I can’t say that I approve of the title that they gave my piece in The Weekend Australian: Case of the Warm and Fuzzy (pdf 800kbs).
But I am so pleased that they published the six graphs: all is forgiven. Furthermore, in this one piece I have been provided an opportunity to discuss the facts as they pertain not only to global temperatures, but also to rainfall along the east coast of Australia and salinity in the Murray River.
I am reminded of the George Orwell quote: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Much thanks to The Australian.
I am still looking for the url at the newspaper’s website but in the meantime readers who live in Australia should just go out and buy two copies of The Weekend Australian and turn to page 25.
graphs uploaded August 28, 2008
Text now available online at The Australian without charts here (August 25, 2008).
Letters in response can be found here (August 25, 2008).
———-
Case of the warm and fuzzy
by Jennifer Marohasy
Page 25, The Weekend Australian. August 23-24, 2008
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, you are such a fraud.
Sigh …
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” That’s right, so let’s praise the IPCC for putting up with the crap they have to put up with.
Well done guys; you gave Jennifer both barrels; full of boomerang shaped noodles, freshly warmed from from between your ears;
Sigh..; luke, always the bridesmaid;
Why are you still lying about this SJT you idiot?
Stop lying you moron. Why don’t you show up and tell these relentless lies under your own name. At least then you could take responsibility for this non-stop obsessive lying.
What a magnificent argument you put up there Luke. The sighing argument. How fantastic is your argumentation skills. They must be a great asset to the RMIT. The three of you are such incredible morons. Wake up to yourselves.
Is this article an example of Socratic Ignorance, or is it serious?
This is expected – the three Musketeers, each hiding behind a pseudonym, bitching about not being published in The Australian.
Clue: write under your real name ?
At least SJT shows parental inheritance – an excessive prolixity.
Don’t worry about the pretenders and urgers Jen, the fight is gradually being won.
At long last the fraudsters and liars are not getting their own way,it sounds like the squealing of stuck pigs, music to an honest persons ear.
Very good article and so good to see the graphs as well.
It amazes me when Spencer can show negative feedbacks in the real atmosphere to co2 and no dingbat can find a hot spot 10- 12 klm in the troposphere over the tropics, plus the planet only warming by .7c in 150 years immediately after the little ice age that these impractical fools even think they have sniff of a case to work with.
Well Cohenite we’ve been over it haven’t we. Need we repeat it all again … so boring …. so tedious … so sigh …
That’s why the system probably just shrugs its shoulders. Sigh !
Luke reminds me of a vocal vacuum – a noisy emptiness.
Wonderful article Jennifer. I’ve sent a letter to the ed, congratulating the paper, and thanking you.
Even if they don’t publish it, I put it a PS suggesting it should be online, the world needs to see it!
Hissink – go and mate with Bird. Who knows what might come of it.
Luke
Gotcha!
Louis the real art of propaganda is to only ever tell half the story. Be selective and leave out what doesn’t suit.
Luke
from which we conclude your post above is an example.
Just a little addition to consider, when a minor ice age ends the temp goes UP– DUH.
Then we have the most solar radiation bathing the planet in 10,400 years ,most experts agree it’s worth at least .3c, again DUH.
I challenge anyone to find a temp reduction because if the LIA say from 1350 to 1850 that isn’t worth at least 1c so what is the fuss about.
Then McKitrick attributes 50% of the temp increase to local factors in the highest quality temp records on earth, then in the last few decades two thirds of the world’s thermometers have been retired.
Who in their right mind would pin their hopes on the forever changing GISS records even if everything was fair honest and above board?
This weekend’s Australian also has an editorial by Paul Kelly
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24225936-7583,00.html
reviewing the Business Council of Australia’s critique of the proposed ETS.
http://www.bca.com.au/Content/101485.aspx
You can download the full BCA study at the second link.
Jennifer
You made a mistake in the article – the satellite temperature graph stopped in June.
According to AMSU, the 1000 m temperature is now 0.55 deg F below this time last year. An updated chart would show the temperature dropping through the floor of the graph.
Surely someone in the government will notice and ask themselves why they are planning an emissions trading scheme?
Nice job on the article Jennifer.
Seems like the high priests of Gorbal Warming are knockin themselves out over it.
They get very sensitive when their
science FICTION is exposed in a
public place don`t they!
Thank you Jen. I have taken the liberty of keeping a copy on my laptop.
After reading Bob Tisdale’s latest post and Steve Short’s contributions one can only conclude that AGW is shot to bits and only continues to exist because of some mental rigidity by its exponents; either of Bob’s or Steve’s concepts are sufficient to blow it out of the water; with some synchronicity and a Joe Punter friendly presentation it really should be the death knell, at least, in the scientific sphere, of this ideological movement.
In respect of my hobby-horse; CO2/IR interaction, the greenhouse fallacy which started this amphigory, these 2 maps are interesting;
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/atmosphere/data1.html
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Products/CarbonDioxide/
The first is outward IR; look at where it is concentrated and hottest; the 2nd is concentrations of CO2; these are least where the outward IR is most and hottest. The obvious conclusion is to be found in Pielke’s paper;
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
The TOA squeeze point between incoming and reduced outgoing radiation is defeated (if it exists in the first place) by the simple operation of Stefan-Boltzman, which says that radiation leaving a cooler surface is not as hot or has as much energy as radiation leaving a warmer surface. The maps clearly show that the IR leaving the TOA is from warmer surfaces, compensating for any opaqueness elsewhere.
It is not so much that there are back-breaking anti-AGW papers, as the consensus nonsense keeps demanding, but whether there are any papers sufficient to support AGW.
So have you published anything Cohenite – nah just all just disconnected musings on a blog …
you really have to be having yourself on.
About that pdf – when you scan newsprint, to avoid backpage bleedthrough use a black construction paper backing.
Good stuff Jennifer…. I agree with what you have written and laud your efforts to engage, debate and educate a less enlightened public.
It is important for Australia, as a democracy with a compulsory voting system, that the public is educated in the topics that will decide our political direction.
I have been appalled at the lack of balance shown by the mainstream media on the topic of AGW. A serious lack of investigative journalism has occurred. Specially considering the amount of scientists that have differing views and reservations about the hypothesis of AGW and the IPCC methods.
Thank you for being a voice of reason.
Leave it to the experts, eh luke?
….. and yes. I will go and buy a copy of the Weekend Australian. 🙂
Cohenite, thanks for the graphs. Put them up at my house.
CoRev, editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
“So have you published anything Cohenite..”
What a moron you are Luke. The act of publishing cannot change the nature of the physical world. Stop pretending that you have ever come up with any evidence you filth. Every time we come here you have that claim that at some earlier date you came up with this devastating evidence. But you never had. Like all the global warming people you are a compulsive liar and a fraud.
