It is summer in the northern hemisphere and given the Americans and Europeans are pretty obsessed with temperatures records at the moment, and some with a fear that the Arctic might go ice free this northern summer, it was with some anticipation that the June 2008 temperature records were released.
According to the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) the Northern Hemisphere Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 ranked third lowest for June since records began in 1979 while Southern Hemisphere Antarctic sea ice extent for June 2008 was above the 1979-2000 mean, ranking as the second largest June extent.
So there is still ice in the Arctic and more ice than usual in the Antarctic.
As regards the US, according to the NCDC, June 2008 was the 27th warmest June based on records dating back to 1895. Globally though June 2008 ranked eighth warmest for June since worldwide records began in 1880.
But according to Joe D’Aleo a meteorologist with a blog: Don’t believe a word of it.
Joe prefers the NASA satellite data compiled by Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and it shows June 2008 was the 22nd warmest in its 30 years of records, Figure 1. According to Joe, this satellite data indicated the globe was a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NCDC guesstimate.
Figure 1. The NASA MSU June Temperatures since 1979 via Joe D’Aleo.
Joe explains that he prefers the satellite data because: the thermometer global data bases suffer from major station dropout after 1990 (number dropped from 6000 to less than 2000) and a ten fold increase in the number of missing months in the stations that report. Furthermore, there are serious problems with algorithms for assessing whether a station is urban or rural and adjusting for local land use changes. And there are major siting issues. You can find more information here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DATA_ISSUES.pdf
Interestingly though, even James Hansen’s monthly data for the last ten years to June 2008, shows some recent cooling and it looks like global temperaturs have plateaued, Figure 2.
Figure 2. The NASA GISS Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Analysis since 1998, (see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif ).
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Not – we are having a mostly dull, wet, cool summer in the UK so far.
“Not – we are having a mostly dull, wet, cool summer in the UK so far.”
Sounds like our summer just passed.
As for the Ice Extent any wagers on whether the N/W passage will open again this year?
The NW passage wasn’t fully open compared to the MWP. Arctic Sea Ice is unlikely to set a new ‘record’ low.
“Arctic Sea Ice is unlikely to set a new ‘record’ low.”
I’ll take that as a no then.
I am hoping for some serious warming the next 3 days coz I’m going camping at a defunct shale oil refinery being reclaimed by the bush Monday.
A few hundred years of data is not quite enough to accurately predict a phenomena that has been acting for 4,500,000,000,000 years.
Satellites have been around for less than 30 years … not even on the charts.
In Florida we are having a cool, wet summer. Yesterday it rained the monthly equivalent in 24 hours. Lake Okeechobee, that the State drained in 2006 when they panicked over what a hurricane might do, draining triggered the interior drought, which the rains have now been filled the Lake. Yet the drive by media has here been portraying a drought in South Florida for the last two years.
The good news is it’s deserted, the hurricane scare has scared all the tourists off. The local businesses are running weekly clearance sales – not happy campers.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=310&Itemid=1
PROVED: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS
“The value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic global warming.”
Good article in the Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Keep plugging away Janama (and Joel). Your posts are being read. I have many friends in the US and Europe from having worked in both places. Pennies are dropping all over the world.
I’m comfortable here in the California sun.
Speaking of sun, your buddy over at the Sun Bolt’s Blog says Alaska is having a bit of a chill this summer. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sue_for_more_warming_instead#36884
“Normally, Anchorage has 14 or 15 days in the summer that reach the 70-degree mark.. This year, there have been two. And the city didn’t see 70 at all until July 2… And in June, temperatures fell below the average high on 24 of 30 days.”
Jan; stake a claim on that shale oil refinery!
Jan: If the yowie of Newnes and Glen Davis {Capertee} doesn’t stake that claim first!
http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/strangephenomenonw.html
The English are allways dull and wet – but the last time they were cool was about 1966.
Joel,
Thanks for the link to the article by Dr David Evans who was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
The article should be widely circulated in the corridors of Government.
“Joe explains that he prefers the satellite data because: the thermometer global data bases suffer from major station dropout after 1990 (number dropped from 6000 to less than 2000) and a ten fold increase in the number of missing months in the stations that report. Furthermore, there are serious problems with algorithms for assessing whether a station is urban or rural and adjusting for local land use changes. And there are major siting issues. You can find more information here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DATA_ISSUES.pdf“
Strangely, Joe doesn’t mention the many problems with satellite data.
There is an interesting chart on Arctic sea ice buried in the link below:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Having said that, the authors still clearly believe that Summer Ice is a threatened species, chart not withstanding!
Breaking news: Wildfire near Paradise was arson, officials say. http://www.sacbee.com/288/story/1089062.html
This was the largest of the California fires which filled the Sacramento Valley with smoke this month. It was supposed to have been started by lightning.
The reason why it’s important, Al Gore and the climate changers continually claim wildfires as “proof” of global warming. This is still the only “proof” that can be set at a moments notice by a climate change fanatic with a cigarette lighter.
