the facts speak for themselves. If people don’t want to acknowledge them, that probably speaks more about bias than anything else. There is nothing wrong with giving people the benefit of the doubt — beforehand — but to continue to do so after the case has been demonstrably proven is just being delusional.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Williams/carole7.htm
BTW – Simard’s assertion in this article that he distributed the photo on Feb 2 is also a lie (and a provable one).
“If you are lumping me in with the “AGW crowd”
No – I was lumping you in with the crowd that was prepared to jump to the defence of scounderels. If that also happens to be the AGW crowd, well, there’s not a lot I can do about that.
“let’s drop the side issue of a photo, which has nothing to do with the science”
You’re right in the sense that it has nothing to do with “real science”, and a hell of a lot to do with “climate pseudo-science”.
As cohenite points out, the Polar Bear (and this photo in particular) was a huge IPCC backdrop – for the Feb 2007 IPCC press conference, and for Al Gore’s dog and pony show in Toronto on 22 March 2007. (BTW – Gore paid royalties to Amanda Byrd once the photo fraud had been brought to his attention).
There is no ‘credibly sourced information regarding polar bears’. The whole PB issue is an IPCC beat-up, done with the assistance of the hacks already mentioned. All of this concern for PBs and their central role in the whole AGW fraud stems from the IPCC marketing decisions that were made in 2005/2006 – probably based in a large part on this photo (which had been obtained and was subsequently used fraudulently) – so the photo is more than a side-issue.
So – yes – I would agree. Nothing to do with science, but everything to do with the manipulation of science.
“We already know that bird flu can be transmitted to humans.”
We know this, do we, SJT?
Is this more “CSIRO-pseudo-science”?
Someone should inform the CDC – I’m sure they’d be interested in your insights:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/avian-flu-humans.htm
“Although avian influenza A viruses usually do not infect humans, rare cases of human infection with avian influenza A viruses have been reported. Most human infections with avian influenza A viruses have occurred following direct contact with infected poultry.”
“Most human cases of H5N1 virus infection are thought to have occurred as a result of direct contact with sick or dead infected poultry.”
“The spread of avian influenza A viruses from one ill person to another has been reported very rarely, and has been limited, inefficient and unsustained. ”
The alarmists seem to be on a roll today.
Ann I think we strayed from the topic a few days ago 😉 – put whatever you got out there. The more the merrier.
OK James , one more PB comment 🙂 !
According to Andrej Boltunov, polar bear scientist in the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group , it is NOT THE SITUATION TODAY , that is the main concern for PBs , but the situation in the long run, if the sea ice continues to melt.
A little hint what might happen in the future to PBs was witnessed in Chukotsk in Russia in 2007.
During the summer the ice cover shrank dramatically northwards . The sea was ice free until December. The PBs that usually show up in October , never showed up . Still they haven’t come to the coast . Probably they have moved to other areas , but nobody knows where they are.
According to the PB expert , the shrinking of ice cover is very serious. The edge of the ice , usually covers shallow high productive areas , and that is where the PBs hunt.
But this summer the ice edge lied over deep water , with low productivity. The scientists wonder if the PBs can find enough with food in those areas?
Nowhere in what I wrote above was AGW mentioned re polar bears. There is a heap of other information out their regarding them along with walrus and other Artcic pinnipeds, which the bears rely on for food. The science is suggesting that bear and pipnniped recruitment is being adversley affected by changing sea ice/snow conditions.
I stated, along with Luke, that there are other plants and animals closer to the brink. In fact some marine mammalogists suggest Arctic pinnipeds like ribbon seals are in more need of urgent attention. It may be presumptuous of me, but I think that we are all in agreement there is a long cue, and polar bears are not at the front.
The issue of putting humans above other life on the planet is a separate topic of itself. Religion, something “sceptics” continually claim “supporters” are practicing rather than science, is deeply rooted in this.
The article is by Martha Dowsley and George Wenzel. “Pacific walruses, indigenous hunters, and climate change: bridging scientific and indigenous knowledge” (2007), I. Krupik and G. Ray, Deep-Sea Research II (to name one such paper) details information collected by biologists and Indigenous hunters on walrus natural history and their environment. Should Arctic pinniped and/or polar bear populations plummet due to climate change (no mention of AGW), the Indigenous people will be the humans suffering the most, so I hope your nonchalance about token species falling by the wayside for (presumably) western lifestyles to continue as is is sits comfortably with you.
Thank you for the link Ivan. It does not mention Stirling or Derocher. It does not really address the actual studies on polar bears or their prey. As the blog notes “So there you have the real story about Gore’s endangered polar bears.”
As I previously wrote, having a photo stolen or miscredited is not right. I stand by that. Bryd is very fortunate she received payment in the end. Yes, the photo issue highlights the “pseudo-science”, but in this case it has been largely pushed along by the media (I’m not talking about the photo alone, which you agreed the media had a hand with).
“There is no ‘credibly sourced information regarding polar bears’. The whole PB issue is an IPCC beat-up, done with the assistance of the hacks already mentioned. All of this concern for PBs and their central role in the whole AGW fraud stems from the IPCC marketing decisions that were made in 2005/2006 – probably based in a large part on this photo (which had been obtained and was subsequently used fraudulently) – so the photo is more than a side-issue. So – yes – I would agree. Nothing to do with science, but everything to do with the manipulation of science.”
This is based purely on your opinion.
I like the term denialist too.
“Nowhere in what I wrote above was AGW mentioned re polar bears.”
I don’t see your point. The so-called polar bear ‘debate’ was created and then hijacked by the AGW cause. Consequently, it is impossible to separate the two. It’s as meaningless as saying “Nowhere in what I wrote above was Nazism mentioned re Jews”.
“It does not mention Stirling or Derocher.”
It wasn’t intended to. It was intended to illustrate that these guys in Environment Canada weren’t as blameless as you were trying to intimate and that they didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt – as was clearly stated in my intro.
“Bryd is very fortunate she received payment in the end.”
Big deal – but the $200 is hardly the issue. I wonder how she feels about having her work expropriated by frauds to aid an extremist lunatic-fringe cause.
“This is based purely on your opinion.”
Maybe – but so far, no-one has refuted a single assertion that I have made. Particularly the bit that Stirling went around the ACIA a year after they released their report. If this was such an all-important issue, why didn’t he bring it up there. Why hadn’t someone else picked up on this ‘pressing issue’ previously? Why wait to be ‘approached’ by NASA in the leadup to AR4? Does this sound like any scientific method that you are familiar with at work here? But then that’s just my opinion, I guess.
“I like the term denialist too.”
Obviously. It’s just not clear to me who the term is being applied to.
” The so-called polar bear ‘debate’ was created and then hijacked by the AGW cause” – Ivan
Methinks Ivan is right on this.
Polar bears are iconic animals together with whales , pandas etc and are used by AGW supporters.
This is well established . Photos of di Caprio together with celebrity PB Knut has been published in Vanity Fair etc.
Personally I believe that humans have caused a little warming and we should do everything in our power to decrease emissions and our ecological foot print.
However, I’m only a layperson and I’m confused by all information, some days ago I read in the Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet Fiskaren , that scientist found deeper ice cover around Svalbard, despite models/ scientists predicted the opposite.
Then I read that the Barents Sea is warming the next day…..though my personal experience is that weather has during the winters become warmer and there are also more ticks , attacking my dog, this according to physicians due to warmer climate.
“Photos of di Caprio together with celebrity PB Knut”
I wasn’t aware of that – but it probably explains why Knut is having severe behavioural and psychological problems.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,528668,00.html
Poor Knut! But I’m sure being photographed with an AGW acolyte would make most people quite deranged.
“Nowhere in what I wrote above was AGW mentioned re polar bears”
Well, Ann, Libby, sorry for my contextual confusion. This thread was about the AGW climate crisis, or in fact, lack of evidence for a crisis, nowhere writ above was “re polar bears” mentioned.
I honestly assumed that you brought in the Polar Bear trope to make a point in support of an impending AGW catastrophe. Obviously, I assumed way too much relevancy on your part.
I assumed that you were politely and logically on topic as is the normal etiquette one expects from intelligent commenters.
Hey, my mistake…won’t happen again.
“The HIV/AIDS paradigm is a perfect example of what is going on today with global warming. Robert Gallo, who was researching a viral cause of cancer, and who made a Michael Mann-type mistake in that research, was handed the job of finding what caused AIDS by the Reagan administration in 1983. Although the popular consensus at the time pointed to AIDS being a lifestyle issue, Gallo went looking for a viral cause and claimed he found it, even though no peer review was ever applied.”
There you go Jennifer and Paul, a perfect example of how the ‘sceptics’ are debasing science in general. I hope you guys are happy. Any more loopy conspiracy theories anyone else wants to bring out while we are here?
“Any more loopy conspiracy theories anyone else wants to bring out while we are here?”
No – the loopy AGW theory is probably enough for all of us for the time being.
Well , my comments come from an article called ” Future looks bleak for polar bears” and if you are not satisfied I will post this as well, from the Journal of Swedish Physicians :
” Summary:
Climate change will have several health consequences in Sweden. The risk assessments of the Swedish Commission on Climate and Adaptation identified two main areas of concern: health consequences of heat waves, and impacts on the spread of infectious diseases.
An increase in mean summer temperatures with four degrees (C) in Stockholm will increase the number of deaths by 5.3 percent. However, consequences of more intense heat waves may be more dramatic than current data suggest, as was observed during the 2003 heat wave in Europe. Nearly 40 infectious diseases were considered to be climate-dependent. The highest risks were found for Lyme borreliosis, visceral leishmaniasis, Vibrio cholerae (non-O1, non-O139) and Vibrio vulnificus. Increased risk was also found for several water- and food borne diseases. Climate-induced ecosystem changes will affect the distribution range, incidence, and seasonality of several vector borne diseases, with risk of introductions of new vectors and diseases.
Elisabeth Lindgren, Ann Albihn, Yvonne Andersson, Bertil Forsberg, Gert Olsson, Joacim Rocklöv
Correspondence: Elisabet Lindgren, Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholms universitet, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
elisabet.lindgren@stockholmresilience.su.se
“”Although avian influenza A viruses usually do not infect humans, rare cases of human infection with avian influenza A viruses have been reported. Most human infections with avian influenza A viruses have occurred following direct contact with infected poultry.”
“Most human cases of H5N1 virus infection are thought to have occurred as a result of direct contact with sick or dead infected poultry.”
“The spread of avian influenza A viruses from one ill person to another has been reported very rarely, and has been limited, inefficient and unsustained. “”
All true, and all consistent with the alarm over bird flue. One of the features of the influenze virus is it’s abilility to mutate constantly. That’s how it keeps coming back at us, as opposed to measles, which can be stopped with one injection. We know it is deadly to humans, and it can cross from birds to humans. What sort of a chance do we want to take that one of those regulare mutations will bridge the gap? There isn’t far to go to do so.
SJT:
My point about the media, politicians and vested interest groups creating scares is to underline the dangers of society being made to react to something unproven.
I should have added in Y2K – remember the media jumping on that one? The world was going to stop on Jan 1 as all computers ground to a halt.
The Media have a lot to answer for (never mind power/control seeking politicians) – they have to fill their channels 24/7 and they know that ‘fear’ and ‘scares’ sell news.
“What sort of a chance do we want to take that one of those regulare mutations will bridge the gap?”
… and the point being?
Ann
It is one thing quoting scientific papers but another describing them here in your own words.
Rather you probably saw the catchy title, assumed the contents of the paper MUST be true, and assume thus that this is evidence to support the global warming.
Except that the anthropogenic global warming theory has not been experimentally verified.
So the paper’s conclusions might well be logically argued, but it’s all extrapolation into the future, on the basis of an unproven assumption.