Graeme,
you’ve hit the nail on the head, this issue like all issues taken on by the looney left is driven by compulsive liars and fraudsters.
It’s already cost Aust billions for zero return with countless billions to be wasted by krudd and his dopey gang in the near future.
We should be using our scarce funds on adaptation for the here and now, not some embecillic attempt to change the climate in 100 years from now.
Even if you believe this AGW ( or ACC ) rubbish when huge emitters like China, India,Brazil etc refuse to play ball and are giving us the two fingered salute only a fool like krudd would want to lead the pack.
With our enormous 1% ( rapidly heading SOUTH )of the planet’s emissions we’ll really make diddly squat of a difference anyhow.
But don’t talk reason or logic or sense to these idiots because they have a religious cause to defend and reason, logic or sense doesn’t stand a chance.
Congrats Jen on your brilliant article. Nothing more need be said, but do ensure our great leaders get to see it (difficult gven their brain dead minders and advisers)!
GraemeBird Could you do me a personal favor and not use ad hom attacks? When you post the reasons, we all benefit, when you flame it detracts. Your “The act of publishing cannot change the nature of the physical world” is classic. I think that given your insight, an expansion of this line of reasoning rather than flaming would have been “devastating”, if you could keep it up. IMO you could. Of course, this is just the normal reality … opportunity and capability. Don’t remember this being a point in the blog wars. But actualization is both opportunity and capability. Take MBH9X, an opportunity wasted due to a lack of capability (see Wegman report http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf ). Your flaming is comparable to MBH9X but opposite, capable, but the opportunity wasted.
Of course, if this is just a bit of fun for you, ignore my request.
“It’s already cost Aust billions for zero return with countless billions to be wasted by krudd and his dopey gang in the near future.”
“With our enormous 1% ( rapidly heading SOUTH )of the planet’s emissions we’ll really make diddly squat of a difference anyhow.”
Same situation here in Canada. All the Canadian political parties buy into this crap to some degree. Looks like an election may be in the cards in the not too distant future here. With the crackpot Liberals promising 15 bil in new carbon taxes to save the planet, let’s hope the vote gets called for the heart of another bitterly cold winter that’s being forecasted for here. Any charlatan pushing this garbage at the door should then rightfully get a kick to the jollies!
Graeme, I am also of the perspective that most of these AGW hacks are now down to outright lying. I think we should just use the general term AGWALs for them (AGW Alarmist-Liars)!
Well done. As a piece of science communication it is very good, and you are right the fact that they published the graphs was tops.
It shows to the general public that there is more to this debate than the superficial nonsense peddled by the media generally, and questions the disreputable political opportunism displayed by the CSIRO/BOM, plus the role of the various self promoting greenie gad flies.
One could only hope that the Ruddites have the ticker to commission a review of this whole sorry saga,covering:
a) The quality and independance of the advice being provided by the CSIRO and the BOM.
b) The procedural sense in having the data collectors, also being involved the science assessment and advice that goes beyond just providing the factual data.
c) The abilty of governments to obtain independant audits of the advice being given.
d) The qualifications and publication records of those undertaking the production of this original advice.
e) The reliability and transparency of the peer review process as it is applied to climate science.
f) The reliability of the advice emerging form the IPCC reports, given that the number of people involved, contrary to the claims made by the IPCC Chair, seem to be only a small number of mutally self referencing scientists.
It’s impressive how you’ve all been sucked in. Easy marks I guess.
Jennifer, do you know how to construct a water balance? To say that there is enough water in the Murray by just looking at precipitation is very poor science.
Also why have you got a 2008 Global Temperature Anomaly?
And why didn’t you include the July 2008 HadCrut3v reading?
Look you idiots. Just come up with some evidence. Lets have that evidence NT and Luke. Stop mucking about. End the evidence filibuster.
“GraemeBird Could you do me a personal favor and not use ad hom attacks?”
Forget it. They are just liars. And they are liars with malice. It is dishonest not to point out that this is malicious science fraud. To fail to keep up the attack on dishonesty in science is to mislead people. We don’t be wanting anyone to think that this is some sort of honest disagreement. Because its not. Its a contest between malicious evil, every bit as rotten as the jihadists or the nazis.
Their maliciousness doesn’t bottom out. As the malaria epidemic attests. These people are genocidal in their hatred of the human race. These are people who would actually support the forced abortions of the Chinese communists. In other times these sort of people would have cheered at humans getting ripped apart by lions in the coloseum. These are sick deranged people. And its a new thing for the West that this level of unreason has invaded the sciences. We had them in economics but not in the physical sciences.
NT; what do you mean 2008 global temperature anomaly?
Here are all the recent temps, including the Hadcrut effort;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-central-tendency-of-2ccentury-still-rejected/
I note luke has gone quiet on the MDB since the Exceptional Circumstances were revealed to only be the misrepresentations in the report; what is your take? Why don’t you do a site by site check of the MDB drainage system and water source; and compare it with temp and evaporation; it’s a fair point that luke used to bang on about with his pots and pans, that precipitation is not the whole story; but Stockwell’s critique looks at the confluence of the range of factors; given this, the point raised in jennifer’s article about irrigation extraction trumps the other AGW issues; anyway, St George in QLD is a good place to start; compare the 1881-1910 records with the 1971-2000 ones;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/index.shtml
I did not ask you to give up, or enter into some sort of dishonest agreement. I asked you to be, IMO, more effective. If you do not wish to be effective, or you disagree with my post of capability and opportunity, it is not a problem. It was my opinion.
Though I hope you would consider a small point. “These people are genocidal in their hatred of the human race .” IIRC, you pointed out that they were trapped in their 1960 hippie life. Perhaps it was Louis?
However, consider that this trapping has occurred, and is true. They cannot, by definition, consider what technological advances really mean. As an example, consider the IPCC, warming is almost, except for the most mundane of relationships, always bad.
I do not know if you watched the August, about 12th, at the international geologist meeting with Bob Carter in Scandanavia. There was a geologist, from Canada, whose expertise was the “age of dinosaurs”. He asked why did the IPCC say that hotter was drier, when the geologic record indicated that the arid and semi-arid areas above the tropics disappearred and were quite wet.
The truly remarkable thing was that a climate modeller, who claimed they had the science and math right, was SO disappointed in him. The reason that this defies all reason is as follows: To discredit say Christy or Lord Monckton, the AGW proponents point out that in the IPCC that one cannot tell forcing from the sun (natural) from CO2/MGHG’s. Yet, the models indicate that warmer is drier and worse than now. Rather than that the optimum of biomass as indicated in the age of dinosaurs was about 10 to 12 F and wetter, as an AVERAGE IIRC than now. That their models are in direct conflict of peer reveiwed geological papers does not even register.