James,
I think your Professor Richard Minnich has laid that one to rest with his work on fires in chaparral. (Search on minnich+chou). South of the border, down Mexico way, in the same vegetation and climate, they still seem to have only small fires. The gringos, they are in big trouble.
SJT: It isn’t the idiocy, you can’t help that – it’s the blithering. Please stop.
“SJT: It isn’t the idiocy, you can’t help that – it’s the blithering. Please stop.”
So you have nothing in response.
cohenite & wjp I think Emirates might be a bigger worry.
http://users.tpg.com.au/newnes/e/emirates.htm
I will keep an eye out for the yowie but I suspect alcohol enhanced vision might be required t see it.
SJT: “Strangely, Joe doesn’t mention the many problems with satellite data.”
Tu quoque arguments don’t really work problems that the satellite data might have have had in the past does not alter the fact that there has been major station dropout since the early 90s.
“Strangely, Joe doesn’t mention the many problems with satellite data.”
Like the satellites don’t measure the 0.5% of the globe which amounts to the high Arctic.
Meanwhile, NCDC and HadCRU accurately and effectively interpolate 80% of the surface sans reporting stations.
Those sorts of problems?
However SJT… It is lucky they have Radiosonde data that stretches back to the forty’s isn’t it then…… So, strike out the surface data, too corrupt. Strike out Satellite data, Problems with different satellites measurements….
Leaves a seventy year data base from Radiosondes…. Which I might add shows 0.0 degrees C rise in temp at the 200hPa boundary of the Tropical Troposphere where computer models predicted a 1.5 degree C rise in temperature that would correspond to the 100ppb rise in CO2 from Anthropogenic Sources…..
No 1.5 degree rise SJT…. AGW Hypothesis not working…. Don’t be dissapointed SJT, you should be cheering.
Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ has a nice article up : “Fabricating Temperatures on the DEW Line”. Bet similar things happened to the Siberian readings.
SJT: Are you the GreenSleaze duty troll on this site? Get a life or go away and learn something about atmospheric science..or any other kind for that matter.
Lucia at The Blackboard:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
has been running some statistical tests on the IPCC projections since 2001. All datasets (including GISS) fall outside the 95% confidence intervals based on a 2C/century projection.
Gavin Schmidt regularly comments on her blog but lately the silence is deafening….
What can one gather from this? Not too much, but the excuse that this downward trend can be attributed to weather “noise” is not supported by the data.
Feedback from Roy Spencer’s seminar at Boulder, Co. is now coming in. See the Jul 15th tread below, “Global Warming: recent evidence for Reduced Climate Sensitivity”.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003258.html#comments
I would be interested in any one’s critique of this; particularly from SJT, Luke, Gavin etc. However judging by SJT’s comment so far I’m not holding my breathe for anything constructive.
looks like the EPW has summed all the latest research for us.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37ae6e96-802a-23ad-4c8a-edf6d8150789
“Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the “climate crisis.”
“The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated. But the former Vice President, who has been warning of a 10-year “tipping point” for several years now, appears to be unaware that the United Nations already started the 10 year countdown in 1989! ”
Not the only one holding his breath.
Wheat sowing rose by 13% this year, according to the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Research Economics, due to rainfall in the eastern part of the wheat belt and dry-planting elsewhere. And if all goes well, the 2008 wheat harvest could be close to normal at 23.7 million tons, compared to 13 million last year.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/14/australia.drought.ap/index.html
and the recent rain in the Riverina will support that.
Geoff, I’m not sure that any major rebuttals will be forthcoming until the work is published in full in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. That’s when the ad hominem attacks against Roy will begin (i.e. How to cook a graph in three easy lessons).
RealClimate cites him as one of the few “inactivists” left. The APS would seem to disagree:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps-edito-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/
It was interesting that no climate modellers attended the seminar, although the evidence that Roy presents is very compelling so it could be a bit difficult to swallow. This is a guy who works with the satellite data all the time, so his interpretation looks solid.
It’s interesting how topics like this regenerate the old-hat controversy about climate vs. weather.
The only good reason for predicting the climate is to forecast the weather that results. After all, it’s the weather that sustains or destroys crops–in the span of a growing season.
The only good reason for predicting the weather is because the weather sustains or destroys crops–in the span of a growing season, or upsets the mood of a parade.
It’s long been certain that predicting the weather beyond three days to a week is, at best, an educated gamble.
I haven’t seen “climate science” do even half as well as meteorology–and, by the measure of the latter, which is the only relevant metric–long-range climatology is worse than a bust.
We don’t even know what our planet’s temperature is *right now*.
APS are actually encouraging a debate – let’s at least not spin what they’re doing – they haven’t caved in to one side at all. There are two papers in that issue – one for and against. The against paper is more comprehensive IMO against a milder affirmative case.
We need to see if there is some more engagement in other issues.
Geoff – On the Spencer ppt – well very interesting stuff. Still digesting the information and awaiting the paper – so hard to make any serious comments. The only thought I did have on his model of SOI and PDO was that you can make an argument that these indices now have AGW influence confounded in them. SO you may be well regressing an underlying AGW response.