These are the questions that society at large need to have the answers to or a broad knowledge of.
In speaking to many of my friends (who I would consider worldly wise) I’ve been stunned at how little they know about our climate and what drives/changes it
1. Has the climate been warmer than it is now in the last few hundred years
2. What’s is the largest source of energy that enables life on our planet
3. Of all the CO2 that’s released into the atmosphere each year what % is mankind responsible for
4. What gas is vital to plants and crops existence
5. What warms the oceans
6. what gas do the oceans release when they get warmer
7. Which gas has the biggest impact on warming the atmosphere
8. Will there be another Ice Age
9. Which of the following is best at retaining heat: water or land
10. Do more people die each year from cold related problems or heat
I’m not saying knowing the answers to the above or having some knowledge of the issues above is any sort of panecea to understanding climate change and/or whether AGW has any part to play, however the biggest problem we as a society have is ignorance and poor educution, both of which are exploited by the media, politicians and vested interest groups.
Let’s spread knowledge so that a more rational debate about this subject can take place
“I don’t see your point.”
My point is that the information I gave mentioned climate change, without a suggestion it was caused by humans.
“Consequently, it is impossible to separate the two.”
Sorry, I don’t agree with you. Can it not be that any climate-related change in the Arctic is part of a natural system? I would hope that Jews are not forever to be associated with Nazism. They are certainly not in my mind anyway.
“The so-called polar bear ‘debate’ was created and then hijacked by the AGW cause.”
Agreed that the AGW debate has attached itself to polar bears as an iconic Arctic species. I find ribbon seals much more attractive 🙂
“It was intended to illustrate that these guys in Environment Canada weren’t as blameless as you were trying to intimate and that they didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt – as was clearly stated in my intro.”
I’m assessing Stirling and Derocher on their research.
“Bryd is very fortunate she received payment in the end.”
Byrd- typo sorry.
“I wonder how she feels about having her work expropriated by frauds to aid an extremist lunatic-fringe cause.”
Do you know what her thoughts are regarding climate change and polar bears? AGW?
“Maybe – but so far, no-one has refuted a single assertion that I have made. Particularly the bit that Stirling went around the ACIA a year after they released their report. If this was such an all-important issue, why didn’t he bring it up there. Why hadn’t someone else picked up on this ‘pressing issue’ previously? Why wait to be ‘approached’ by NASA in the leadup to AR4? Does this sound like any scientific method that you are familiar with at work here?”
Sorry Ivan but I’m not really interested in refuting your assertions so far as they have largely been divorced from the science. Climate change and polar bears was mentioned before 2005. A number of researchers at the 1997 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Amstrup and Stirling included) mention it as a future concern. It was possily mentioned at meetings prior to this -the documents are available online. At the time hunting (and to a lesser extent pollution) were concerns, but they were also refining techniques to study these animals, which I’m sure you can appreciate can be logistically very difficult to get information on. Much has been learnt about marine mammals in the past decade due to technological advances.
Apologies again, but I’m not really interested in the photo, Gore’s spin, or decisions regarding AR4. I’m interested in the research surrounding the marine mammals of the Arctic. Whilst all the speculation, gossip and shenanigans may have a certain interest, it only serves to detract from the science.
“It’s just not clear to me who the term is being applied to.”
Hmmm…
“but it probably explains why Knut is having severe behavioural and psychological problems.”
Knut has behavioural problems as a result of the way he has been raised and kept in captivity.
“This thread was about the AGW climate crisis, or in fact, lack of evidence for a crisis, nowhere writ above was “re polar bears” mentioned. I honestly assumed that you brought in the Polar Bear trope to make a point in support of an impending AGW catastrophe. Obviously, I assumed way too much relevancy on your part.”
Sigh…JP claims “Polar bear populations are at near record levels and seem healthy, and even I have seen them playing around on floating ice chunks in the Arctic summer. They are a terrestrial animal,”
I provided a small amount of information refuting JP’s claim. This includes population assessments suggesting otherwise and the fact that although polar bears may spend time on the land, they get most of the nutrition they need from pagophilic pinnipeds (to use a term Travis loves to bandy about). So far there has not been any substantiated evidence supporting JP’s claims.
“I assumed that you were politely and logically on topic as is the normal etiquette one expects from intelligent commenters.”
I was. Sniping amd trolling is rarely evidence-based is it? Assumptions here seem to be the norm.
“Hey, my mistake…won’t happen again.”
LOL! If it happened in the past it will happen in the future, isn’t that what you guys say?!
Ann is it just possible that those Russian regular PBears found a more productive hunting ground in 2007? They eat seals, and seals need to breath, so it might not matter all that much how deep the water is under the ice.
Now that we are in the middle of summer 2008 is there an update on the Chukotsk bears? Did they come “home” [strange concept for an animal that ranges over hundreds of miles]?
Libby,
I meant that I will not mistake you in the future for a serious commenter. Believe me, it won’t happen again.
You need to stay on topic. One moment you claim the polar bear fear thing isn’t related to Jim Peden’s lack of AGW crisis comment when it suits you to dodge the political consequences of our position, the next moment you claim “I provided a small amount of information refuting JP’s claim.” Well, you got the small part right.
Ann says she’s a layperson with no clue to what is going on, then posts an abstract claiming Sweden is warming by 4c and mortality is going to soar?
So which is it?
Meanwhile, get it straight:You don’t know me. And I don’t know you. I am not a denialist. I am a human being with a life, a family and a professional career.
To call someone a denialist is to ipso facto link them with Holocaust denial, if only by inference.
That is Bigotry. Are you a bigot, Libby?
Are you here to progress the debate or to debase the debate?
To imply that those who disagree with you are in some subtle way linked to holocaust denial is, in fact, a type of hate speech. It’s a subtle kind of hate, but I detect that it give you a pleasure, which is distinctly unsavory.
Hate speech is something that only bigots partake in. They do it in order to dehumanize “the other” so that they can perpetuate all sorts of horrible crimes upon those their narrative casts as less than human. You’d think as a European you would have plenty of recent historical examples in your face to remind you of just how slippery the path to bigoted hate is paved. So what’s your excuse? Are you here to SAVE THE POLAR BEARS, and, well, some evil-doers are just gonna have to go pogrom.
Like you said: “LOL! If it happened in the past it will happen in the future, isn’t that what you guys say.” I couldn’t agree more, Libby.
That’s Luke position too. He’s already suggested:
“If we warmers had our way yes we would pass a law to stop any dissenters from voting. It’s for their own good you know. We should probably stop them having children too.”
Of course, you only wish to sour a debate with non sequiturs, not send us to the ovens. Thus, I’m not suggesting that you are in any way sinister, merely perversely misguided and on morally highly suspect ground. Nevertheless, your willingness to play the Holocaust card reveals you as a less than fair player.
BTW, although, PB numbers were at record lows earlier last century do to human hunting pressures, the fact that they are making a dramatic rebound—even as the planet spirals into the death grip of .6c warming in the last century—would seem to demolish any argument that AGW has been harsh on the bears.
No?
So much for false assumptions.
Wow Wes. What a response!!! Can’t argue with any of that. Phew, thank goodness there is rational debate here from you.
Not being a serious commentator, Holocaust links, bigotry, I’m European, hate speeches, not staying on topic, souring the debate with non sequiturs, perversely misguided, I’m on morally suspect ground, a willingness to play the Holocaust card (no less), a less than fair player, and now AGW being good to the bears. Got it all in there.
BTW I shot JFK too.
James, unfortunately not any update on the Russian PBs in Chukotsk, actually much info is lacking re Russian PBs.
As I have understood , the Chukotsk PBs have returned from the Wrangler’s Island every autumn for centuries , but not the last autumn…..and nobody have sighted them, but they are believed to be alive….
“Climate change will have several health consequences in Sweden. The risk assessments of the Swedish Commission on Climate and Adaptation identified two main areas of concern: health consequences of heat waves, and impacts on the spread of infectious diseases.
An increase in mean summer temperatures with four degrees (C) in Stockholm will increase the number of deaths by 5.3 percent. However, consequences of more intense heat waves may be more dramatic than current data suggest, as was observed during the 2003 heat wave in Europe. Nearly 40 infectious diseases were considered to be climate-dependent. The highest risks were found for Lyme borreliosis, visceral leishmaniasis, Vibrio cholerae (non-O1, non-O139) and Vibrio vulnificus. Increased risk was also found for several water- and food borne diseases. Climate-induced ecosystem changes will affect the distribution range, incidence, and seasonality of several vector borne diseases, with risk of introductions of new vectors and diseases.”
Funny how they always talk about the people supposedly dying from more warmth but forget to mention those that won’t die from the cold! C’mon Ann! You’re from Sweden, I’m from Canada. A little more warmth is generally something that most people in our countries pray for (not that it’s necessarily going to happen – the last 12 months here in Canada have been anything but warmer!). As to the heat wave in Europe, yep they happen to occur from time to time, CO2 or no CO2! In the 2003 case, it happened during prime vacation time so unfortunately the support network (family, friends, neighbours) for many of those that perished had buggered off on vacation only to return to a rotting statue of grandma in her rocking chair. Better planning would have had those at risk looked after a bit better including moving them to air conditioned facilities temporarily if necessary. Many humans happily endure such temperatures as part of their regular day-to-day existence.
Then there is this big scare about things such as Lyme disease. Well the neat thing is that all we have to do is learn from our neighbours to the south as to how to deal with such things! Anyone ever hear of a Lyme disease pandemic?
There there Wes George. You are not a denialist.
You’re a freakin LOONIE!!!!!
For those not yet brain-dead from the subject, here’s a good example of “Global Warming-induced Polar Bear Science”:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p235r60mu4878820/
“Abstract: During aerial surveys in September 1987–2003, a total of 315 live polar bears were observed with 12 (3.8%) animals in open water, defined for purposes of this analysis as marine waters >2 km north of the Alaska Beaufort Sea coastline or associated barrier islands. No polar bear carcasses were observed. During aerial surveys in early September, 2004, 55 polar bears (Ursus maritimus) were seen, 51 were alive and of those 10 (19.9%) were in open water. In addition, four polar bear carcasses were seen floating in open water and had, presumably, drowned. Average distance from land and pack ice edge for live polar bears swimming in open water in 2004 (n=10) were 8.3±3.0 and 177.4±5.1 km, respectively. We speculate that mortalities due to offshore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years may be an important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”
Gotta love those words ‘speculate’ and ‘suggest’.
Mark,
Your remark is a little bit ignorant. Sure , most people don’t know what Lyme’s disease is , but it s more common name is BORRELIOSIS, an tick borne emerging infectious disease , that is extremely common on the Swedish East coast and in the Northern Hemisphere.
It’s not funny to be affected by this disease that affects animals as well , dogs are especially vulnerable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease
Encephalitis is also tick -borne , and may be fatal.
With warming , more ticks , according to the M.Ds.
Wes writes:-
>And I don’t know you
Then writes a whole heap of off-the-air guff as if he does know her!
>To call someone a denialist is to ipso facto link them with Holocaust denial, if only by inference.
WTF? When will you guys get over this? Is it the best you can do to support your views on AGW? Never let facts get in the way of a good story Wes. Never mix medication with alcohol.
>To imply that those who disagree with you are in some subtle way linked to holocaust denial is, in fact, a type of hate speech. It’s a subtle kind of hate, but I detect that it give you a pleasure, which is distinctly unsavory.
RAOTFL!!! Priceless. Libby is sitting at her computer getting some sort of pleasure from her hate speech and overbearing taunts of Holocaust denial. The distinctly unsavoury evil-doer!! LOL! Clip her over the ear too eh Wes?