Thus they do not have to be liars, they may only be delusional. It is not maliciousness (sp?), it is simply incompetence.
Adress their incompetence. Their incompetence in notcrediting all the peer reveiwed papers for 150 years before 2008, while claiming that the recent peer reveiwed mean so much, without proof. May I add? You address this weakness better than your flaming has effect, IMO.
Yes, you are correct malaria is not just a tropical disease, but a temperate disease. Its vector is dependent on the species of mosquito, not temperature. Not that there appears to be a discernment of biology in the IPCC or the the alarmists.
Congratulations Jennifer. It is especially important that the graphs were published. They provide clear easily grasped evidence that effectively refutes the daily swill of eco-claptrap we are now subjected to.
It amazes me that the more climate itself contradicts their claims the more willing AGW “climate scientists” seem to become to declare certainty as if somehow faith will determine the outcome.
It appears increasingly probable that the AGW effect has been greatly exaggerated and that a natural cooling trend in climate is underway. It also seems improbable that any significant reduction in global CO2 emissions is going to take place in the timeframe alarmists claim is essential. Their belief seems certain to be tested by reality. Catastrophic AGW is shaping up to become the greatest scientific debacle of all time yet proponents seem to be competing in asserting their absolute “scientific” certainty in it.
It is fascinating to see, much like a march of the lemmings.
Cohenite, it would appear that in Jennifer’s Global temp anomaly graph she has a figure for 2008, which is strange as it hasn’t happened yet. Either that or the figure she is using for 2007 is wrong.
Another interesting thing about the graphs is that are using different base periods, which makes direct comparison useless. The graph of “Global average[d] satellite…” has a base period of 1979-1998 (very unusual base period!) and the “Global Temperature Anomaly” uses 1961-1990 (assuming it is the HadCrut3v).
What’s the deal with that?
“Surely someone in the government will notice and ask…”
HAHAHAHAHAH.. Yes, yes. Highly amusing.
Notice? Governments don’t “notice” anything. Politicians listen to advice and opinion polls. Who’s going to give them advice? The frauds and liars in gubmint science jobs who are protecting their own jobs and positions of influence? Fat frigging chance of that ever happening!
Opinion polls? They won’t change until something happens to make them change. And when they do, watch the stampede to jettison all this AGW crap. There will be an unholy rush to bring the Great Guano back to kill it off.
In the meantime, feel free to make your opinion known — you have 822 days left to do so:
http://ruddwatch.net/
NT,
I LOVE the graphs that Jennifer posted with the newspaper. Note that the “Globally average satellite-based temperature of the lower atmosphere … departure from 1970-1998 average temperature (deg C)” and “Global temperature anomaly (1850-2008) Deg C” show a 0.0 Deg C trend versus a 0.3 Deg C trend for the same period. In other words, the data set that SHOULD have HAD the least human interference, and the data set that should have the most urban heat island effect agree with http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdf
NT please note that both are in anomaly units. I wish Jennifer had/or will address the obvious difference of surface with known noise as admitted by the organizations that collect the data http://surfacestations.org/ with the satellite with known noise.
John, how did you calculate your “trend”?
yes, and anomaly units are still degrees C.
I think you should look at the distribution of ‘warm’ readings as shown by the Hadley Centre. It’s pretty apparent the UHI isn’t reflected in those readings.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/
Look at each year’s graphic.
“Catastrophic AGW is shaping up to become the greatest scientific debacle of all time yet proponents seem to be competing in asserting their absolute “scientific” certainty in it.”
One hopes that you are right — however, I am not so sure. AGW is a double-edged sword. Because there is no science to prove that AGW exists, equally there will be no science to prove that it has gone for good (it will simply be “on hold”). Read the demented ramblings of Luke and NT (if you have that strong a stomach) – it is like trying to argue that God doesn’t exist.
And of course, given that warming and cooling are a natural cycle, it is axiomatic that another warming cycle will return within a generation. Unfortunately, this actually plays into the hands of the gubmint science boys. My prediction: just as it looks like all this AGW horse$hit is going to crash and burn, watch for the emergence of — ClimateWatch.
ClimateWatch will be set up on the recommendation of a rushed inquiry by the Great Guano. Its unstated function will be to provide something for all these useless gubmint science boys something to do. After all, would you want them aimlessly wandering the streets? And, unfortunately they have a vote. ClimateWatch’s stated function will be to keep an eye out for the return of the next warming cycle, so that the hysterical linking to CO2 can get started earlier next time.
AGW is a religion. It has too many adherents to simply die overnight. After all, how long did it take for Christianity to get fully established?
NT; the 2008 amount is an annual trend partial on a monthly basis and valid to that extent.
On the subject of base periods; I’ve said pretty much all that needs to be said here;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003303.html#comments
Bearing in mind it is not the curve, but the step-up and step-down which is the issue; see my comments at 12.44pm and 10.31am and my specific reply to you at 6.45pm
Another good exposition of the base-line issue is here;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#baselines
The baseline differences between the satellites and ground-based recorders are adjusted, obstensibly, to account for the different climates prevailing, but the loadings do not account for the steps, IMO, because they are based on the differences between the means of the base periods, not the differences between the different PDO’s which the base-lines straddle.
Ivan
Have a read of Lawrence Gardener’s “The Magdalene Legacy” which describes how Christianity evolved. Quite an eye opener.
I just had an odd thought. For me, the two really distinctive climate trends in this decade have been the plateau in average atmospheric temperatures and the increasing summer melt in the Arctic. The orthodox assessment of the first is to say it’s just a fluctuation away from the longer-term warming trend. However, I wonder if you could argue that the extra energy which AGW ought to be introducing every year has been going into the melt. I have no idea if it makes sense quantitatively, but it’s curious that I can’t even find a discussion of the idea anywhere.
mitchell,
“extra energy which AGW ought to be introducing every year has been going into the melt”
If you can prove it that the “extra” heat was only directed to the north pole ice region, than you are talking sense,
I doubt it works like that though!
Still, keep the grey cells twirling!
I wouldn’t rule out some effect like that entirely Mitchell.. If the effect of CO2 is tiny as a global average. Nonetheless it could be a little stronger in the dry air. The air up there is dry because it is cold. A tiny increase in average temperature in combination with the wind factor might make for some real difference in melting. But really we are talking about accumulated heat energy in the oceans which still has to drop substantially. One expects that when the North Atlantic Osciallation changes phase the ice will be back with strength. But on the local level one might not be able to rule out a CO2 effect in its entirety.