I’m not surprised that many modellers didn’t show up to his seminar. Frankly this whole topic has now become so polarised – that people literally hate each other and are incredibly suspicious on both sides. Would be seen as aiding and abetting “the enemy”.
Need to get beyond this if we’re ever going to progress – but not likely given the way the debate is being driven by both sides.
I myself have been viewed suspiciously by friends even trying to discuss some of these issues. “Sold out” are the words on their lips.
Monckton’s paper is a paper no longer.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
So the Council of the APS disagrees with the paper’s conclusions. Presumably they had to read it and analyse it to come to this view. Yet it hasn’t undergone any scientific peer review.
One wonders how they arrived at their view or what it would take to change it. I looked at the list of office holders and councilors. Didn’t see any names I recognise as being renowned for anything and didn’t seem to have any atmospheric science representation.
If they disagreed you’d think one of them could have pointed out any errors etc.
SJT:
Can you tell us when the members of the APS were polled on their views of the paper??
No?
Then we will have to conclude that the Council just may not be representative of the views of their members. Another example of the non-existent CONSENSUS touted by politicians and religious types!!
Thanks anyway.
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. ”
I’m still researching this delusional idea of yours that AGW is based on ‘science’. I’m going through the list of authors on the front page of the AR4 Synthesis Report (the “AGW Board of Directors”, if you like) to determine their scientific qualifications to make the assessments that they have.
Here’s the sorry story so far:
* Dr. Lenny Bernstein has a PhD in Chemical Engineering
* Peter Bosch is a Project Manager – no apparent qualifications whatsoever
* Dr. Osvaldo Canziani has a Doctorate in Meteorology
* Zhenlin Chen – no evident qualifications located to date
* Dr. Renate Christ has a PhD in eco-physiology (whatever that is)
* Ogunlade Davidson is a Prof. of Mechanical Engineering and has no apparent qualifications whatsoever
* William Hare is a political adviser to Greenpeace – a politikal kommissar, no less
* Dr. Saleemul Huq has a PhD in plant sciences
* Dr. David Karoly also has a Doctorate in Meteorology
So there you have it – a quarter of the way through, and not one of them have any relevant qualifications. Half of them have no degree qualifications whatsoever. The closest you come is two Meteorologists (which is a bit like saying a Civil Engineer is qualified as a Town Planner).
Sorry – the IPCC and AGW is a complete fraud – and a demonstrable fraud at that. If this was a corporation, the ACCC would probably have it investigated and wound up as a scam and these frauds would be jailed.
The ultimate corruption of the scientific process is what you refer to as “peer review”. So how does that work exactly – these unqualified hacks review the work of the other unqualified hacks? This is the world’s biggest game of pass the parcel.
No wonder the Great Guano feels comfortable in dissembling about how “the scientists who earn their money studying this stuff ..”
“I myself have been viewed suspiciously by friends even trying to discuss some of these issues. “Sold out” are the words on their lips.”
HUURRRRRRRRRRKKKKKKKKKKKK!
Ivan – mate what have you got to rub together besides 2 neurones? Meteorology not useful. Climate doesn’t affect the biosphere. Ask our resident mensa geologist Steve Short? And you might like the IPCC to be a corporation but it’s not. Too bad – so sad.
If you’re going to do something well stop frothing like a rabid dog and do it. But you won’t be doing squat except whining like a little pussy. Poor old Ivan having a little tanty in his own mind.
You’re our carbon tax bitch now Ivan. Pay up.
“Can you tell us when the members of the APS were polled on their views of the paper??”
It was the denier sites that came up with headlines like this.
“The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.””
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
Monckton’s paper one day, bin liner the next.
“Ivan – mate..”
Would you please stop calling me “mate”. Every time you do that, it makes me feel vaguely unclean – and that I need to take a shower and burn my clothes.
There are people who read this blog that know me. It causes me a lot of embarrasment if they think I am on friendly terms with a completely vacuous and clueless ranting maniac.
“what have you got to rub together besides 2 neurones?”
Maybe – but that would still put me one ahead of you and the rest of the clueless “Its’s a science! It’s a science! Wraaaaaaak! It’s a science!” dopes.
“You’re our carbon tax bitch now Ivan. Pay up.”
Once again – an example of your single-neurone delusion. It’s you and your AGW nutters that want to pay this tax. Be my guest – and give until it hurts. I’m very busy at the moment talking to my accountant about rearranging my financial situation so that I qualify for low-income assistance to fuel my SUV.
I will use this low-income assistance to have a drink to you AGW fruit loops occasionally.
Luke – “APS are actually encouraging a debate – let’s at least not spin what they’re doing – they haven’t caved in to one side at all.”
I was only trying to point out that Spencer isn’t the last of the skeptics as Gavin would have us believe.
SJT, did you even read the APS website?
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
Sounds like debate to me. You may not like the headlines but they are in essence correct. I’ll take Monckton’s paper any day over your ravings unless you have SOME sort of rebuttal.