Wes, your entire rant suggests you need to take those tablets and have a good rest. The only hate detected would be coming from you!Pffttt!
If sceptics spent less time being hung up about being called denialists and people here using pseudonyms, and more time addressing facts with facts it might be a decent debate. In the meantime Dan has it right on.
>Any answer to that one, numb-nuts?
Too right, it is bloody cold here Ivan!
Travis: “If sceptics spent less time being hung up about being called denialists . . .”
Fine, how about we change the standard moniker of “alarmists” to “fascist a$$holes”. Then things will be in balance! (Although I can see a few Nazis getting ticked off in being lumped in with you lot!)
Ann: “It’s not funny to be affected by this disease that affects animals as well , dogs are especially vulnerable.”
Who’s laughing? However this does not even come close to being a “Climate Crisis”!
Try again please!
Wes – jeez yaw a dour bastard aren’t you.
“”If we warmers had our way yes we would pass a law to stop any dissenters from voting. It’s for their own good you know. We should probably stop them having children too.”” – maaatttee ! you know – attempt at humour – joke. Fulfilling the stereotype for you so you can rant on it and we can laugh at you. Indeed it’s about the 3rd time ewe have brought it up – so thanks for playing. LMAO.
I actually don’t think anything like that but I wonder about what you guys would do yourselves actually. You’re a very scary bunch of dudes – I mean Ivan is actually out there somewhere – eeek !
Funny how polar bears get all the attention but the spread of pine beetle expanding their range through North American forests as temperatures have warmed remains unnoticed. And satellite are showing vegetation responses in terms of greening up as the Arctic region warms. Lots of biology is changing.
Luke: “but the spread of pine beetle expanding their range through North American forests as temperatures have warmed remains unnoticed”
Only because the loony left media outside of Canada hasn’t got hold of it yet. Give ’em time!
Yet this is not a one-dimensional issue:
“The spread of the beetle can be traced to two separate issues: forest management and climate change.
Forest management practices designed to limit forest fires have inadvertently supplied the beetles with an overabundance of mature lodgepole pine to feast on.
As part of an evolutionary tactic to spread at the expense of other trees, lodgepole pine cones don’t release their seeds until heated by fire. When other trees begin crowding a pine stand, the dense forest becomes more susceptible to forest fires.
When fires do happen they clear out the old forest but leave behind the released pinecone seeds, allowing a new stand of lodgepole to grow where the old one existed, unimpeded by other trees.
But forest management practices geared towards preventing forest fires has allowed the trees to mature beyond their expected age, making the forests older and thus more desirable to the beetles. Carroll estimates that less than one per cent of the pine that would have historically burned from forest fires burns today.
While the abundance of food is behind the population explosion, a lack of cold winters to wipe out the beetles and curb the infestations is also to blame.”
Source:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/beetle.html
Funny how the pine forests made it through the medieval climate optimum (optimum used rather than period just to piss Lukey off!)!
“a lack of cold winters to wipe out the beetles and curb the infestations is also to blame.”
yea and the fact they’ve expanded their range to where they haven’t been before.
Funny that they did make it through the MWP unlike the Mayan civilisation and many other groups around the world.
And while some trees always survive I wonder how an MWP timber industry would have felt about it.
As usual the greatest gonzo paleo argument “well dude it happened before so ” … funny there wasn’t the 6 billion humans and most of arable land available devoted agriculture in the MWP too.
Makes you wonder doesn’t it.
Wonder so much that it’s time for a latest paper from Nature.
Nature 452, 987-990 (24 April 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06777; Received 9 December 2007; Accepted 29 January 2008
Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change
W. A. Kurz1, C. C. Dymond1, G. Stinson1, G. J. Rampley1, E. T. Neilson1, A. L. Carroll1, T. Ebata2 & L. Safranyik1
1. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, V8Z 1M5, Canada
2. British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9C2, Canada
The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) is a native insect of the pine forests of western North America, and its populations periodically erupt into large-scale outbreaks1, 2, 3. During outbreaks, the resulting widespread tree mortality reduces forest carbon uptake and increases future emissions from the decay of killed trees. The impacts of insects on forest carbon dynamics, however, are generally ignored in large-scale modelling analyses. The current outbreak in British Columbia, Canada, is an order of magnitude larger in area and severity than all previous recorded outbreaks4. Here we estimate that the cumulative impact of the beetle outbreak in the affected region during 2000–2020 will be 270 megatonnes (Mt) carbon (or 36 g carbon m-2 yr-1 on average over 374,000 km2 of forest). This impact converted the forest from a small net carbon sink to a large net carbon source both during and immediately after the outbreak. In the worst year, the impacts resulting from the beetle outbreak in British Columbia were equivalent to approx75% of the average annual direct forest fire emissions from all of Canada during 1959–1999. The resulting reduction in net primary production was of similar magnitude to increases observed during the 1980s and 1990s as a result of global change5. Climate change has contributed to the unprecedented extent and severity of this outbreak6. Insect outbreaks such as this represent an important mechanism by which climate change may undermine the ability of northern forests to take up and store atmospheric carbon, and such impacts should be accounted for in large-scale modelling analyses.
And wazzat again – The current outbreak in British Columbia, Canada, is an order of magnitude larger in area and severity than all previous recorded outbreaks !!!
I guess Dendroctonus ponderosae are just as to attractive tourists as them darn baaars !
Dear ladies, if the ice is melting in the arctic and this is a problem for polar bears what are we to do about it?
If the melting ice is from natural causes I think we can’t do anything unless somebody would like to establish a polar bear population in Antarctica. I guess there are plenty of penguins and antarctic researchers for them to eat.
If it is from man made causes maybe it is black carbon deposition that’s the main cause? This seems far more credible than CO2 especially given the different behaviour at the two poles. If this is so the black carbon problem can be fixed for far less cost and effort than CO2.
Thing is we just don’t know and before taking action that might be very expensive and possibly counterproductive we should find out. I’m not sure modern government financed science is up to it.
>Fine, how about we change the standard moniker of “alarmists” to “fascist a$$holes”.
LOL! Talk about stupid. You already use it!! Read back through what you lot write. The standard terms relate to Hitler, Nazis, Mugabe, Stalin, Mussolini, terrorists, Al-Qaeda, and that’s without going into the anatomical names you throw in.
But it’s totally different when you lot are on the receiving end isn’t it? How about we just call you hypocritical idiots?!! Sums up your behaviour and intellect. LOL!
Libby: Please don’t wind up Wes cause he wants to give us another chapter with each post.
Mark: “Funny how the pine forests made it through the medieval climate optimum”
Could it also be, there was no MWP in North America?
Eyrie: Carbon black or CO2, one shot kills both birds especially when it’s solar driven.
Come off it Eyrie – you have a greening tundra http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/33383/title/Forest_invades_tundra which says “hello I’m warming” and the Antarctic is surrounded by a colder southern ocean walled off by climate circulation. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2004/2004100617707.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/
Chapter One:
Luke said on July 17, 2008 03:26 PM
“If we warmers had our way yes we would pass a law to stop any dissenters from voting. It’s for their own good you know. We should probably stop them having children too.”
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003261.html
That’s a political statement pulled straight from a dark page of history. Sure you didn’t mean it? Just bashed it out on the keyboard and hit the post button. That’s the dialectic equivalent of a political Freudian Slip.
In the context of a concerted effort to pin the yellow star of “denialist” upon the vast diversity of opinions that have the temerity to question a politically powerful climate orthodoxy, it’s a very revealing emotional appeal to the dark side of human nature. It doesn’t say so much about who you are, Luke, but what you represent.
Of course, you didn’t mean it. You don’t have the political or historical consciousness to understand what you say, much less purposely assign meaning anything–other than a vague expression of irrational brutality. And that’s why it rings so true. You have unconsciously expressed the gestalt of AGW catastrophe politics.
Let’s read it again:
“If we warmers had our way yes we would pass a law to stop any dissenters from voting. It’s for their own good you know. We should probably stop them having children too.”
The moral superiority is there “It’s for their own good, you know.” Combined with brutal fantasies of oppression, justified by the certainty of moral superiority.
Chapter Two:
Luke also said:
“I think we need a register on right wing voters like you to keep tabs on your subversive activities. Special Branch in Qld used to do a good job on this sort of activity in a different direction. Might still be a few around for some tips.”
Of course, Luke didn’t mean it. It was just a drive-by Kristalllnacht joke. Right? And so utterly revealing of how the cycle of history turns.
More of Luke’s droll humour, on July 16, 9:34pm:
“License poofters not guns. Take the vote off the abo’s as they don’t know what they’re doing with it anyway. Ban ragheads from coming in and deport any of those here.”
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003260.html
Libby cheerfully adds, “I like the term denialist.”
Ah, the mundane gentleness of bigotry and bullying. It’s cute, it’s the latest fashion. It’s funny. Everyone is doing it these days! One just must to be in the consensus, you know! I like it!
In fact, logically, to call someone a denialist is to call for the debate to end. After all, debate with a denialist is futile, by definition.
Libby, Luke and anyone else here who feign rational debate on a “denialist” blog are transparently dishonest. You don’t pin yellow stars on people to respect their humanity or honour them with a dialog, you do it as a precursor to a pogrom.
When it becomes the fashionable accepted norm to ubiquitously wield bigotry against minority opinion in a society the cycle of history has begun to favour the irrational and brutal impulses in humanity.
Luke has shown he’s fully capable of imagining what the next step might be.
An quiet civic pogrom is already well advanced all around us today. I wonder how many “deniers” are left standing at the CSIRO or at the ABC. It’s bad for the health of one’s career even to express “denialists” views privately in relevant parts of the civil service in Canberra these days. It has become a positive reinforcing feedback loop in our polity, media and research institutions.
Luke’s secret register of denialists is a joke but to laugh it off as impossible is to take your civil liberties for granted at a time that curiously resembles some unsavory past moments in history.
As Libby cheerfully notes: “LOL! If it happened in the past it will happen in the future, isn’t that what you guys say?!”
Yes, that’s true.
Wessy Woo – yep it’s a parody of exactly the way you lot go on – it’s what you believe – I just thought I’d become both the stereotype you think we are – beyond El Creepo – and then conversely reflect the racist prejudicial undertones that lurk here all the time. What a lot like Ivan thinks.
A lot of this stuff and right wing politics all go together Wes. I didn’t invent those words – they’re all told to me by right wingers actually. Little drivels of venom that roll off the tongues so effortlessly. I didn’t think of them myself.
Haven’t heard you stopping Schiller going on about darkies in Africa just after he’s just accused us of wanting to kill them by denying them progress. Such mock concern. Yes it “REEKS”.
Who’s left at the ABC – jee – Michael Duffy rates pretty well.
And it is your jack-booted side of politics that ran the Qld Special branch keeping tabs on “political dissenters” not mine.
As for denialism – don’t whinge – the national newspaper, the Australian, is episodically sceptical. Andrew Bolt’s blog at the Herald Sun is massively popular. Tim Blair. So mate – do bung it on.
Looks like the opposition is going run against AGW now.
So when, Wessy Woo, you great hypocritical toad, start pulling over your fellow sceptics here, for conduct unbecoming and harsh words, we might reciprocate.
But hey until then Wes, what rhymes with banker.
You’re a dour bastard who doesn’t know when we’re taking the piss. Satire mate. Thanks for playing.
Kristallnacht is actually the corect spelling given yaw sew fussy.
“Travis: “If sceptics spent less time being hung up about being called denialists . . .”
Funnily enough, I actually agree with Travis on this point. There is an old saying that “no publicity is bad publicity” – the worst thing that can happen is that no-one says anything about you.