You see that some people believe that there is some sort of CO2 effect but that it is amply countered by negative feedbacks largely due to extra evaporation. But supposing this is true. It might be the case that locally the negative feedback is less substantial. I’m not taking a position here. Only saying it would be hard to rule out some effect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm (21 Aug)
“World heading towards cooler 2008
This year appears set to be the coolest globally this century.
Data from the UK Met Office shows that temperatures in the first half of the year have been more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than any year since 2000.”
However, it also notes that there should be no letup in Socialist ardour:
“Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease.”
Jen,
A good article. I support your call for more scientific literacy. However, a good precursor to that would be greater literacy in basic logic, and the arts of language and rhetoric. Learning rhetoric at school would help students both to use it, and avoid being fooled by it. This would lead to the election of more thinking politicians, and fewer snake oil merchants.
Also, charts and graphs are useful in both business and science, but dangerous. There is a small, yet interesting book called ‘How to Lie with Statistics’ by Daryl Huff (I think).
“There is a small, yet interesting book called ‘How to Lie with Statistics'”
Didn’t they turn that book into a movie? I’m sure I saw it — but they changed the name, something like “An Inconvenient Truth”, I believe.
Great article Jen,
Simple truth wins bigtime everytime.
Some 45 years ago I was studying for a Electrical Engineering Diploma at a Technical Collage now converted to a University.
It taught me many useful means of measurement which your informative article reminded me of.
One of these simple rules was as follows:
To determine a point of reference, say a position on a desk edge requires a measure from one end to that position. To confirm that it is correct, a second measure from the other end must be deducted from the overall length of the desk. The end result of both calculations must be the same. That point has now been confirmed by two reference methods.
To deny this means is to deny logic and simple common sense.
If I have lost the intellectuals and group of emotional hysterics with a set political agenda, I am not surprised.
So if we are to have sensible debate, do not exclude ALL information and not just selective data that fits a particular argument.
Thank you Jennifer
We’re close to an earthquake Cohenite.
Following this thread I reckon we all need a good read here at the “Australian Climate Science Coalition Web Site”
http://www.auscsc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
Also here at “The International Climate Science Coalition” where there are lots more good articles on hanging about with CO2 etc as we further develop profitable industry.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
Certain elements in science are switched in to fully exploiting the theme…..
your “drought” graphs are misleading. the truth,as always, can be found on Tamino s site:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/drought-in-australia/
luke; don’t you worry about no earthquake; you just get under that desk that Ronald has kindly measured for you; and don’t forget to take a snorkel with you for when the sea rises.
sod; well done; that Tamino post guest-starred our very own luke; too bad it’s all been superseded by this;
http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf
hehehehehe – ah Cohenite now don’t spoil it. Let’s see how many wankers send in unthinking support messages first. I’ve got money riding on it.
I emailed the US Department of Energy for an explanation of the table I presented in another post as evidence that anthropogenic CO2 was only 3% of total CO2 in the atmosphere. I received a very helpful reply claiming they got the figures from the IPCC in the TAR assessment but refered me to one of their newer documents for current figures, at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
See figure 2, which is derived from this IPCC AR4 document:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf
See Figure 7.3. I did a quick calculation, which anyone might want to verify, and the density of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is still less than 3%. It’s interesting how the IPCC have pumped that figure with CO2 from cement.
I came across this gem from AR4 WG1 chapter 2:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
See Page 3 near bottom of left hand column. With regard ro radiative forcing (RF), it claims:
“The global mean concentration of CO2 in 2005 was 379 ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66 [+|-0.17] W m-2. Past emissions of fossil fuels and cement production have likely contributed about three-quarters of the current RF, with the remainder caused by land use changes. For the 1995 to 2005 decade, the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere was 1.9 ppm yr-1 and the CO2 RF increased by 20%: this is the largest change observed or inferred for any decade in at least the last 200 years. From 1999 to 2005, global emissions from fossil fuel and cement production increased at a rate of roughly 3% yr-1”.
It says clearly that the CO2 radiative forcing increases 20% between 1995 and 2005, yet the warming trend in that decade was essentially flat.
Can someone please explain that to me because I’m having trouble getting coherent answers. If no one can allow for 1995 to 2008 as being flat, how about 1998 to 2008? They claim CO2/cement (cement??) increases 3% per year, so it should be about a 33% increase during that period.
Where’s the heat? I understand our good friend Gavin Schmidt is desperately massaging his equations to show even a slight upward trend. Come on people, let’s get together on this: a 33% increase in anthropogenic CO2 in 10 years with no net atmospheric warming?
Cohenite,
So who is SOD (Luke I suppose) and the Tamino article seems anonymous – how did you work out it was Luke (apart from the prolific BOM ‘ing factor and from his contribution in the comments section).
Jeez you’re a dum dum Louis. So gullible. I’m not Sod. Do I talk like Sod – did you click on Sod’s URL name link previously in August. The Tamino lead article was written by – wait for it – “Tamino – aka Open Mind” – like – a duh ! Cohenite kick Louis in the virtual bum for me.
Gordon,
Because the hypothesis that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes heating is not based on a measured physical obseration but from a misunderstanding of physics.
The physical data falsify it – comprehensively I must add – and yet the devout maintain the litany showing even greater examples of cognitive dissonance, which Philip Stott discusses further at (http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/8/20_More_On_Cognitive_Dissonance.html).
Equally I am extremely wary of accepting anything from the IPCC and if the US Govt agency relies on it as a source of scientific data, then this is not good at all. (Gore and his followers control most of the world’s public service bureaucracies).
We are in the sad position of witnessing the lastest prostitution of science in the name of politics – another Dark Age is before us.
Luke,
I am gullible? I forget, you are an expert in gullibility, having more experience in this area than most of us.
lolz and rotflcopter
OK Cohneite – I’m bored. What’s your St George angle. Gimme the pitch.
Luke
Tamino’s blog is hardly open-minded when the authorship is unknown.
Criticising the establishment under a pen-name is generally a useful thing to do but when the establishment itself pampleteers ( or e-pamphleteering in this particular case) hiding behind a pen-name, then that’s not very impressive, is it, and certainly not open-minded.
Luke has lost it again – and I am reminded of a memorable phrase made in the movie “In the Heat of the Night” starring Sidney Poitier etc – something about a policeman passing better stools etc?
Ronald Weiner: “It taught me many useful means of measurement which your informative article reminded me of”
Let’s say “Some 45 years ago I was (also) studying for a Electrical Engineering Diploma at a Technical Collage now converted to a University” but fail to see the connection between Jennifer’s article and a geometry method that can find the center of a circle given the right tools.
Jen: “Most Australians believe what the experts say”,
because they too can read a graph as presented by authorities and I can say that after routine personal contacts with large numbers of Australians.