An easier summary of Spencer’s paper is here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm
Just wondering what the actual sunspot trend was for the last century. Looks like the trend starts the century at under 40 and ends at over 80.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/20th-century-sunspot-trend.html
SJT, you’re almost as predictable as the sun rising the next day. Yes, the publication of Monckton’s paper was exaggerated by some sites in indictating a change in position at the APS but for them to publish that article as a part of the discussion but nevertheless state at the very beginning that “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions” is symptomatic of their intellectual cowardice and political aims. Its also indicates that they fear the general public will be led astray or confused by an open and honest debate about AGW. These scientific societies are increasingly looking like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it comes to AGW.
“Sounds like debate to me. You may not like the headlines but they are in essence correct. I’ll take Monckton’s paper any day over your ravings unless you have SOME sort of rebuttal.”
I tried debate, but it’s pointless, nothing will convince anyone here of anything, it’s a complete waste of time.
“Yes, the publication of Monckton’s paper was exaggerated by some sites in indictating a change in position at the APS but for them to publish that article as a part of the discussion but nevertheless state at the very beginning that “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review.”
That statement only appeared after the misrepresentations of it on various denier sites. Maybe you should blame the people telling the lies for the need to put up the qualifying statement.
“I tried debate..”
The problem is, your definition of ‘debate’ seems to be much the same as Luke’s.
“nothing will convince anyone here of anything”
Try logic – that sometimes work. But just repeating “it’s a science” in rote response to everything everyone says isn’t going to cut it. Sorry.
“..it’s a complete waste of time..”
Not completely – it is useful as a bad example of how to engage in discussion about a serious issue.
That said – it’s not a complete dead loss – so I wouldn’t give up, if I were you. Luke, for example, is the sceptics’ biggest and best asset. If we didn’t have someone like him, we would have to invent him. Do you seriously think his demented rantings are winning anyone over to the AGW cause? Certainly the people where I work – when they read his lunatic outburts generally go: “Eeeewwwww! If that’s the voice of AGW, I don’t think I want to have anything to do with it.”
As a response, it appears to me a terrible over-reaction.
For those that are interested, here is a foretaste of the list that Australia has to look forward to joining once Rudderless, Wrong and the Great Guano have completed their makeover of Australia into an emerging third world country:
http://www.energyshortage.org/
Davey
This guy Keeley says fire suppression doesn’t lead to big fires and that the difference between Mexican and Californian fire regimes is debatable.
http://www.werc.usgs.gov/pubbriefs/keeleypbdec2001.html
It has also been suggested that 20th century fire suppression has resulted in fewer, larger, high intensity fires in chaparral owing to fuel accumulation (Minnich and Dezzani 1991, Chou et al. 1993, Minnich 1995, Minnich 2001) but the evidence for this has been refuted (Keeley and Fotheringham 2001, Moritz 2003). For example, based on charcoal deposited in marine sediments in the Santa Barbara Channel, it appears that for at least 560 years (predating the Spanish period) large fire events in the region have been associated with extreme fire weather, and most of the land area burned is consumed in those large fires (Moritz 1997, Mensing et al. 1999). This suggests that modern fire suppression efforts have not increased the risk of large fires by allowing fuel to build up.
http://map.sdsu.edu/Notes/firehistory.htm
In short Santa Ana (offshore) winds are what cause major fires in California; but hell we all knew that.
What it has to do with Gaia worshiping fire bugs, busy making Al Gore’s prognostications come true, the weather channel announcements calling the cretans to man their climate change torches and go forth might have something to do with it.
“The problem is, your definition of ‘debate’ seems to be much the same as Luke’s.”
I have read many of Luke’s responses, and it is apparent that he has spent many hours researching the science in response to peoples questions and topics raise here. The science is usually met with the sound of crickets chirping, or dismissed out of hand with no attempt at a reasoned or response, or just simple minded ignorance. What’s the point of wasting your time?
“I have read many of Luke’s responses”
Did you read his response at 2:36PM above?
Does that sound like a reasoned response to you?
“The science is usually met…”
Here we go again.
Tilo; here is a graph of PDO activity over the 20thC;
http://i31.tinypic.com/122fcr4.jpg
The temperature decline in the 40’s is correlated well with PDO, but looking at your graph, to the eye, is there a 10 year, or there-abouts, lag between sunspot activity and subsequent temp/PDO?
SJT
Scientific facts are not established by debate – they are established by experiment with careful observations and measurements.
Pseudoscience, however, uses debate to establish “truths”. So get understand this SJT, don’t peddle your pseudoscientific waffle here please.
And it’a bit rich for you as a non-scientistb instructing the scientists here how to do science.
The same commnent applied to Ender – as for Luke, I have finally worked out who he is and no more be said on that issue.
You’ll stop at nothing Hissink.
Luke, or is it John Hunter?
Yes, I will not stop at nothing!
“In serious jest and jesting seriousness,
I strive to scourge polluting beastliness”
cf. Scourge of Villany, John Marston (1576-1634)”
So be forewarned John Hunter (AKA Luke).
“Luke, or is it John Hunter?”
Louis – do you know if he works with SJT at Aspendale?
“Scientific facts are not established by debate – they are established by experiment with careful observations and measurements.