While all these AGW numb-nuts engage in all this childish name-calling, they are doing the sceptics’ cause a lot of good. As has been stated many times, none of these goombas are going to change their view. They will take it with them to their snow-filled ice-covered graves. In the meantime, a lot of punters are looking on and read all (or at least some) of their vitriol and are turned off by it. I can see it where I work – Luke has personally helped me convince several ‘waverers’ that there is more to this than the hysterical rantings of the nutters who want to silence debate.
So my advice would be – don’t complain about it any more than is necessary to keep the morons ranting. Believe me – they are doing the sceptics’ cause a whole lot of good.
wes george,
You don’t understand. The gorebull warmingists are so morally superior to the rest of us that every wrongdoing condemned by the rest of civilization is an option for them.
Bigotry, poverty, genocide and so forth are for them only bourgeois, pre-modern fantasies.
When we learn to embrace the post-modern model of the Ubergreenmensch, and rise above pedestrian concerns about food, clothing and general welfare, we can join their triumphant parade!
Exhibit A just above Wes. Not calling anyone “darkies” today Schiller?
Luke: “I actually don’t think anything…”
We know! We know!
How many times have I said exactly the same thing????
Gordon Robertson, for myself it is not a personal issue about being blocked from posting to UNrealclimate because it is about the meaning of science itself that is being twisted to one of theology. It is more about how certain “cock sure” rote learners propose a paradox as something real and you had better fearfully believe it or else. i.e. Mugabe has ways and means of silencing plausible argument and enforcing consensus. Similarly for Schmidt/Mann and co.
One of the characters that crops up on UNrealclimate and on DELTOID too, is this Mashey joker. He has been heavily involved in computer language design with some success but seems now concerned with designing consensus models for blog sites with his suggestions of killfile or devowelling of comments. Here we have a technocrat with a fictional view of life, attempting to design honest science into his theology. With climate we see he arrogantly promotes being accorded the privilege of designing earth’s climate. …. Cripes, what’s next then? Well let’s design CO2 quotas for people? Design when you should die? Design how you should think? Schemingly design people’s behaviour? Design clever mind viruses for inexorable playpens? Design a dumbed down madness in the world? Design the universe perhaps like with the big bang fiction?
The real problem for the Masheys in this world is that there resides in many people a will to truth driven by a curiosity as well as an altruism. i.e. The will to not allow ourselves to be deceived as well as the will not to deceive. Why should we allow some arrogant designer try to codify their domination by seeking to take these abilities from our lives?
It is a peculiar fact that cleverly designed mind viruses such as Al-AGW always operate to separate mind from body, mind from environment, mind from the material universe, producing damaged goods within a cosy confined playpen. It is for the very timid, lazeybrained, timmyboy (DELTOID) types rather than the much harder true achievement of human potential. In reference to these snug, smug playpens, let’s just dare to step out and take in the bigger picture EXPERIENCE because when we speak of “experience,” the “ex” refers to “external” or “outside,” which is what science is best at.
If i may add a bit more …. In our past we may have needed the good shepherd calling unto us consensus within a playpen but now we need the genial good gardener. Gardeners are veritable and so down to earth rather than obsessively looking inwards in search of the true self. Let’s all become good gardeners and flush this myth of exceptionalism down the dunny.
I’m sure the good gardiner would not ignore connectivity and see evolution as this process occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy. Our veritable, down to earth good gardener would speak of causality, uncertainty, inseparability, conservation, complementarity, irreversibility, infinity, materialism and interconnection as interrelated or consupponible.
Keiran – What dross on silencing dissent – Deltoid gave ranter Tilo Reber his own personal thread. Howzat ! Dudes like you are never satisfied. Take a hike.
Keirin…I agree with what you are saying. Many years ago, I came across some dialogs between the theoretical physicist David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti. Bohm was the kind of person who could be at the front line of thinking in quantum physics and still take time to attempt an understanding of where the mind fits in to reality.
Of course, Krishnamurti popularized the inherent weakness in human thought, and that’s the mind’s natural ability to confuse it’s thoughts with what it observes. The mind is an answer-seeking machine in its natural state and it often settles for rubbish as an answer, like the witch scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail.
He and Krishnamurti differentiated reality from actuality because the human mind has a propensity to create its own illusionary reality and believe it is real. Actuality, or “what is”, is what you’d find left here on Earth if all humans were removed from the planet. In other words, the distortions of the human mind would leave with it.
Many people regard scientists as super-human in a perfection sense. Scientists are prone to the same distorted thought as anyone else, given their conditioning. A few brilliant scientists like Einstein and Newton had the ability to see beyond the distortion in their minds. I think Feynman and Bohm were in that class too. Many scientists, however, get hung up on simple things like time and the Big Bang.
We humans invented time and it has no separate existence from human thought. In fact, Bohm and Krishnamurti spoke many times of time being thought and thought being time. The only way to see that is through awareness, a natural process that exists only when thought is quiet. Insight comes from awareness, and that may explain the naps Einstein was reported to take to sort things out. There is a process deeper than the human thought process, which is largely a regurgitation of memory, or learned events.
The problem I have with the IPCC and its adherents is their inability to say, “I don’t know”. They always have an answer, even if it’s just a probability. Part of their mandate is to reveal uncertainty if it is there. The fact they seldom invoke that privilege tells me they are bent on getting the CO2/warming message across no matter what. There is plenty of doubt about global warming theory,
Gordon,
Quite an insightful analysis.
“We humans invented time and it has no separate existence from human thought.”
I suspect it is even more complex that that – given that there are two concepts of time, one being linear (western thought) and the other being circular (indigenous and eastern thought).
http://aboriginalrights.suite101.com/article.cfm/linear_vs_circular_logic
The Indian and Chinese philosophy is based more on the circular logic – which probably helps to explain why they dismiss this AGW junk-science out of hand.
“…the human mind has a propensity to create its own illusionary reality and believe it is real. Actuality, or “what is”, is what you’d find left here on Earth if all humans were removed from the planet. In other words, the distortions of the human mind would leave with it.”
————
“A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that’s unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.”
Ludwig Wittgenstein
You missed the point, Luke. This doesn’t surprise because disinfecting some poor sods also asks them to think and find something for themselves. Just seems you have never found anything in your life.
One question then …. Have you been told from on high, your CO2 quota? If not then why not?
SJT said…There you go Jennifer and Paul, a perfect example of how the ‘sceptics’ are debasing science in general. I hope you guys are happy. Any more loopy conspiracy theories anyone else wants to bring out while we are here?
I would appreciate facts rather than innuendo. Then again, if you’re one of the global warming adherents, I wouldn’t expect anything different.
People are still dying from AIDS related diseases 25 years after the theory was developed. A recent vaccine was withdrawn because it doesn’t work. No one knows how HIV is supposed to defeat the immune system, and the most recent theory, viral loading, was revealed as the sick joke it was.
AIDS first showed up in North America in the steam baths of New York and San Francisco, where groups of homosexual males were having sex with multiple partners. They were doing up to six designer drugs, among them amyl nitrate and cocaine. The next highest risk group for AIDS was the IV drug users. Since then, it has been acknowledges that the amyl nitrate is causing the lung cancer listed as an AIDS opportunistic infection. It’s inhaled and causes cancer in the lung’s lining.
Do you understand that or is it too complex for you? You have males doing dangerous drugs and having anal sex with multiple partners. Robert Gallo started people looking for a virus because he had been looking for a viral cause of cancer. There was no peer review done and the most obvious cause of AIDS, then and now, was overlooked and it still is being overlooked.
Call that a conspiracy if you want. What I’d be concerned about if I was you is you’re inability to decipher between rhetoric spewed by the media and real science. We are no closer to finding a solution for AIDS 30 years after it was first identified. That’s exactly where we’re heading with this global warming nonsense.
wes george…”A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that’s unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.”
don’t laugh, that happened to me once. I was working in an old-folks home late on a Friday afternoon. I was in the concrete exit of the third floor elevator that led onto the roof. I had come in from the roof and closed the door behind me to do work in that area. When I tried to open the door, it was locked.
I panicked because the rest of the crews were leaving for the weekend, the elevator was turned off, and my tools were outside. Turned out the doors are designed that way to prevent the old folk getting out. Normally, a door like that would lock on the outside and open from the inside.
I got out by banging on the elevator door and shouting. Of course, anyone who heard me thought I was joking, but eventually some kind soul took me seriously.
So, there’s your exception. Your adage works as long as the door isn’t in an old folks home.
Ivan said…”We humans invented time and it has no separate existence from human thought.”
I suspect it is even more complex that that – given that there are two concepts of time, one being linear (western thought) and the other being circular (indigenous and eastern thought).
The point is Ivan, a concept is a thought and can exist only in the human mind. Gravitational force is a phenomenon that exists despite the human mind, or what it thinks. We have created time as a concept so it doesn’t matter if the concept is Eastern or Western. We visualize gravitational force conceptually, and even calculate it in the same way, but the force is not the thought. Even the word “force” comes from the human mind although there is a reality that the word describes.
We have defined the second, initially based on the rotation of the Earth, and now based on an oscillation in a cesium atom. We have also developed machines to keep tract of seconds, minutes and hours, but they are not measuring anything real, they are machines. In other words, there is no independent reality on which to base the second.
Way back in the time of the Egyptians, or before, humans had little need of the rigorous time system we use now. Our lives are based on time, even though it’s representation is an illusion in our minds. If you examine how you represent time in your mind, you will see it’s like a line of some kind with the past at one end and the future at the other. Ancient people probably never had that illusion because they didn’t use hours, decades and years, and had no need of it. Time to them was probably light and dark.
Gordon: “Many people regard scientists as super-human in a perfection sense. Scientists are prone to the same distorted thought as anyone else, given their conditioning. A few brilliant scientists like Einstein and Newton had the ability to see beyond the distortion in their minds. I think Feynman and Bohm were in that class too. Many scientists, however, get hung up on simple things like time and the Big Bang” also the concept of infinity.
Through the trees –A few pages back when we had a lot of posts on the subject of energy bumping into and vibrating molecules of CO2, I started to recall a lesson from one of my mentors, mathematics is only a language. Sorry Shorty.
Math certainly was developed for communicating concepts in physics however calculus in particular was evolved around the imperfections of theories in science. Some of us knew the simplicity of e = mc sqd was too good to cover all but it was a starting point.
That’s why Wes who loves perfection in language avoids calculus hey.
As one who used to read a lot of technical reports for a crust I need to drop all references to blogs, economics, politics and a fair bit of Johnny come lately “science” to get a grip on what could be a lumpy transition from one practical age to another.
After considering Jim Peden’s www pages that seek to simplify the greenhouse arguments I went looking for complexity that could not be so swiftly brushed under the carpet . There is a useful introduction to high speed energy issues here with a level similar to Jim’s.
/cellphonesafety.wordpress.com/category/quantum-waves/
Way back in a small burst of formal physics, our class took a quick look at metaphysics, issues like standing waves in space (these days we could add circular standing waves ) to engage briefly with stuff difficult to understand in terms of practical implications.
I eventually did get into transducers and their workings across the em spectrum. One big consideration in the real world is polarization and imperfections with standing waves after some form of scattering with things like salt pans that emerge after construction of fixed equipment sites. Did I have time to measure it? No, but we had to proceed the reconstruction of spectrum users. A similar issue applies to long haul links over water.
This low end planning, installation, evaluation etc also applies to the top end of EMF processing. IR measurement at altitude must likewise be plagued with gaps between theory and practice. But let’s get back to nature for a mo with this gem,
http://optics.org/cws/article/research/34196
Then compare with this man made low end MW effort that can look through the trees.
http://www.radiolabs.com/products/antennas/2.4gig/non-line-of-sight-panel-wifi-antenna.php
To get back on thread we see lots of references to papers that purport to slay one piece of evidence or another particularly in regard to GCM’s, various feedback mechanisms, tipping points etc but how experienced are our “technical” writers in these fabulous new instrument developments. What are our latest probes gathering? Maybe it’s only a relatively poor relationship with the actual energy that we should associate with a particular group of frequencies.