Most likely, any other interpretation face to face of their individual reasoning powers would be considered an insult.
Gavin,
The ruling class pronounces, does it? You their pensioned authority?
Louis; I meant the comments which far exceeded the original post by Tamino; that was luke when he was in an expansive frame of mind; the current luke is sparse, streamlined and, I guess, in conformity with the strictures of the new energy conservation minded, post-carbon world. I have sod-all idea who sod is.
Gordon; the forcing figures given by AR4 are a travesty; the guts of this are in the Executive Summary on p131-132; note the uncertainties and low levels of understanding, and contradictorily, the certainty expressed for the forcing attached to LLGG’s; the escape route for the IPCC, in respect of the total lack of real-world results for their forcing figures, is contained in this paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
This Keenlyside paper is revealing for a number of reasons; what they do is marry the declining SST’s with a modelled PDO-like effect to assume, on the basis of this PDO-like effect’s apparent ability to overide what should have been SST and global temp increases if their forcings were correct, that the phenological figure given to this PDO-like effect will temporarily produce cooling for the next decade until the increasing warming from predicted anthropogenic CO2 forcing reasserts its dominance. As far as I’m concerned this is up there with the model-created reality of the Sherwood and Allen paper.
Gavin,
Most of us can read graphs – but when those are false then I am reminded of your predecessors in Europe last century who were responsible for a couple of appalling human catastrophes, WW1 and WW2.
“The ruling class pronounces, does it? You their pensioned authority?”
Come on louis, make up your mind? Are we an elitist ruling class or commies?
SJT
The two are synonomous.
Louis,
Apparently as well as having no understanding of science, these gubmint science boys also have bugger all comprehension of history and politics as well.
Spelling – synonymous !
Ivan
I would not be too hasty in condemning gubmint science people – many in the Geological Surveys haven’t their brains addled by PC, but they do realise political reality and remain deferential to their political masters, as they must.
Fair call, Louis.
I need a better definition so that I can distinguish between those who work in disciplines that based in real science, and the rest of the unwashed that have bogus ‘earth science’ degrees from Bovine University. I will give it some thought.
Ivan,
SJT responded to one statement I made concerning the last two world wars intimating that either elist ruling classes or commies were responsible, (at least that is how one is compelled to understand his comment).
As commies and ruling classes aren’t capitalists, at least in terms of this initial analysis, the SJT family seem to be normal looney lefties in the pay of gubmint, pensioned or otherwise.
I put a glaring non-sequitur in the previous post, so let’s wait and see 🙂
Arctic ice is re-freezing
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Probably AGW now definitely on the way to RIP
Cohenite – your problem is that you care what the outcome is – you should neither care nor uncare – just explore it. All this left wing/right wing stuff that Louis and Ivan are banging on about is such horseshit. They have no idea. Anyway this wedding video will show you what I mean
“your problem is that you care what the outcome is – you should neither care nor uncare”
Sounds like loser talk to me.
You’re saying we shouldn’t care that an idiotic gubmint is going to rip billions of dollars out of the economy and piss it down the drain – all in the name of chasing a rainbow? Unbelievable.
So you want to select the answer (a priori) that suits you and then believe it do you? Wow !
A carbon tax does not have to related to a climate discussion. It’s one option. That’s all.
Meanwhile someone is trying to run the MDB and you’re not exactly a well of helpful advice are you. Having a big tanty rant 24 x 7 on here doesn’t help anybody does it? Put your wife on Ivan – maybe she can talk some sense into you.
G’day Jennifer,
A terrific article. Well done. Just a pity the Australian has not made it available online. Curiously they did the same with a piece by Ben Rees earlier in the week “Our Agricultural policy is Doomed.”
I want to promote your article too the Agmates Community. Could you email me the hyperlinks to the graphs you used in the articles.
It is great too see you and others in the mainstream media bringing these opposing views to the general public. That message is – don’t believe for a minute that the science on climate change is settled. Well done to you and the Australian Newspaper who are about the only mainstream media prepared to buck the Alarmist journalism that almost all other media unquestioningly embrace . In fact the ABC is possibly the worst offender.
Professor Philip Stott has written a very good article on why the Media keep banging on about Global warming – when it hasn’t been for almost a decade. Heres the link to it on Agmates:
http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/08/20/why-does-the-media-keep-banging-on-about-global-warming-when-its-not/
Thanks – Steve Truman – Agmates
luke; of course I care about the outcome; I’m a lawyer; I get paid when I win. Except with Family Law matters, where noone wins.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/24/dr-jennifer-marohasy-ignores-the-climate-science/
And aside:
“Arctic ice is re-freezing
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Probably AGW now definitely on the way to RIP
Posted by: REX at 24 August, 2008 11:05pm”
Of course it is. There’s this thing called ‘winter’ on its way in the NH.
But I know that you were only taking the piss. No-one in the world is this clueless.
Of course, if you really think this, then I guess in 6 months you will have to call the resurrection of AGW.
“Of course it is.” = “Of course Arctic ice is re-freezing.”
NT asked John, how did you calculate your “trend”?
I measured the peak to peak, and the trough to trough trends for the two different temperature anomoly sets and averaged them for an estimated trend for each set. This is a method taught to engineers to avoid cherry picking and yet be able to get a quick estimate. For detailed work I would suggest Lucia’s blog or Climate Audit. Not to mention, some of the good work that occurs on Open Mind, and other sites. Then I compared the average increase from one set and the average increase indicated by the other. The difference is reasonably close to the UHI that was alluded to by me.
As far as looking at those yearly graphs, I would suggest you do the same and note that the level of detail is not such that you could say whether or nor UHI and its effects were taken into account. The grid size is too large.
“Of course it is. There’s this thing called ‘winter’ on its way in the NH.”
Bernard. The melting usually goes on into September. So the refreeze is not something completely to be ignored.
“Arctic ice is re-freezing
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Probably AGW now definitely on the way to RIP”
Take a REALLY good look at that graph and look what happened in late august and september last year.
Same thing as we might be seeing this year.
On the other hand, sea ice extent is still diminishing, as it did in 2007. Though the rate is slowing. As it did in 2007.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
One of the things that happens is that areas further north see surface water ponded on the ice (which can confuse the area analysis) refreezing, while further south, melting continues.
“In fact the ABC is possibly the worst offender.”
Yesterday Robyn Williams in the Science Report was broadcasting Mara Bún who was talking about possible 5m sea level rise and quoting James Hansen.
Unbelievable!!
Robin Williams is such a dope he still thinks that Michael Manns hockey stick graph is all fine and dandy. Its like he’s picking up his attitude from Deltoid.