Pseudoscience, however, uses debate to establish “truths”. So get understand this SJT, don’t peddle your pseudoscientific waffle here please.”
You’re going to start doing experiments on AGW? Please, do so, I’d love to see what you discover.
“Louis – do you know if he works with SJT at Aspendale? ”
How did you find out about Aspendale?
Louis; that paper you refer to in the previous post about CO2 causing cooling; any further details; a blogger at ABolt’s has been pushing that line for some time; his name is Peter Hartlod.
Cohenite
email me pls hissinkl1947 AT bigpond.com
Ivan
I have no idea, I only worked it out from some research a couple of days ago on something Dave Stockwell was on, and noticed John Hunter’s name at CSIRO. A John Hunter, formerly of Uni TAS had a vendetta on the late John Daly.
Then it it went “Kling chrtt, crrt”.
SJT,
typical pseudoscience retort – same as Arrhenius – my theory is right, you disprove it.
Wrong, – you provide the evidence CO2 causes warming.
Aspendale
Well,well, well.
“Louis; that paper you refer to in the previous post about CO2 causing cooling; any further details; a blogger at ABolt’s has been pushing that line for some time; his name is Peter Hartlod.”
Not an unreasonable proposition for any one with a smattering of experience with gas lasers.
If you take a look at this picture (familiar?)
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee272/JanPompe/spechum.jpg
See the blue line in (a) now look in the area bounded by green lines labelled CO2 absorption band. You’ll see it follow a ~225K Planck’s spectrum. What is happening there is that at 20 km altitude the atmosphere is at ~225K but the N2 & O2 doesn’t emit real well (some might say not at all). Therefore what is radiating at the temperature’s rate is CO2 which according to Kirchoff’s law being a good absorber at that wavelength is also a good emitter at that wave length. As it loses energy due to radiation it regains some by collisions from the thermally excited N2 and O2 molecules thereby cooling it.
Well Jan, this has implications for the concept of global average temperature; have a read of the 11.05 pm comment by anonymous at rabbit’s blog;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-local-thermodynamic-equilibrium.html
“Aspendale
Well,well, well.”
What have you found out?
cohenite: “Well Jan, this has implications for the concept of global average temperature; have a read of the 11.05 pm comment by anonymous at rabbit’s blog;”
I’m not sure it has implications for it but what I wrote certainly depends on LTE holding where that CO2 is emitting from at ~20km altitude. Is that what you meant?
I’ll go take a look what Eli was rabbetting on about now.
SJT
Why? Don’t you know what we don’t know? Tring to weasel out the whistleblower are we SJT?
Better to let you and John Hunter stew in your self inflicted paranioa I think.
LTE’s are balanced between each other even though what causes one LTE may not be what establishes another; your exchange with the rabbit recently where you used the example of one layer, LTE, being in thermal equlibrium with another by virtue of a combination of kinetic and potential energy, while the other had a higher actual temp by virtue of it being a radiative window, illustrates this. The point of this is that rabbit’s critique of the McKitrick, Essex and Andrensen paper is wrong for the right reason; MEA say an av temp is wrong because it ignores regional disparity; rabbit is saying the same thing but doesn’t realise it; there must be LTE’s, but an ave of them ignores their essential differences which are the crux of climate; rabbit wants to use the ave to make irrelevant regionalism, but it is regional LTE’s which provide the -ve feedbacks to each other and maintain the dynamic equlibrium; another tick for Miskolczi and Stewart. BTW, it looks as though CO2 is another of those -ve feedbacks; someone should staple this to Rudd’s head.
cohenite; “BTW, it looks as though CO2 is another of those -ve feedbacks; someone should staple this to Rudd’s head.”
I’m not sure I’d go quite that far – yet;)
SJT,
you want a debate on AGW??
OK. Then start the debate on what happened with the ocean warming and why the troposphere has NEVER responded as the models predict.
Doesn’t seem to be a lot to debate unless you want to DENY reasonable physical observations, but, I’m listening!!
You keep tossing off people like Monckton, BUT, you DENY their qualifications rather than DEBATE their presentations!!!
So, which is it?? You want to debate or what??
All this time I thought STJ was Luke’s ‘droid.
Does this mean STJ isn’t C3PO?
Louis, does it really matter what their names are really? It’s good to have dedicated opposition. They perform a service keeping us on our toes. Besides I kind of enjoy some of those Luke-isms like “lay straight in bed”. I never hear people talking like that in America.
“troposphere has NEVER responded as the models predict.”
It has. The claim was made several years back that it didn’t by Christy et al. It turns out that their impeccable satellite measurements were wrong. So they came back with a vastly reduced scope to their claims, now it’s only the upper level tropical troposphere that doesn’t respond the way the models predicted. But it does, it’s still within the error bounds.
James
I think you are right – we need the climate clowns to keep us on our toes – my guess as to who Luke is, is probably wrong since the connection was via Queensland not Tasmania, come to think of it.
We live in interesting times.
Must have Louis really worried – he’s so fascinated in me – on the other hand I couldn’t find him less interesting.
James what you see are examples of “Louis doing his nana” and “coming the raw prawn”.
Actually no.