Find me a thread reference to how energy at any frequency is gathered and related to say temperature at one layer or another in all the fluids that need analysis by remote sensing.
How good are the sensors up in space at detecting the tiniest spherical waves in all their glory through the trees?
Gordon,
“a concept is a thought and can exist only in the human mind”
Agree with all that. The point I was making is that not all cultures view time as the same concept – which in turn leads to differences in what they consider to be important.
Western culture, indeed, views time as having a past at one end and a future at the other. This philosophy is susceptible to AGW alarmism and ‘concern for the future’. Eastern culture, which views time as circular, is not so susceptible to this phoney AGW concern for the future.
“Way back in time .. humans had little need of the rigorous time system”
More recent than that. The need for a rigourous time system dates to the founding of the Royal Observatory in 1675 to solve the problem of finding longitude at sea. Everything went downhill from there.
Well, I did have to laugh, Gordon.
Yet your point is well taken. How many times a day do we all try to fit a square peg into a round hole and instead of shifting our paradigm, we reach for the bloody hammer!
Hansen, Briffa, Jones, Mann, et al, just to name a few rocket scientists have huge analytical mallets which they beat their datasets with on a daily basis.
I remember my father telling me that when he was at university in the late 1940’s the physics grad students had to pass around a well worn copy of Einstein theories and debate quantum theory on their own time at a local pub. They literally had to wait for the ancient head of school professor to die for it to enter the curriculum! Then the paradigm shifted overnight. As Kieran would point out: it was a case of punctuated evolution.
I’m afraid we have a new orthodoxy in AGW theory and too many big egos have built careers upon it to let it go, merely because it is false! The science is settled.
Hey, Luke, have you tried pulling inward on the door of your padded cell lately, mate?
Although important in their time I do not put Newton nor Einstein on some pedestal. Einstein for example postulated that empty space is a possibility however even from when i was a child 50 years ago i naturally assumed empty space to be an impossibility. This gave me the larger philosophical picture that nonexistence itself is impossible. i.e. The universe is infinite and consists only of matter in motion. There is nothing else.
Ivan,
Thanks for providing something relevant. I agree that the paper by Monnett and Gleason is jumping on the the AGW/polar bear. To be fair to them they have noted it as “observations” (which are important in themselves), but they should have left it at that. It did them and their research no real favours.
“Please don’t wind up Wes cause he wants to give us another chapter with each post.”
Gavin he does it all by himself…..
“Libby cheerfully adds, “I like the term denialist.””
Libby initially wrote this at July 26, 2008 04:52 PM. This is after James Mayeau wrote at
at July 26, 2008 11:41 AM:
“I like the term deniar. Also I am fond of the term alarmist. They are direct and to the point.
It cuts down on confusion.”
I’m glad you can tell my emotional state when I post something here Wes. It really is an amazing power you have. One simple cognitive power you don’t have is to rationally read what has been written and follow it through as a logical sequence.
Another example:
“As Libby cheerfully notes: “LOL! If it happened in the past it will happen in the future, isn’t that what you guys say?!””
Libby initially wrote this at July 26, 2008 08:28 PM. This is after Libby noted to Eyrie at July 25, 2008 11:24 PM:
“I guess if it happened in the past it will happen in the future. Good thinking.”
So again you have this amazing power to know my emotional state at the keyboard but can’t simply comprehend what has been written previously.
“You don’t pin yellow stars on people to respect their humanity or honour them with a dialog, you do it as a precursor to a pogrom.”
Yes and I guess this comment is ok:
“It is more about how certain “cock sure” rote learners propose a paradox as something real and you had better fearfully believe it or else. i.e. Mugabe has ways and means of silencing plausible argument and enforcing consensus. Similarly for Schmidt/Mann and co.”
Wes, you’re not here for anything constructive, you’re here to troll. For someone who has supposedly been reading the archives you have the stupidity to tell me I’m European. That is just the start of the idiotic self beliefs you have been writing about me. As Gordon Robertson wrote: “I would appreciate facts rather than innuendo.” Information and rational discussion is what I am interested in Wes, not engaging with trolls like you.
“In fact, logically, to call someone a denialist is to call for the debate to end. After all, debate with a denialist is futile, by definition.”
That’s the most sensible thing you have written here. It’s exactly why I “like” the term with regards to posters like you. Nothing to do with YOUR pogroms and the Holocaust.
Schiller I notice you have nothing to add here regarding Arctic seals. How surprising you choose to taunt rather than teach.
“In the meantime, a lot of punters are looking on and read all (or at least some) of their vitriol and are turned off by it.”
Too true Ivan. My research colleagues find this site a hoot and can’t wait for the next instalment, which I’m sure Wes will bless them with. (And I wrote that with a “distinctly unsavoury” “pleasurable” “hatred”!!)
Libby,
Since your post is addressed to me – can you please clear up one thing for me?
What was your point in simply quoting a paragraph from JP’s opening, and then dumping an 1800+ word cut-&-paste regurgitation from a couple of highly suspect and opportunistic reports on top of everyone?
It’s bad enough that Luke constantly bombards us with endless links, but at least he does occasionally provide us with some amusement – and on rare occasions – some insight.
But to dump approx. 3 pages worth of quotes on everyone – as if that actually PROVED anything – then retreat behind the coward’s shield of “I’m not here to debate the politics” -and- lecture everyone on ethics is (in my humble opinion) simply being lazy. No analysis – no commentary – nothing of any value. And you wonder why people respond the way they did.
“To be fair to them they have noted it as “observations” (which are important in themselves), but they should have left it at that. It did them and their research no real favours.”
.. and would you please quit apologising for these worthless hacks. There are plenty more where this one came from.
gavin; interesting link; I was reminded of the movie Predator; a movie made initially by that greenie big Arnie; and there is a certain irony in a body altered future politician supporting heuristic deplenished naturalism, making a S-F movie about a creature whose perception of reality is so much greater than humans by virtue of its ability to perceive through-out the radiative spectrum; the thought experiment is; how would the ability to perceive in the IR alter humans’ consciousness and definition of reality; nature is vast and our methods of overcoming our natural limitations of perception is to apply our technological ability; at a time when our technological ability is taking us further into understanding ourselves and our surroundings, AGW, or at least a part of it, seems to want to put a lid on our development.
Keiran; nothing is empty in quantum physics, and one of the more speculative sources of energy, casimir, is based on that fact; there remains a slight engineering problem of harnessing the manifest energy, but no doubt we could hook up a few windmills to power the PA.
Speaking of novel energy types, Einstein’s work on the cosmological constant (cc) has led to a method of solving general covariance, the ultimate form of determinism is which time and space are frozen and determined. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe due to a value of lamda, the measure of the cc, being greater than zero, means, amongst other things, that not only is time not frozen, but that dark energy may have a quantifiable value and be harnessable. With time fluid the success of the AGW is not certain and the IPCC empire may yet be beaten by Roy unluke Sky-Spencer and his gallant band of non-consensus warriors.
“Kristallnacht is actually the corect spelling given yaw sew fussy”
This is a very good example of a non sequitur.
(Subtle) :-0
gavin said ….Find me a thread reference to how energy at any frequency is gathered and related to say temperature at one layer or another in all the fluids that need analysis by remote sensing.
How good are the sensors up in space at detecting the tiniest spherical waves in all their glory through the trees?
The second link you supplied is right up my alley since I’m in the electronics/electricel field. I can tell you right off that the ad for WiFi antennas is making inferences to sell its product. For one thing, the 15 dB gain they mention doesn’t come from the antenna but from the amplifier with it.
I don’t understand why they’re making a big deal about polarized signals spiraling between trees. That’s not how it works. Normal antennas are set up for vertical or horizontal polarization anyway but I don’t know of any signals that have trouble fitting between trees (ie. the are not talking about a signal going ‘through’ a tree).
If you take a radio out camping with you, in the forest, it will still pick up radio stations broadcasting at 1000 Khz, never mind 2 Ghz. Radio waves find their way into your house, through walls, so why would they have trouble finding their way between trees? I use WiFI on my router and the antenna is on the back of the computer, in a corner, while the receiver is across the room on a shelf behind me. It’s not in sight of the antenna, the signals bounce of solid surfaces to get there.
In the atmosphere, two basic methods are used for gathering temperature data. The weather balloons, or radiosondes, use a thermister because it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to read a normal thermometer, and convert the signal to an analog reading, which would then be converted to digital, encoded, and sent as a normal telemetry signal to Earth.
The thermister is a resistor that changes it’s resistance with temperature. It’s very sensitive and accurate if used within its range. The temperature in the atmosphere would be well within that range. I would think the manufacturer/designer would have it protected from direct sunlight since it’s not a good idea to subject any electronic device to direct sunlight. Another problem mentioned was icing, but the people who design those systems are not dummies.
The satellites use a microwave unit (MSU) that measures the intensity of weak microwave radiation emitted to space by oxygen at certain layers of the atmosphere. The magnitude of this intensity is proportional to air temperature.
That technology is nothing new. Radiotelescopes have been mapping the universe using radiation from molecules and atoms that are light years away. Optical telescopes don’t tell you much about stars and other phenomena. Atoms absorb and emit energy at a specific frequency, and by knowing the frequency, it is possible to identify the atom/molecule emitting or absorbing it.
In our atmosphere, they know oxygen radiates in the microwave frequency range at specific frequencies. They also know the amount of radiation changes with temperature. By tuning into those frequencies they can tell the atmospheric temperature at certain layers. It’s supposed to be very accurate.
Satellites are good for gathering temperature data because they sweep the entire Earth. Surface thermometers are placed only in certain locations and it’s not easy to have them in the ocean. Weather balloons are also localized.
The thermister in the radiosondes is detecting air temperature directly as it passes through it. It’s exactly the same as hanging a thermometer on your wall at home. The arguement has been that the Sun is warming the thermister directly, just as a surface thermometer would be if it was not contained in an enclosure.
I don’t understand that arguement at all. The temperatures measured by the sondes and the satellites use two different technologies yet they agree with each other. If the thermisters were heated or cooled artificially, their readings would be all over the place and they would not agree with the satellite temperatures.
I think the attack on the satellite/sonde data is deliberate and aimed at discrediting the data. Then we would have nothing but computer model data to believe. I realize that’s cynical, but the satellite data is relied on by weather forecasters. That’s why the satellites are there, to predict weather. If the readings are no good, why are the weather people not complaining?
Here’s a link for you:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/jchristy.html
This is from one of the only scientists in the world who does this kind of work.
I looked up another link on MSU’s and it took me to Wikipedia. Knowing better, I held my nose and read it anyway. I pointed out that William Connolly is a computer programmer and a contributor to realclimate.org. He’s also an editor at Wikipedia. Click the ‘Discussion’ tab at the top of the page and read the immature nonsense he spews as an editor on that page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/satellite_temperature_record
Hope you don’t go blind reading that drivel. 🙂 Remember to click ‘Discussion’ tab at top of page.
For one, he has ammended the satellite data graph for UAH and RSS to the values he…a computer programmer…thinks they should be. The graph on the Wikipedia site is totally wrong and obviously skewed to emphasize global warming. For another, he ridicules people like John Christy and Fred Singer, two eminent climate scientists. Remember…Connolly is a computer programmer who edits scientific work by real scientists. You have to be pretty arrogant, never mind deluded, to do that.
Gordon
well put.
Ivan,
ALL of this post is addressed to you. I’m frightfully sorry if you did not understand that in my last post only the FIRST paragraph was addressed to you. I hope that is clear now.