Oh heavens to murgatroyd – now Luke reckons there are no such a thing as political bias – perhaps he should consult my looney mates – they call me a Tory – but I have to say I welcome all this – I never thought I would live to see the day when I would actually experience the antics of a millennialist or doomsday believer.
I wonder if Luke and his mates will emulate the Jansenites of centuries yore and get into a bit of slef-flaggelation to ward off impending doom.
With all of this discussion about the statistics and evidence of global warming it is easy to lose sight of the fundamentals.
The science of global warming has been around for almost 200 years. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are what stops earth being as cold as the moon. This was established by Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and others in the 19th century. No scientist disputes this and we all experience the greenhouse effect at night when clouds cover a clear sky and temperatures increase. As we continue to produce more and more of the fossil fuel greenhouse gases then global temperatures will gradually increase.
What is in dispute is the speed of that warming, the positive and negative feedbacks that may affect that speed and the effect of a warming planet on our climate.
Luke thinks Ivan and I have a problem?
Don’t think so
http://americandaily.com/article/22944
Probably the same here in Australia.
Cohenite said…”Gordon; the forcing figures given by AR4 are a travesty”.
The entire IPCC attempt at peer review is a travesty IMHO. Reading a lot of it, how they shuffle important facts under the rug because they contradict AGW theory, is like reading a Monty Python script.
I am particularly drawn to how they have dismissed the satellite data in AR4. In TAR, they at least acknowledged the problem, but in AR4 they have buried it in spin. They claim satellite and sonde data have been adjusted and now show warming in line with surface warming.
What does that mean? If it had been John Cleese reading it on one of the Monty Python newsman skits, it would have bee hillarious with the faces Cleese could put on. Yes…the satellite and sonde data was adjusted ‘marginally’ and the adjustment in no way affected the overall implication that atmospheric temperatures were 1/3 of the surface temperatures when they were predicted to be significantly greater. The IPCC has left it completely hanging, presumably with the hope that the atmosphere will warm sometime, thus exonerating them.
With regard to the Mann fiasco, apparently the woman who was lead author on AR4 was a colleague of a friend of Mann’s. When Susan Solomon, an overall lead author, asked that the bristlecone data issue be re-examined, because it was distorting the findings, she was completely ignored.
The url for the article is:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24224964-11949,00.html
The Jolly Green Capitalist,
The problem with this simplistic view is that the earth has always warmed and cooled, in ways still not fully understood.
The chances of taking 30 years of temperature data during any period of the earth’s history and producing a positive trend is remarkably good. A flat trend would probably be unusual due to the very cyclical nature of many climate drivers.
Causality is everything. Our current estimates for CO2 warming is based more on observation than raw mathematical calculation. Our best guesses could easily be out by a factor of 3 (3 times higher or 3 times lower, depending on who you talk to).
Cohenite said “This Keenlyside paper is revealing for a number of reasons;”
The thing I don’t like about the paper is the inference that warming will resume in 2016 after a hiatus from 1995 to 1998. When do we get to the point where those people admit there’s a problem with the theory. There’s no shame in being wrong but there’s incredible shame in leading people on to save your butt.
Joel I’d dispute that the way the earth warms and cools is not fully understood. What is hard to understand about it?
You have the orbital changes. You have solar variability. This gets translated into imbedded energy in the oceans, and in the act of cooling via water vapour the oceans wind up increasing the troposphere’s temperature. What is dimly known about this? The extra solar activity is magnified by the effect on cosmic rays. What is not understood about this?
Its not understood by climate frauds:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/24/dr-jennifer-marohasy-ignores-the-climate-science/
But they can never understand it. Since they are not talking about the real world. They are talking about a black body, Where its noon all the time, and so forth. You cannot find out anything about the real world talking about an imaginery one.
They underestimate the effect of the sun. Because they are not thinking in terms of cumulative warming over time in the oceans. They are thinking only of instantaneous radiative balance on a make-believe world. But they then bring the time factor in only on the basis of make-believe CO2 feedback.
Just because they don’t have a clue doesn’t mean that others don’t understand the climate.
Louis Hissink said …”We are in the sad position of witnessing the lastest prostitution of science in the name of politics – another Dark Age is before us”.
The only hope I see for deliverance from the ignorance is the obvious nature of the CO2/warming theory. People can see for themselves if the oceans rise appreciably or if it’s getting uncomfortably warm. Also, people are not going to accept huge gas price rises, taxes and Kyoto-like payments if it affects their quality of life.
In other words, there’s only so much bafflegab the theorists can espouse before their rhetoric becomes apparent. I think a lot of people have clued in already.
The only danger I see is this. If the AGW crowd get their way with major CO2 reduction, and the climate cools naturally, they’ll take credit for it. I’m sure a lot of them know that already and see that as a win-win situation.
Graeme, I said that the climate was not “fully” understood. I’m not sure how you could argue with this statement.
For example, the direct cooling effect of sulfate aerosols varies by a factor of 6 among the IPCC models. This may be an example of “tuning”, but I don’t know that our physics derived solutions for this are any more accurate.
Orbital and solar influences are the primary external drivers, but you can’t ignore all of the internal variabilty from ocean circulation, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo, etc.
Gordon – “The only danger I see is this. If the AGW crowd get their way with major CO2 reduction, and the climate cools naturally, they’ll take credit for it. I’m sure a lot of them know that already and see that as a win-win situation.”
I’ve thought of this as well Gordon, but Chindia have ensured that this will never happen. Even with an ETS implemented in Europe, Canada, US, Japan and Australia, emissions will continue to rise for the next 20 years. With better ocean, air, and satellite sensing in place during this time, the issue will be layed to rest one way or the other.
“Orbital and solar influences are the primary external drivers, but you can’t ignore all of the internal variabilty from ocean circulation, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo, etc.”
But aerosols are very well understood aren’t they? They ought to be. We have the direct evidence of the sort of effect they have every time we have a volcanic eruption. And the oceans ought to be understandeable. If you get in the way of their circulation you’ll have a cooler world. We see that very strongly in the historical when lake Agassiz broke.
If this is not understood its only because the fraid industry is sucking up all the oxygen and skewing the research project.
Perhaps if you think that everyone needs to throw their hands in the air and stick with making mathematical calculations like our current scientists appear to do whenever actually thinking about things gets a little bit too rugged for them than I can see how one would think that matters were so chronically unknown.
I’m just not used to the sloppiness of the thinking. If you read the great economists like Mises, Rothbard, Reisman, Hutt, Menger and others you see the enourmous care and attention to the reasoning. Going over their most basic assumptions over and over. The thing bottom heavy in just thinking clearly about matters. Whereas these climate scientists jump in midstream making a bunch of vain calculations without regard to the shabbiness of the structure of “reasoning” they have built up.