Luke,
You are quite wrong.
The fascination is how you, as a paid public servant, use tax payer funded facilities to libel Australian citizens on this blog. Obviously you don’t see it as a problem – but I guess you work for Minister Wong’s Climate Change Inquisition Section and regard this activity as moral behaviour in order to force us to observe your Eco-Religion.
So here we have the typical nasty response you’d get from a totalitarian trying to shut down a debate. So are there groups of Australians now that are entitled to opinions and other that are not. Obviously in your jack-booted world there are. I’m not representing anyone but my own opinion which you find hard to accept.
Perhaps we might hypothesise that you are using your contracted positions with who knows what possible retainers to push an anti-environment position. Might you be a paid fifth columnist? A contracted astro-turfer? Or might you just have a point of view?
And I have stated on many occasions that I doubt anyone here changes their mind on anything.
Are you actually threatening me mate? Are you trying to censor free speech. Coz I think that’s what you really stand for.
“And I have stated on many occasions that I doubt anyone here changes their mind on anything.”
i can’t speak for anyone else but a few years ago I thought anthropogenic global warming was going to be a problem. Then I looked into it and the more I look into it the less I think think it’s a problem or ever will be. Just two weeks ago I was willing to concede a <=1K/2xCO2 climate sensitivity but I’m not so sure now and it’s starting to look more and more like CO2 and water vapour might actually be feedback neutral.
So Louis – apparently these two are a tag team of low-life pond-dwelling scum-sucking vermin: in effect closet fifth-columnists for the CSIRO/Ministry of Truth. How interesting – I always reckon that when people get as hysterical as these two oxygen thieves, that it all stems from basic self interest. These two turds are not here for the debate, they’re here for the brawl – to abuse and intimidate everyone to protect their miserable useless jobs. And all paid for by the mug taxpayer as well.
Even worse: When SJT says: “I have read many of Luke’s responses, and it is apparent that he has spent many hours researching the science” he is knowingly telling a deliberate lie. Didn’t the public service use to have a code of conduct?
Typical frigging global warmers – couldn’t lie straight in bed!
“Actually no.” Cryptic even for you Prof; care to elaborate?
“we need the climate clowns to keep us on our toes..”
Yeah – like we need another hole in our heads.
Generally, whenever someone is trying to sell something, the ethical postion is to declare an interest. This even applies to frauds trying to sell a dog like this. (Even finanical journalists need to declare that they own shares in companies they write about.)
The questions are:
– whose opinions are being represented: personal or employer?
– who is funding this propaganda exercise? If the answer is – the taxpayer – then there needs to be accountability.
I’m sure we would all like to have the resources of the federal government at our disposal to engage in frolics like this. People go to jail for that sort of thing.
Listen to the ranter go – woo hoo. Rabies meds have worn off.
Squeaks pussy anony-mouse Ivan who probably works for an oil company. You denialist stooge. How much do you get paid to libel people like this Ivan. Are you a opposition stooge on contract Ivan?
Ivan – we’re not selling anything – except to rub some facts into your greedy face. Pure sport.
But what you’re about Ivan is being a suppressor of free speech – you fascist. Who’s funding you Ivan – come on – tell us.
Ivan
The climate clowns are becoming desparate – well at least one is and has a BSc. would you believe. Whether awarded from an Enid Blyton university or a proper one, if such now exist, remains unknown, however.
As for the statement that I am a totalitarian trying to shut down debate (I assume he means me)- since when has any scientific theory depended on its verity as a result of debate?
And he accuses me of issuing a threat – how could I possibly threaten a “noms des plumes”? Think skinned our Luke is.
But he is quite right about my finding his opinion hard to accept – I reject it totally not because I might disagree with it, but because of the fact it is based on pseudoscience.
He is also right about some people never changing their minds – those who were educated in the Socratic Method find it almost impossible to change their minds. Luke has benefited from postgraduate instruction in the Socaratic method.
Finally I have to admire his ability to deduce mountains of inferences from intelocutory molehills – but seems par for the course with lefties who consider that statement made by anyone is but a subterfuge for a more meaningful hidden motive. I suppose when your science is determined by debate, such conclusions would seem logical.
(Perhaps I should adopt a new nickname – “Exocet-Louis” would be appropriate, don’t you think)?
In any case I am looking at some long paddocks to see if I can glean more information about the noxious weeds and vermin which occasionally infest such pastures. (The clowns made a couple of Freudian slips in their posts on this thread – Googling is fun when you type the appropriate search terms).
Yes Exocet indeed – a cone head and liable to drift anywhere and explode. I mean you are the “proud” owner of a web site that was just sent some stuff which you would throw as grenades into the blogosphere. So don’t bung it on Sinkers.
“who probably works for an oil company..”
And what if I did? At least that would be honest work. Anyway, someone has to so that hypocrite arseholes like you have petrol to put in the tank.
“You denialist stooge..”
You betcha. But at least it’s all my own work. I don’t have to be a parasite on the taxpayers to build my arguments.
“How much do you get paid to libel people..”
What libel? It’s not libel if it’s true.
“we’re not selling anything..”