“What was your point in simply quoting a paragraph from JP’s opening, and then dumping an 1800+ word cut-&-paste regurgitation from a couple of highly suspect and opportunistic reports on top of everyone?”
It is your opinion the reports are highly suspect. You have already made it clear that you don’t value anything Stirling or Derocher does, which has so far had nothing to do with their research.
My point? Here we go again…In response to a comment by Wes I wrote:
“Sigh…JP claims “Polar bear populations are at near record levels and seem healthy, and even I have seen them playing around on floating ice chunks in the Arctic summer. They are a terrestrial animal,”
I provided a small amount of information refuting JP’s claim. This includes population assessments suggesting otherwise and the fact that although polar bears may spend time on the land, they get most of the nutrition they need from pagophilic pinnipeds (to use a term Travis loves to bandy about). So far there has not been any substantiated evidence supporting JP’s claims.””
It’s simple really.
“It’s bad enough that Luke constantly bombards us with endless links, but at least he does occasionally provide us with some amusement – and on rare occasions – some insight.”
Perhaps Luke is hoping you will read the links and learn something, or see the point he is trying to get across? It’s an odd concept I know. I’m not here to provide you with amusement, and if you don’t get any insight, it’s your opinion and I am not necessarily at fault.
“as if that actually PROVED anything…”
It isn’t going to PROVE anything to those that don’t want to have things PROVEN to them. Your mind is made up Ivan.
“- then retreat behind the coward’s shield of “I’m not here to debate the politics” -and- lecture everyone on ethics is (in my humble opinion) simply being lazy.”
A coward’s shield and no debate? I have debated here Ivan, but not in the way you and Wes do it.
And yes, it is your opinion about being lazy and lecturing on ethics, like just about everything you and Wes have written to me is opinion-based.
“No analysis – no commentary – nothing of any value. And you wonder why people respond the way they did.”
The main “people” are you and Wes. Say no more. If I provided no commentary it is because I let the two articles speak for themselves. Like no one else has done that before?! For some unknown reason I took it that readers would be able to actually READ it and see that what was written did not concur with what JP had concluded. If there is no value there Ivan, then that is your opinion. I’ve been with this blog for a long time and I see little point in involving myself with too much commentary. The poster gets attacked, not what they have posted. (But being a hatred-filled European bigot, what would I know?)
“.. and would you please quit apologising for these worthless hacks.”
No.
Well Gordon if you weren’t so blinkered how come Christy got a cooling trend form a data set that upon review as actually warming. What ratshit science. Wake up. Of course it would be adjusted. Singer is an eminent climate scientist – what bunk.
I don’t thing you know the first thing about cleaning up biases in satellite data. It’s a major field. You’re clueless about all this – it’s just drifting past your window.
Cohenite, i don’t glorify Einstein with much at all and certainly with this silly cosmological constant that has been used to support an expanding universe fiction. It’s fiction mate, because just what is the universe expanding into … itself? lol
It is because Einstein came up with this mystical matterless motion crap that he then proposed this next bit of nonsense called curved space. Like how can anyone, even myself fifty years ago, be expected to believe that “nothingness” exists, that everything in the vast expanse of the known universe came from “nothingness” and the clincher, that this “nothingness” is curved even though it contains nothing at all. Very simply, if scientists are not interested in causality as with much of Einstein’s work, then they are not scientists.
ps Luke, have you been told from on high, your CO2 quota yet? If not then why not?
Well Luke and Gavin missed the point completely as usual.
The key driver in the whole mountain pine beetle problem is that nature’s primary method of preventing it, the natural occurrence of forest fires, has been disrupted by man. Climate, for which there is no proof it has been materially altered by man, may be an additional factor. However, since you two have unlikely ever been to Canada, it still get’s really f*cking cold here in the winter!
Yes and that’s the point – it’s expanded it’s range dramatically. Read the research above. Fire is only a bit of the story. This is just one example – many species shifts observed and documented in the recent Nature paper. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/34211
You guys keep inventing excuses for the obvious. It’s called “a body of evidence”.
Libby,
I’m not quite sure why you feel the need to vent your spleen at me. In fact, if I go back over the record of posts above, I notice the following (in chronological order):
– Posted by you at July 25, 2008 11:24 PM – Gratuitous snipe: “Too true Joel! You can’t teach a dead parrot.”
– Posted by you at July 25, 2008 11:32 PM – Gratuitous snipe: “And you wonder why you get labelled as denialists?”
– Posted by you at July 26, 2008 12:13 AM – Gratuitous snipe: “Remember the dead bird”
– Posted by wes george at July 26, 2008 12:23 AM – Bit of a rant, but nothing exceptional
– Posted by you at July 26, 2008 08:28 AM – “Or are you happy just to snipe from the sidelines” (Wow!)
– Posted by you at July 26, 2008 12:16 PM – An assertion that “especially when you are so obviously biased about this issue.”
– Posted by you at July 26, 2008 04:52 PM – Gratuitous snipe: “I like the term denialist too”
And finally: wes george’s download at July 26, 2008 10:20 PM. I’m amazed that he was able to restrain himself for as long as he did.
To me it is apparent that your sole purpose in posting the content-free polar bear item was to deliberately provoke a reaction and then to use that as a basis for launching into a few routine childish insults. If so, then you can’t complain when you achieve the desired result. Just please spare us all the sanctimonious bull$hit that “the poster gets attacked, not what they have posted”.
As you can see from the above – it’s definitely the latter.
Gordon: “It’s not in sight of the antenna, the signals bounce of solid surfaces to get there”
Bouncing signals and mw plumbing is one of those practical rhelms I frequently refer to here that is as much engineering craft as it is science
Mark: It’s been minus several degrees C at elevation 600 M every morning for the past few days.
A key Q: Was it forests or fires, that was first altered by man?
Whatever Ivan. You’re a troll and I’m not interested.
Thank you for proving my point.
“Do you understand that or is it too complex for you? You have males doing dangerous drugs and having anal sex with multiple partners. Robert Gallo started people looking for a virus because he had been looking for a viral cause of cancer. There was no peer review done and the most obvious cause of AIDS, then and now, was overlooked and it still is being overlooked.”
For gods sake, they’ve photographs of the little buggers now. Is that enough proof?
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t012/T012326A.jpg&imgrefurl=http://encarta.msn.com/media_461554842/aids_virus.html&h=340&w=480&sz=29&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=j4sWc_uLjB3vbM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daids%2Bvirus%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN
Gavin: “Could it also be, there was no MWP in North America?
Luckman and Wilson (2005) used new tree-ring data from the Columbia Icefield area of the Canadian Rockies to develop a significant update to a millennial temperature reconstruction published for this region in 1997. The new update employed the increasingly-utilized regional curve standardization method, in an effort to capture a greater degree of low frequency variability (centennial to millennial scale) than reported in the initial study. In addition, the new data set added over one hundred years to the chronology, which now covers the period 950-1994 and reveals that generally warmer conditions prevailed during the 11th and 12th centuries, between about 1350-1450 and from about 1875 through the end of the record. The warmest reconstructed summer occurred in 1434 and was 0.23¡C warmer than the next warmest summer that occurred in 1967. Persistent cold conditions prevailed between 1200-1350, 1450-1550 and 1650-1850, with the 1690s being exceptionally cold (more than 0.4¡C colder than other intervals). The new Columbia Icefield record thus provides further evidence for natural climate fluctuations on centennial-to-millennial time scales and demonstrates, once again, that temperatures of the present era are no different from those observed during the Medieval Warm Period (11-12th centuries) or the Little Medieval Warm Period (1350-1450). And since we know that atmospheric CO2 concentrations had nothing to do with the warm conditions of those earlier periods, they likely have nothing to do with the warm temperatures of the modern era. In fact, Luckman and Wilson note that their temperature reconstruction “appears to indicate a reasonable response of local trees to large-scale forcing of climates, with reconstructed cool conditions comparing well with periods of known low solar activity,” which is a nice way of saying that the sun is probably the main driver of these low frequency temperature trends.
Oh, and by the way, resident climate alarmerists please temporarily remove your heads from your preferred darkened locales and note the last sentence in the item posted above!
“”a lack of cold winters to wipe out the beetles and curb the infestations is also to blame.”
Yeh, Luke but note that this is raised as a second factor after the primary one regarding forest management (“While the abundance of food is behind the population explosion”).
Yes the temperatures have been warmer in the past few decades but since this is likely to be a natural phenomena anyway it isn’t the root source of the problem, forest managment is. Below is listed the average mean minimum temperature for the coldest month for Prince George which is at the heart of the outbreak:
1913 -21.3
1914 -12.3
1915 -17.4
1916 -30.8
1917 -18.8
1918 -16.1
1919 -17.6
1920 -19.0
1921 -16.0
1922 -25.5
1923 -16.2
1924 -13.1
1925 -21.2
1926 -7.2
1927 -17.3
1928 -13.0
1929 -19.8
1930 -27.3
1931 -7.7
1932 -13.9
1933 -16.3
1934 -22.2
1935 -20.7
1936 -32.6
1937 -27.6
1938 -15.3
1939 -17.7
1940 -14.9
1941 -11.2
1942 -10.3
1943 -18.6
1944 -10.6
1945 -14.5
1946 N/A
1947 N/A
1948 N/A
1949 N/A
1950 N/A
1951 N/A
1952 N/A
1953 -18.9
1954 -21.9
1955 -14.2
1956 -20.8
1957 -26.4
1958 -12.0
1959 -16.2
1960 -14.7
1961 -10.2
1962 -14.8
1963 -17.4
1964 -9.4
1965 -19.8
1966 -18.5
1967 -13.4
1968 -13.8
1969 -29.1
1970 -16.7
1971 -15.7
1972 -22.2
1973 -16.6
1974 -20.2
1975 -17.8
1976 -11.0
1977 -11.1
1978 -16.4
1979 -23.0
1980 -18.4
1981 -6.7
1982 -21.4
1983 -10.3
1984 -20.6
1985 -19.7
1986 -19.7
1987 -8.0
1988 -15.0
1989 -19.8
1990 -13.1
1991 -19.8
1992 -5.9
1993 -16.3
1994 -15.6
1995 -12.4
1996 -21.5
1997 -13.5
1998 -14.1
1999 -10.4
2000 -15.8
2001 -15.5
2002 -12.4
2003 -9.8
2004 -14.3
2005 -14.6
2006 -10.9
2007 -10.2
2008 -14.1
Note that there were a number of years in the late 30’s to mid 40’s where it was just as warm as today. Didn’t see any mass outbreak then did we?
So what caused the problem in the first palce?
From the Economist, July 3, 2008:
“Some forest scientists trace the current outbreak to 1994, when provincial-government foresters, fearing the ire of greens, failed to eradicate a small infestation in a provincial park by cutting and burning.”
So here we have it again, the ecofreaks causing havoc again going along with the millions killed from malaria due to the DDT ban, the people drowned in New Orleans due to the blockage of the construction of appropriate flood defenses, and the bowls of food effectively ripped out of the hands of starving children by the biofuels farce!
This thread was meant to be about the existence or otherwise of a Climate Crisis. I guess a dubious article about polar bear populations is meant to be evidence that there is one?
Even so no evidence that human activity caused it or that anything we do could “fix” it.
Sorry ladies but if we’re meant to severely impact on the interests of 6.5 billion human beings for a few thousand polar bears it will just be too bad for the bears. Their problem can be fixed. I favour the semi auto version of the Barrett .50 cal rifle.
“Sorry ladies but if we’re meant to severely impact on the interests of 6.5 billion human beings for a few thousand polar bears it will just be too bad for the bears. Their problem can be fixed. I favour the semi auto version of the Barrett .50 cal rifle.”