Its hard even to get them to come clean about their fundamental assumptions. They hide them shamefully like a fat man hiding a block of melting butter beneath a huge mound of baked beans. I couldn’t shake down Karoly to come clean with these assumptions. Nor the other idiot Brook. But from what I’ve been able to infer they are just ridiculous assumptions. Made in a vaccumn of real world climate history. They don’t have the reasoning or the evidence. The whole thing is a sham.
Joel,
The issue will be sorted out as you say but the price will be a totalitarian state governed by permits to emit carbon – this is the issue that needs to be nipped in the bud.
Bird – given your are such an expert – perhaps you could give us a guest post on the future Hadley Centre work program and the areas where they are wrong on the issues you mention. I mean you obviously know so much – an expert that you are – why not make an expansive contribution. Lay it out in detail for us.
As you say rightly “I’m just not used to the sloppiness of the thinking. ” – so how about a guest post Birdy?
Malcolm. It is simplistic because the science of how the molecular structure of a small number of atmospheric gases stop infrared heat escaping is, relatively, simple.
As you say though, the problem is the accuracy of our current estimates which could easily be out, both up and down.
It then comes down risk management. If the estimates are too high then we may not have much to worry about. If they are too low, we may have a lot to worry about. If nothing else, I see the reduction of greenhouse gas production a good insurance policy. Globally we spend billions of dollars a year insuring against things that are highly unlikely to happen but, if they do, could have serious consequences, primarily for our bank balance. I do not see what is wrong in also spending billions of dollars for something which, if it does happen, could have serious consequences to far more than just our bank account.
Actually isn’t this the “same” scepticsm? Tagging this article as “More …” is clearly misleading as :
a) the author is a well known anti-AGW advocate.
b) the organ that publishes her opinion is also a strong anti-AGW propaganist.
If we had a change of position from a know AGW supporter the we might have something to comment on, that’s not what we have here.
“It then comes down risk management. If the estimates are too high then we may not have much to worry about. If they are too low, we may have a lot to worry about. If nothing else, I see the reduction of greenhouse gas production a good insurance policy.”
No thats just bloody ridiculous. Thats just idiotic. Mate how could you have gotten it so wrong?
Since there is no warming risk and only a cooling certainty obviously risk management has to be all on the cooling side.
Now how did you screw it up so badly?
Some explanation is required here fella.
Furthermore, problematic warming, which cannot happen in the first place, is extremely cheap and easy to deal with if it DOES happen (which it cannot).
So again. How could you have gotten this so wrong? Cooling will be incredibly hard and expensive to deal with and it is going to happen. Problematic warming is cheap and easy to deal with. And it CANNOT happen.
So how could you have cocked up your thinking so badly?
I put it to you that it might be some sort of MORAL failure going on here. Because its hard to imagine such a stupid mistake in logic.
Luke my major post is on the hurricane thread. Where I explain why problematic warming CANNOT happen. No matter how much water vapour is generated. If anyone wants to put that up as a thread they have my permission.
JollyGreenCapitalist
I think you mean Joel not me.
Oh … that was it then?
Gordon Robertson.
Isn’t 379 parts per million 0.0379% a hundred times less than 3%!
I mean you Jolly Green sellout. From your own thread:
“Then they quote greater snow falling in Antarctica. Again ignoring the fact that, greater moisture in the air will obviously produce greater precipitation of both rain and snow. And totally ignoring the rapid melting of ice in the Arctic”
Obviously you are not taking into account ocean currents and the fact of cumulative warming in the oceans. We still need to figure out how it is you could have cocked up the direction of the needed risk management action so badly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do you mean is that all Luke? That little essay totally rules out serious warming. The problem was that the watts per square metre paradigm robbed people of their perspective in seeing what extra water vapour was all about. They were looking at air temperature rather than imbedded heat in the oceans.
Our central bank makes the same mistake when it looks only at interest rates and not money supply or Gross domestic revenue. Its a simple thing. But somehow these mental blocks get locked in.
Graeme, if we really do understand everything about climate, then we can build a reliable model.
However I do not believe we understand everything about climate, and hence i do not place any faith in the models forecasts!
So when will you be publishing in Nature then?
Just filing this here:
Dr Jennifer Marohasy ignores the climate science
By Barry Brook
Jennifer Marohasy’s article in the Weekend Australian newspaper (23/8/2008) is yet another installment in the ongoing saga of Australian non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) to discredit, at least in the eyes of the general public, …
BraveNewClimate.com – http://bravenewclimate.com/
Dr Jennifer Marohasy ignores the climate science
Yet another installment in the ongoing saga of Australian non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) attempting to discredit, at least in the eyes of the general public, the conclusions of Australian climate science. …
Digg / Environment / upcoming – http://digg.com/environment
Jennifer Marohasy article in The Weekend Australian
By kae(kae)
Well worth reading. The link on the tail of her post. There’s no link to The Australian directly.
kae’s bloodnut blog – http://annoyancesandirritations.blogspot.com/
CLIMATE, CLIMATE, CLIMATE — Still The looming destruction from …
By jonjayray(jonjayray)
By Jennifer Marohasy (An expert on water issues in the Murray/Darling system) When Nicholas Stern released his influential British government report on the economics of climate change in October 2006, it said that the east coast of …
Australian Politics – http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/
Statistics speak volumes compared with words
THE article “Case of the warm and fuzzy” by Jennifer Marohasy (Inquirer, 23-24/8) was a clear reminder that the details of measurable climate phenomena, shown…
Letters – blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php
Sorry Malcolm, I did mean Joel.
Graeme – you are sounding like the religious zealot that you, no doubt, have accused the supporters of global warming of being in the past. Could we have some logical discussion please, not just denial, insult and bland statements. I have already stated that no scientist disputes the fact that greenhouse gases warm our planet and that if we continue to increase them then temperatures will rise. If you disagree with that statement them please give me some names and references. You comment that “there is no warming risk and only a cooling certainty” and that “warming…CANNOT…happen” Where does your ‘certainty’ come from. If it is from a belief system that you have then you have every right to that belief. But belief systems belong in the world of religion, not science.
With respect to cooling, I ran across this on RealClimate:
“what is the easiest way to raise temperatures? Deliberate manufacture and release of HFC’s. Dirt cheap, no stratospheric injection required due to stability, GW potentials in the 10’s of thousands, little or no effect stratospheric ozone. What’s not to love? In other words, new ice ages are the very least of our problems.”
Jen, Congrats on ‘Most talked about’ column in the Oz. That must really be getting up ’em.
Listen jolly green sellout. I’ve given you the reasoning. You blew it. Because you put the warming risk as the risk you wanted to take costly risk minimisation in favour of. And not the cooling certainty. And I’ll ask you again. How did you get this matter so wrong in logic?