You don’t think so? This crock of $hit called AGW that you are pushing down everyone’s throat? That’s not ‘anything’?
“Who’s funding you Ivan – come on – tell us.”
You’re the big mouthed know-all – you figure it out. But then I forgot – you’ve only got one neurone. Therefore no synapses. Therefore no independent thought.
“Even worse: When SJT says: “I have read many of Luke’s responses, and it is apparent that he has spent many hours researching the science” he is knowingly telling a deliberate lie. Didn’t the public service use to have a code of conduct?”
In his own time, dingbat. He is spending hours of his own time looking up what the science is for the benefit of the readers here. The usual response is utter silence.
HUURRRRRRRRRRKKKKKKKKKKKK!
Ah, rattling cages is so much fun
Come, come Luke, grow up. Surely you aren’t that immature? Let’s get this thread back into brain territory rather than butt territory, eh?
Personally, I concur that Moncktons stuff is piffle – he couldn’t even read Lindzens (1007) paper properly. The same applies for a goodly fraction of the other ‘sceptical’ stuff.
But you know – 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 shows 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. I could go on about this stuff ad nauseum but enough already (for now).
Fact is, high CO2 is NOT a pre-requisite for warmth. 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, ’round here’ (fond nod to ‘Counting Crows’).
I simply suggest you guys research the voluminous literature on this issue thoroughly – and I mean very thoroughly – right back to the Pliocene.
To ‘cut to the chase’, everyone here (on both sides) who has a mature interest in these (critical) issues should go away and read, not Monckton’s shite but 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
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 (go 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.
What do they say? Those who ignore the past are usually condemned to repeat it. The predictive power of the known past looks far more reliable to me than a flaky 50 year GCM projection. Perhaps that’s because I’m just a grumpy old man?
SJT
You are wrong – if the usual response was utter silence then none of the sceptics here would have posted to cause Luke to react.
I am reminded of Oliver Cromwell’s statement, “I beseech you, to even consider the possibility that ye might be mistaken”, or at least paraphrasing him.
Ever considered that you might have been sold a pup?
“The climate clowns are becoming desparate..”
Louis — I suspect there is an element of that. The fact that SJT feels the need to make the comment that “He is spending hours of his own time..” is instructive.
This is nonsense, of course, which could easily be refuted by going back over the timestamps of the postings. But since SJT is a taxpayer-funded sponge, he clearly is aware of the seriousness of public servants being discovered using public assets for personal frolics.
As for the other loony – God only knows where his head is at. He is in such a loose orbit around reality it is impossible to tell – maybe he doesn’t care. Maybe once the red cordial wears off, he might have a different perspective.
The amusing thing of course is what the time zone actually is? Fush and chups perhaps Louis?
Louis,
Now they’re both trying to build an alibi.
The must have taken a few moments out to read the Public Service Act 1999 – particularly the section headed “Misconduct”:
http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/agspubs/legalpubs/legalbriefings/br58.htm
So – Louis: how’s the drilling project going? Must be quite rewarding and personally satisfying to be able to pursue real science in a hands-on fashion like that. A lot like the oil industry, I’d imagine. It really must gall these pencil-pushing AGW ‘pseudo-scientists’ that they never get to get out of the office and do any really useful work like that.
Ivan
The drilling project is just starting up – heaps of logistical issues involving sea containers weighing a tad more than advised (14 tonnes vs 7 tonnes) and cranes to handle that mass are not in Halls Creek.
The other “issue” is hole deflection and I learnt today that the drillers did not bring up wedges for directional drilling.
You are right in concluding that it is satisfying to pursue science by the application of the scientific method – the frustrating bit is trying to work out where the drilled holes end up underground. We use down hole surveying measurements using computerised probes but azimuth measurements still rely on magnetic field directions – (we put a stainless steel drill rod in the string for this purpose so down hole orientation can be measured). Working out the true azimuth then depends on measuring the magnetic suscpeptibility of the core to work out corrections). Having 20/20 hindsight is common in this business. 🙂
The best way to survey the orientation of the drilled holes is to deploy a gyroscopic survey instrument, but no drilling contractor can afford the capex for a $100,000 bit of kit.
Ian,
I don’t think the pseudo scientists actually “know” what science is – but they seem to have no problem inventing plate tectonics while maintaining an undisturbed MOHO boundary.
This is possible with pseudoscience.
Test
(I’ve been getting blocked)
“You are wrong – if the usual response was utter silence then none of the sceptics here would have posted to cause Luke to react.”
Everyone’s more than happy to engage in a bit of argy bargy with Luke, from what I can read, it’s the science that brings the response of stony silence.
I had a big post composed late in the afternoon but unwisely didn’t save it. Since then I’ve been getting consistently blocked with the dreaded ‘ Thank you for Commenting’ filter. I have no idea why.
Apologies for the terseness of what follows. This has been a working weekend for me modeling aquifer injection geochemistries for the Monterey Water District so I’m totally brain knackered and bug-eyed.