Um, yeah, right.
Eyrie – brilliant line of thinking. Ever occur to you that that might just be one species affected?
Mark – very minimalist analysis – one datum point and averages.
And it’s not just BC – there are other areas too. e.g. Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Idaho, Utah and Washington http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2008-07-15-beetle-threat_N.htm
Also try extreme cold days not average monthly minima.
Trees in some areas are affected by drought.
And warmer temperature overall assist insects in going through their life cycles more quickly.
The effect is also moving upslope to areas not usually affected.
I’ll ignore your own advice Eyrie about not feeding trolls to answer you.
Why is the article dubious Eyrie? You didn’t appear to even read it.
Speaking of reading, you have selectivley ignored why the article(s) were posted.
I’m sure the 6.5 billion people will happily agree with you that letting the people of the Arctic wither away is a great idea. Now go away and pretend you really give a damn about the 6.5 billion others.
“-Also try extreme cold days not average monthly minima.
-Trees in some areas are affected by drought.
-And warmer temperature overall assist insects in going through their life cycles more quickly.
-The effect is also moving upslope to areas not usually affected.”
It’s becoming obvious to me why you rant and rave like a lunatic all the time. It’s clear that you spend every waking moment fretting over the future survival chances of every bug, every insect, every tree – every everything in the universe. I’m exhausted just contemplating the scope of it all. And to think that the dinosaurs lived for 300 million years without you and all your gubmint science boys running around worrying them to death.
Err nope – just a multi-billion dollar timber resource at stake you pig ignorant loon. Not only are you pathetically ignorant about matters meteorological but your biological knowledge is non-existent. It’s called – an E-CO-SYS-TUM. Yes mmmmm …. i.e. you’re an idiot. I’ve yet to see one intelligent comment from you Ivan – what actually do you do for a living – prop up walls with your forehead ?
Now buzz off.
>I favour the semi auto version of the Barrett .50 cal rifle.”
LOL! Of course you do Eyrie. We wouldn’t expect anything less. Maybe you could use it to literally shoot your mouth off?
>I’ve yet to see one intelligent comment from you Ivan
Well he is very, very accurate with his name tags Luke.
Be gentle on them Luke. They really are a caring, sharing lot who have all the answers and really just want to help. Pffft!
Mark: “Luckman and Wilson (2005) used new tree-ring data from the Columbia Icefield area of the Canadian Rockies to develop a significant update to a millennial temperature reconstruction published for this region in 1997”
When did tree rings = thermometer?
IMO tree rings are a dubious climate indicator at best Mark.
“And what if we don’t do anything different for the next ten years. Then what will happen over the next century. What is this mythical tipping point that we will reach if we do exactly what we have been doing? What is your idiot friend Al Gore talking about SJT. Give me the scenarios and the numbers.”
Read the IPCC report.
gavin: “IMO tree rings are a dubious climate indicator at best Mark.”
Well maybe in the hands of a hack like Michael Mann!
Well like them as an indicator or not, it this case the results support the notion that the MWP wasn’t just a European phenomena. Hell even Luke admits to that with his continuous outbursts about the maya.
Thanks for the link Luke!
Let’s see, what does it say?
– The current pine beetle infestation is the worst since 1981, when 4.7 million acres of trees were infected, Mangold said. He blames the outbreak on a perfect storm of drought, large stands of old trees and, POSSIBLY, warmer temperatures because of climate change
– While the impact has been enormous, Mangold said, the mountain pine beetle is a native insect that, along with fire, does play a role in the regeneration of lodgepole pines.
The pines have a hard cone that won’t open without a hot fire, he said. When the cones open, they dump out seed, creating a thick forest of trees of the same age. When the trees hit 80 to 90 years old, they weaken and become susceptible to the mountain pine beetle. The beetles kill the trees, creating more dry fuel for those fires, he said.
– “But the forests are in a state where we’d have this kind of epidemic probably with or without these temperatures,” he said.
Now let’s check U.S temperature history.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MainUSAan.html
Holy Luke is bull$hitting us again Batman! Aren’t the temperatures back in the 1930’s just as warm as we saw recently until the recent cooling of the planet? Where’s the histroy on the major outbreaks then? If temperature is a factor, where’s the proof that this has anything to do with CO2, especially given the equivalence of recent temperatures with those back in the 1930’s.
Give it up Luke! You’re just further building up your reputation as a climate moron!
Mark, are you sure Luke’s right into the MWP on a global basis? Besides, we havent quite nailed the human impact on forests with fires that far back.
Did you read the article slowly?
He blames the outbreak on a perfect storm of drought, large stands of old trees and, possibly, warmer temperatures because of climate change
This is one of the canary-in-the-coal-mine warning signs,” he said. !!!!!
The beetles are now moving into higher elevations, where bitter winter temperatures used to keep them at bay, Logan said. !!!!!!!!!
Mangold agrees warming temperatures are playing a role in the current outbreak. !!!!!!!
“But the forests are in a state where we’d have this kind of epidemic probably with or without these temperatures,” he said.
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070811/NEWS/708110306
Your temperature analysis shows who is the silly person – no spatial analysis and no analysis of extremes. Really – pathetic ….
And see the paper above I quoted on changes in the tundra – warming affects biology – it’s very basic.
By the time you wake up to these very early signs it will be all over ! This is just the beginning.
Christ! Looks like the climate Nazis are working on creating little climate Hitler youth in Luke’s image:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/hey-kids-be-a-climate-cop-rat-on-your-family-friends-and-classmates/
And on the beetles, this is your own f*cking quote in your immediate post above:
“But the forests are in a state where we’d have this kind of epidemic probably with or without these temperatures,” he said.
Yep that’s what he said. What words DON’T you understand? Speaka da Engish? Stop trying to blame things on global warming when that’s not the primary factor. My daughter’s pet rat has a boil on its ass – is that from global warming too Luke?
Luke…from an online dictionary…
troll
Noun
a person who posts deliberately inflammatory messages on an internet discussion board
Verb
to post such a message
Happy trolling.
“Christ! Looks like the climate Nazis are working on creating little climate Hitler youth in Luke’s image:”
Mark – Ender has volunteered to look after the organisation of the Brownshirts. Luke will make cameo appearances to rant when required.
SJT said, as he/she pulled out his/her hair…For gods sake, they’ve photographs of the little buggers now. Is that enough proof?
🙂
Easy now, there’s an explanation. For one, you’re referencing Encarta, Microsoft’s propaganda outlet. Bill Gates is till trying to give his money away for an HIV vaccine for Africans rather than giving them clean water and food. I imagine, to him, giving them free water and food would be some kind of communism, whereas giving them a vaccine that doesn’t work is noble.
In the link I gave you before, there’s a FAQ, and it covers photos published on the net about HIV. Here’s the link to that FAQ page:
http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question3.html
The thing I like about Eleni Papadoupolis is that she doesn’t rave. She just gives you the scientific facts, and she does it with a clarity that a layman can understand. Yet, she can’t get published in scientific journals. John Christy is claiming the same thing in the global warming debate, which doesn’t surprise me since mathematicians like Gavin Schmidt work for those journals and computer programmers like William Connolly are editors at Wikipedia.
So what does Eleni say about all this? First, she points you to a link from the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases:
http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html
If you look at those pictures of HIV, they look nothing like the one you linked to at Encarta, so who’s fooling who? The photos that do appear on Eleni’s link are pathetic, but none moreso than the Encarta photo.
Why do they need diagrams and computer graphics models along with the pictures? It’s obvious isn’t it? The photos are bogus. If there were legitimate photos of the virus, there would be no need for drawings.
As Eleni points out, none identify the source or nature of the material photographed and none have a size bar. She claims further, “From the scientific point of view this is both highly unprofessional and unsatisfactory because the dimension of particles is critical to taxonomy”.
Doh!! A professional outfit posts pictures of HIV that are small and blurry, and they don’t give a reference size bar to measure them. Furthermore, they say nothing about the cell culture or the background material. In other words, they say that is HIV and everyone has to take their word for it. For all we know, we could be looking at pictures of mouse crap.
Further on, she says this: “3. In no HIV “infected” cultures to date are there particles which fulfil the Gelderblom definition. That is, that display both principle morphological characteristics of retroviruses, that is “a diameter of 100-120nm” AND surfaces which “are studded with projections (spikes, knobs)”.
If someone is going to post a picture of an HIV virus, it requires a size scale to show it is between 100 and 120nm (nanometres). It also must have studded projections. Do you see anything like that in the Encarta picture or on the other site?
I have seen those pictures before and I’m wondering what kind of desperation produced them. If you think I’m a skeptic on that one, wait till you see this one. ‘ALL’ retroviruses are in question. According to Stefan Lanka, a bad assumption was made along the way and too readily accepted by the scientific community. The retrovirus was introduced and he feels that was an error. Read it yourself:
http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm
Here’s Lanka on Bird Flu:
http://www.gnn.tv/A02138
Please note that Lanka is not suggesting no viruses exist, he discovered the first virus that lives in the ocean. He’s talking about retroviruses only.
Lanka is saying their is cell material in the photos where the so-called virus exists and nothing has been isolated. The photo should be of the virus itself, not of the cell culture it lives in. That’s a no-no, according to the Louis Pasteur Institute which sets the standards for virus isolation. The Pasteur Institute guidelines were completely ignored by Robert Gallo when he claimed to have discovered HIV. Even Luc Montagnier admitted he did not isolate or purefy the HIV.
HIV has neither been isolated nor purefied to date. In fact, no one has ever seen it other than as grainy possibilities in photos. Not only that, in the immune systems of people with full-blown AIDS, the HIV cells that are said to be there, are vastly outnumbered by immune cells (about 800 to 1). In other words, the immune system is still doing its job with respect to those cells, whatever they are.
If they know what the virus looks like, and other pertinent information, why are they finding it impossible to develop a vaccine? Also, why are people still dying from AIDS 25 years after the so-called virus was found?
If you took the time to read the skeptics on HIV/AIDS, you would not believe the ridiculous assumptions made by the pushers of the theory. For one, HIV is the only known virus that can hide away for 15 years then come to life and kill you. Any other virus affects you within 48 hours, goes through a phase, and ends.
For another, HIV is the only virus that can affect males without infecting females. That was the case for the longest time in North America, where 66% of all AIDS deaths were male homosexuals. The only women affected were those who were IV drug users, and they were a minority. What the WHO are calling AIDS in Africa and elsewhere is not AIDS.
Tuberculosis is defined as an AIDS opportunistic infection if HIV is present. If it’s not, it’s tuberculosis and it treated traditionally. If HIV is present, the victim is pumped full of AZT. a cell-destroyer that kills the entire body. That’s madness. The inventor of the newest antiviral drugs, protease inhibitors, claimed he wouldn’t put them in his body.
Possibly the most damning evidence against the theory is that people who are diagnosed with HIV, and refuse treatment, never die. Of course, if they have full-blown AIDS, they die, but HIV is not AIDS. Magic Johnson, the US basketball player is alive 15 years after being diagnosed, and he is very healthy. Another lady in the US, who was given 5 years to live, and is still alive 15 years later, is suing the HIV testing companies.
This is not something to argue about. If you care about people diagnosed with HIV, learn all you can. There’s good evidence that we are witnessing a form of medical genocide that Peter Duesberg has called ‘Aids by prescription’. It’s becoming apparent that people are dying from the drugs adminstered to kill HIV and not from the mysterious virus.
Even if that becomes apparent, it’s going to take a lot to stop the HIV/AIDS monster. There are billions of dollars involved, not to mention egos. That’s why I’m deeply concerned about the global warming hysteria. It needs to be stopped.
>My daughter’s pet rat has a boil on its ass
Maybe it’s because her daddy doesn’t know the basics of how to look after it. Do you know where it’s ass is?