Ender and Luke are quite wrong about the lack of lag of CO2 rise at the glacial terminations. Big literature base on all this – well known to be 800±200 years for the Late Pleistocene 100,000 year Milankovich cycles, more uncertain for the 41,000 Late Pliocene to Pleistocene terminations, strangely may be even longer for those but come what may is invariably there (when data handled correctly).
Note well, both the penultimate and previous interglacial peaks lasted not more than about 8 ky before the subsequent long slow slide to the following glacial.
I agree Monckton is piffle. Didn’t even know his Lindzen (2007) properly! A fair bit of other sceptical stuff is also rubbish but you can’t ignore the facts of this (from the non-sceptic just bloody good camp):
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/ClimateStabilityPolicy2.pdf
As you would logically expect, the whole earth homeostatic biogeospheric system is far more unstable to external forcings rather than adapted internal ones such as CO2. By definition no such system can adapt over time to quasi-periodic external forcings. Even Lovelock never really sussed on to that.
We are already 10 ky into this interglacial! Sea temperatures were warmer 2 – 8 ky ago – I did host of U-Th dates on east coast coral while at Ansto.
Solar Cycle 25 could even be the beginning of the slide – refer NASA. Probability of slide commencing within years extremely high. The next LIA will not terminate in the memories of mankind except those off-plant.
Regardless, 2 – 300 years of global warming due fossil fuels CO2 may be just what is required to give civilization time to cope with the slide.
This is more important than arguing about current GCM outcomes 50 year from now.
Buena noche.
Louis Hissink: Re:…… (14 tonnes vs 7 tonnes)…Ender’s your man, he can move and place loads like that “in a few seconds”.
Yes and Mark Twain once said “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so”. And Will Rodgers observed that it was not so much the information that we did not know that harmed us “as it was what we know that ain’t so”.
Oliver Cromwell wasn’t the last person to doubt the information offered, bearing in mind that in those times there was a crime of “Popery and Frenchness” for which the punishment was a……… gruesome end.
Ice-driven CO2 feedback on ice volume:
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/2/43/2006/cpd-2-43-2006.pdf
See also the following (now old) article:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2000ESASP.463..155B/0000167.000.html
for what would happen in the presence (and absence) of anthropogenic CO2 at 400 ppmv plus.
“I agree Monckton is piffle. Didn’t even know his Lindzen (2007) properly! A fair bit of other sceptical stuff is also rubbish but you can’t ignore the facts of this (from the non-sceptic just bloody good camp):”
Would you be able to do us a service and let Jennifer and Paul know which is which? They don’t seem to be able to tell the difference, which wastes a lot of time.
“As you would logically expect, the whole earth homeostatic biogeospheric system is far more unstable to external forcings rather than adapted internal ones such as CO2. By definition no such system can adapt over time to quasi-periodic external forcings. Even Lovelock never really sussed on to that.”
Does it matter if a forcing is internal or external? All you are saying is which side of the street it lives on. A forcing is by definition a forcing.
“Science is not faith based”.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/
SJT
“Does it matter if a forcing is internal or external? All you are saying is which side of the street it lives on. A forcing is by definition a forcing.”
YES. It does matter. Very much. This is because internal forcings relate to terrestrial geology, which relate to terrestrial biology which relate to oceanic biology which relate to terrestrial physics, and so on and so forth.
For example: warmer, wetter continents produce more plant growth which increases soil partial pressure of CO2 which reduces pH of soil water and groundwater which increases weathering which absorbs more CO2 and puts more P and N and Fe and Si into the surface layer of the oceans which increases phytoplankton productivity which absorbs more CO2 etc., etc., etc.
The homeostatic Gaia system has developed over millions of years to incorporate (same as become a product of) all the ever-present internal forcings available to it.
But external forcings may arrive periodically e.g. Milankovich 100 ky, quasi-periodically e.g. 41 ky etc or chaotically e.g. meteorites and asteroids. There are clearly others we only have vague inkling about e.g. effects of travel around the galactic arm on cosmic ray flux, blah, blah.
How does the system adapt to those external forcings if their arrival is chaotic or their frequency is very large in terms of the frequencies of major internal forcing-driven cycles???? It cannot. Hence the slide into the interglacial/glacial cycles ~ 2.5 My ago.
Please, read Gerald Marsh’s paper. It is clear you have not yet done so.
SJT
“Science is not faith based”.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/
Wherein, the illuminated Mike Marsh said:
“In actuality, there is an omnipotent and omniscient deity watching over all of the Universe, coordinating all of the myriad interactions between objects to make them seem to be collections of particles and waves that behave in perfect harmony with an inviolate set of natural laws. This is all an illusion, however; this deity is the Great Comedian, Shecky. At some point, known only to the mind of Shecky, He will abruptly drop the facade that causes the Universe to appear to make sense. This will happen at the Moment of Greatest Comedic Effect, when all will know Shecky’s Truth, and there will be much wailing and moaning and gnashing at (SIC) teeth. So perfect and pure is the Comedy, however, that mere days later everyone will think back to the MGCE, nod their heads, and with a thoughtful and appreciate (SIC) grin remark, “Yeah, that was pretty funny.”
You can believe this bit.