>Happy trolling.
Welcome to the hypocritical idiots club Gordon. I see you fit right in.
Someone made a flippant remark here about Fred Singer and his abilities. Check this:
Dr. S. Fred Singer is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
-a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
-a Member of the International Academy of Astronautics.
He received his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, one of the toughest degrees to earn at a university.
Dr. Singer has served as:
-Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres;
-Chief Scientist for the U. S. Department of Transportation;
-Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency;
-Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U. S. Department of the Interior;
-Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami;
-(First) Director of the U. S. Weather Satellite Center;
-Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland;
-Research Physicist, Upper Atmospheric Rocket Program, Johns Hopkins University.
He has also been a visiting scholar at:
-the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars;
-Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
-California Institute of Technology;
-National Air and Space Museum;
-Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas;
-the Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth.
He is the recipient of the White House Special Commendation, Gold Medal Award from the U.S. Department of Commerce
-(First) Science Award from the British Interplanetary Society,
-Honorary Doctorate from Ohio State University.
Dr. Singer is:
-the author or editor of fourteen books on climate science, energy, and environmental issues
-the author of over 400 articles in scientific and public policy journals
-over 200 articles in popular publications,
Dr. Singer has been featured in articles in Time, Life, and U. S. News & World Report, and he has been interviewed on Nightline, Today Show, News Hour, Nightwatch, and other national and international television programs.
Singer is the focus of fruitcake blog sites like desmogblog, realclimate and exxonsecrets. William Connolly of realclimate, a computer programmer, talks down his nose at him, as if he understand a fraction about the climate compared to Singer.
I just noticed that desmogblog received a letter from Singer urging them to withdraw inferences that he is funded by the tobacco industry. Of course, desmogblog is run by James Hoggan, a public relations man who sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation. Hoggan appeared on a Canadian television documentary (CBC – Fifth Estate) called The Denial Machine, which was nothing more than a witchhunt to discredit Singer and Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball.
Last time someone libeled Singer, he lost. It was Al Gore, and you can read about it here:
http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
It explains the story of Professor Roger Revelle who is regarded in some circles as the father of modern greenhouse effect theory. Revelle taught Gore at Harvard, but Gore seems to have gotten the principles backwards. The story also reveals how Gore tried to get Ted Koppel of US television to discredit skeptics.
Finally, here’s an interesting link featuring Singer from the year 2000 which explains the skeptics view rather well:
http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1938
Travis belched…Welcome to the hypocritical idiots club Gordon. I see you fit right in.
I have a much lower opinion of myself, that can’t be expressed here due to the language, so your shot, if that’s what it was, is taken as a compliment. If I have to be regarded as a hypocritical idiot to oppose this hysterical, religious-based zealotry that is passed out in the guise of controlling CO2 to save the planet, then I’m happy to serve as such.
I wonder if people who believe the activists have imagined freezing in the dark? They’ll learn about it pretty quickly if the activists have their way, only they wont be freezing or in the dark. Al Gore buys carbon credits from a company he owns and feels he is exempt from the suffering he and his activists expect the rest of us to endure.
Thanks, but no thanks. Until there’s a cleaner substitute for oil and coal, I’ll endure the CO2, and I’m confident no harm will come of it.
Robertson rants and then engages in trollseque behaviour himself. Fancy defending Singer – says it all.
Mark go and read the article again SLOWLY and COMPREHENSIVELY and the other material written on the subject – and stop being too stupid for words. If you don’t think there is at least a plausible reason to be concerned about temperature involvement well your decision matey. I can see Mark discussing the burning oil refinery – well it could have gone up anyway. Was waiting to happen with our without the match. Sheesh…
You would learn in entomology 101 that insects are essentially poikilotherms. Go figure.
Like your analogy Luke but you got it wrong! It’s more like you saying the reason the oil refinery went up is becuase it wasn’t snowing that day! That would have stopped it for sure!
What a bozo!
Guys,
Jim Peden’s question has still not been answered by Luke, Ender, Libby etc – where’s the climate crisis?
Thye have to be able to point to scientifically verifiable data (not computer models) which show that the CO2 generated by mankind in the last 40+ years is responsible for the slight warming and not some other factor.
If they can do this we’ll then have the basis to have a sensible debate about what actions, if any, we need to take.
Until then the bulk of AGW alarmism is just that!!
To the AGW propogandists: I’m sorry but you’ve only yourselves to blame for not allowing un- biased/evenly funded research science to run its course!
The Greens are Going Crazy
By Alan Caruba (07/27/08)
It’s hard to ignore the fact that the Greens are going crazy, not just in the United States, but around the world. They are increasingly frantic over the opposition being voiced against global warming, one of the greatest hoaxes in modern history.
The Greens have bet everything on global warming as the reason for giving up the use of long established sources of energy such as oil, coal and natural gas. The object has been to slow everything the modern world calls progress.
In India, a spokesman for that nation of one billion people has flatly refused to accept the global warming hoax. China shows no sign of yielding to the global warming lies. The greatest agricultural and mercantile economy to have ever existed, the United States of America continues to thwart its own growth by yielding to the lies.
Recently the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, said that “coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It’s global warming. It’s ruining our country. It’s ruining our world.”
No, what makes us sick is listening to such preposterous lies. A Rasmussen telephone survey taken after Sen. Reid’s absurd statement found that 52% of voters surveyed rejected his views about coal and oil, double the amount of those who agreed.
What is troublesome, however, is that the same survey found the voters evenly divided on whether global warming exists or poses a threat. Fully 47% of those surveyed believe that human activity affects the climate. Both candidates for President are publicly committed to the global warming hoax by varying degrees.
Despite an intense, decades-long propaganda campaign, coupled with indoctrination in our nation’s schools, the truth is beginning to emerge.
In March, an international conference on climate change organized by The Heartland Institute brought together over 500 of the world’s leading climatologists, meteorologists, economists and others for three days of seminars and presentations that completely refuted the pronouncements of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and disputed the lies of Al Gore’s famed “documentary.”
As recently as July 8, the Space and Science Research Center held a news conference in which it stated that the warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 was completely natural, i.e., had nothing to do with human or industrial activity.
More significantly, the Center went on record saying that, “After an exhaustive review of a substantial body of climate research, and in conjunction with the obvious and compelling new evidence that exists, it is time that the world community acknowledges that the Earth has begun the next climate change.” The current warming period is not only at an end, but a distinct cooling cycle has begun and will bring “predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future.”
Just how crazed has the environmental movement become? On July 7 it was announced that Argentine scientists have been strapping plastic tanks to the backs of cows to collect and measure how much methane gas they produce.
Methane, like carbon dioxide, is a minor component of the Earth’s atmosphere. Methane is also released from swamps, landfills and other sources. If it and CO2 played a significant role in determining the world’s climate, it would be a cause for concern, but it is the Sun that primarily drives the Earth’s climate cycles. Solar activity has gone quiet in recent years as fewer and fewer sunspots, magnetic storms, have been seen.
To maintain the global warming hoax, thousands of events and natural phenomena have been blamed on it. A recent example is the floods in America’s mid-West. The National Wildlife Federation released a statement on July 1 blaming global warming.
Climate experts at The Heartland Institute were quick to respond. Dr. Joseph D’Aleo, Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, said, “Alarmists have adopted the can’t-lose position that all extremes of weather—cold, warm, wet, or dry—are all due to global warming”, adding that, “The record snows, severe weather, and heavy rainfall have been the result of rapid cooling in the northern tier of the United States and Canada, not global warming.”
Early in July, Bret Stephens, writing in The Wall Street Journal, called global warming “a mass hysteria phenomenon”, noting that “NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world’s oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years…”
The global warming hoax has never been about the climate. It is about competing economic theories. “Socialism may have failed as an economic theory,” wrote Stephens, “but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism.”
The United States Senate refused to consider the UN Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change that requires massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions based solely on the global warming hoax, but other nations did sign on. None have ever met their obligation to limit CO2 emissions, nor need they have bothered.
At the recent G8 conference an international agreement to cut CO2 emissions was given serious consideration despite the fact that the Earth is now a decade into a cooling cycle likely to last several decades or longer. The impact of this proposal on the lives of ordinary citizens will prove needlessly costly. Proposals in some nations for various taxes based on global warming are a form of fraud.
The sensible refusal by leaders in emerging economies such as China and India would make it impossible for any limitations on carbon emissions by Western nations to have any impact, even if such reductions had anything to do with the realities of the Earth’s climate.
The only thing that can be predicted with certainty is that the Greens will become increasingly unhinged and crazed by the failure of the global warming hoax.
Jim Peden…about the climate crisis. I’ve thought about your question for some time and I know there is no climate crisis per se, at this time. I’m not worried about the Arctic because the ice there is not an ice cap, it’s comprised of ice floes that float on the Arctic Ocean. That means the ocean levels throughout the world are already displaced by that mass of ice and even if it all melts the ocean levels wont increase.
The only crisis I see is the meddling of humans, and that’s real, and here right now. If they start cutting back on CO2 and go beyond the natural level of CO2, which is about 97% of the current CO2 density, we could impact the planet in a dangerous manner.
Mother Nature has established the CO2 levels as they are with humans adding a mere 3%. Even at that, we don’t know what amount of man-made CO2 has already been reabsorbed and which part of the 3% is natural. It would be really stupid to meddle with that balance in the way many politicians are talking about. I don’t want Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzeneggar fixing my climate.
We also have the problem with world economy. Carbon taxes, cap and trade systems and Kyoto have the potential to mess world economy to the point of devastation. Furthermore, if the Greens are allowed to follow up on their hysterical agenda, well be struggling with basics like transportation and home heating due to the lack of oil and other fuels.
The climate crisis right now is in the human mind and that’s where the danger lies. Religious belief systems are a peculiarity of certain human minds in that the people suffering from the malady are unable to see beyond the belief, or to see it is simply a thought. I am not talking about a person having a personal relationship with his or her God, I am talking about organized systems of belief that are conditioned into people. People who accept global warming dogma blindly, especially those who emotionally defend it, are under the spell of that religious-type belief system, but they can’t see it. In Zen, that is called the ‘cosmic joke’.
Rhetoric is the use of emotion in an argument to sway the outcome. It is practiced by politicians and others who don’t have facts to back their arguments and lean on another peculiarity of the human mind through which it can be influenced by emotion alone. We all have the ability to see past the emotion but many people seem incapable of doing so. The current climate crisis, which is an illusion, has been indoctrinated into the minds of the believers entirely by rhetoric.
There is not one shred of evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. Certain scientists have jumped to that conclusion because it is all they can understand. There is some evidence that the atmosphere is warming, however, albeit very slightly, but there is evidence that such warming may be natural.
In reality, no one could claim a crisis based on half a degree of warming over a century. That half degree is not enough to cause droughts, serious glacial melting, severe storms or any of the other climate irregularities blamed on it, yet that’s what the believers are seeing. No one can predict the future of climate and the IPCC made that clear in their 2001 assessment (TAR). The were very clear that future climate states could only be hypothesized based on the best probability from different computer models.
The fact that a crisis is seen by many to be real is a testament to the power of rhetoric and the ability of the human mind to live in illusion. To those who see the crisis, it is real, even if it is imaginary.
Sorry I couldn’t be of any help.
Here’s the reality:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_north/northislandmidweek/opinion/25999209.html
Hi Mark,
Like the link
What’s scary is when we have kids (who’ve been brainwashed with this AGW claptrap) associating very cold weather with Global Warming- madness!!
The Goracle and his followers are now using the phrase ‘climate change’ – neat, now means anything that the weather does is our fault.
I’m an aethiest buy might well decide to believe in a God if one can deliver us from these deluded AGW believers!