The certainty comes from the science. I’m telling you what the science says. You cannot make the link between extra-CO2 and warming. And the extra-CO2 could not have a cumulative warming effect on the oceans since this would be wiped out by the refrigerant effect of extra water vapour produced.
There is absolutely no chance of problematic warming if you go on scientific evidence alone and forsake all science-worker sentiment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mitchell can they back up that claim? On what basis do these guys think they can warm things up with hydro-fluoro-carbons? How will this imbed extra cumulative energy into the oceans?
Is it on the basis that it will knock out ozone? And therefore more UV will be punched into the oceans? Or are they claiming they know that it will have this powerful greenhouse effect?
If it blocks infra-red outward it can block infra-red getting to the oceans in the first place. So we’d need to know the specifics of what it will block. And we’d want to have some sort of evidence that it can work in the real world.
Doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.
Are they now going to claim that HCF’s were part of the warming of the late twentieth century?
If there is some substantial effect than the idea would be for these guys to repent their banning of them in the first place. And we can start using them in our air conditioners and spray cans. Unhampered by the restrictions that were put on us earlier.
I suspect this is just a rash statement on behalf of one of these guys to throw off the idiocy of them worrying about warming during a brutal and pulverising ice age.
“I have already stated that no scientist disputes the fact that greenhouse gases warm our planet and that if we continue to increase them then temperatures will rise.”
Two untrue things in one sentence. We had three threads here asking for evidence. And no-one can make a causal link between extra-CO2 and warming. Pass on these lies no more unless you can find some evidence.
Consider how much CO2 we put out. And that cannot be shown to warm anything or anything much. So how would it be economic or even healthy to put out HCF’s to avoid an ice age. I think this must be part of the loose talk tradition at realclimate. A snappy comeback to get them off the hook for their wrong-way-Corrigan act one more month. Just a one-liner to throw people off their scent as they keep running.
Whereas you look on the other side of things. SO2 is a by-product of liquified coal manufacture. Just putting in the stratosphere from commercial liners going over the open oceans near the equator and we have cooling. Which we’ll never need but the cheapness and convenience of it ought to be enough to calm the most fearful CO2-bedwetter.
And now these realclimate guys on the fly have come up with their HFC solution to little ice ages. They’ve been wrong about everything else. So one would need a bit more convincing.
Graeme, I state again. No scientist disputes the effect of greenhouse gases on global temperature. I mentioned Fourier and Tyndall. They go back to the 19th century. I would refer you to every scientist in this area today. I would also refer you to the ‘deniers’ articles, for non of them questioned this either. What they did question was the speed of temperature rise, the other factors affecting global temperatures and the effect of rising temperatures on climate. I have sympathy with these views for our climate is very complex and not fully understood. Now where is your body of scientific opinion supporting “cooling certainty” and warming that “CANNOT…happen”?
JollyGreenCapitalist; your statement that the science is settled about ghg’s and their effect on temperature is disingenuous; AGW has always been about CO2 and its supposed causal connection with temperature; this connection has not been proved and IMO will never will; historically CO2 follows temp;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon
Even a pro-AGW site like Skeptical Science acknowledges this basic fact; the IPCC has sought to overcome this by advocating the spurious concept of the enhanced greenhouse; see FAQ: 3.1 or go to McIntyre’s site for a demolition of this ploy; the EG has been rebutted by Spencer, Monckton, Christy etc, and more importantly the temp record for the last 10 years; for an interesting discussion on other natural factors which make the EG impossible see Bob Tisdale’s and Steve Short’s efforts here;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003344.html#comments
In fact the whole ‘does CO2 trap heat’ nonsense and the IPCC concept of the greenhouse as espoused by such nuts as Arthur Smith, who recently verballed Monckton over at APS, has been thrashed to death in a 3-hander on this site here;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003315.html#comments
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003319.html#comments
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003322.html#comments
In addition 2 interesting papers which turn the AGW orthodoxy on its head are here;
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/199/1/231
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
Tyndall’s daming analogy is simply wrong as Miscolczi has proven and the whole semi-infinite, opaque gibberish of the AGW atmospheric model is junk; other than that I’m not sure where Fourier fits in.
They do so. You are wrong. You cannot find any evidence that links CO2 to warming. Find some or admit you are wrong.
And lets not get stuck on the idea that most people might say that there could be a TINY BIT of warming.
Now you are wrong. Because many thousands of scientists have signed petitions that prove you are wrong. It might be the case that they as individuals expect there to be some tiny effect. But whether they believe that or not no-one has the evidence.
You are just going to have to accept that you are wrong. Both about it being a wall-to-wall consensus view (which is by the way irrelevant) and the idea of the science itself.
Stop talking nonsense and having this serial display of senior moments or come up with the evidence making that link.
Look Jolly-Green gentleman. When I first looked into it I just assumed that there was a warming effect and that it was a good thing. I just accepted that inductively. If we couldn’t quite make it out the effect from the noise nonetheless I figured that a priori there must be some sort of effect.
But the more I looked into it the more it became clear that no-one NO-ONE had any such evidence for an effect. Which implies that the effect is tiny, either negative or positive. Now I assume its tiny and positive. That does not make this matter a non-fraud.
I thought at first that Patrick Michaels must be about right. Clearly if he was this would be a good thing. Because it would mean the staving off a the ultimate disaster of a new glacial period.
The idea that there is some effect and its a good thing is a respectable point of view. But its a bit presumptuous because we don’t have the evidence.
Your point of view is not respectable. You are saying we ought to impose costs to avoid beneficial warming. The warming if it exists at all cannot NOT be beneficial. Since if it was of a magnitude greater than a beneficial magnitude we would have evidence for it in the record.
This position is unassailable.
So I’ll accept the laity thinking that there must be some small effect. But I’m going to get shirty if they start looking such a magnificent gift-horse in the mouth. Since if there is some warming thats got to be the best dumb luck the human race has ever run into.
I say again. This position is unassailable. It will take considerable effort to make it through this next little ice age, let alone a full-blown glaciation. And we ought not be sneering at any tiny help we might get.
“I say again. This position is unassailable.”
Oh that’s all right then. Oh hang I get it, GraemeBird is actually one of those unfortunate old guys in grubby clothes you see dragging a chaff bag full of bottles and screaming at traffic signs. Had me going for a moment …
“Jen, Congrats on ‘Most talked about’ column in the Oz. That must really be getting up ’em.”
Oh yeah, the IPCC and associated govs etc are shaking in their shoes. And getting published in the Oz, I mean it’s abhorrent to even contemplate being wrapped in the same news print as “Planet Janet”. Better watch out Jen, credibility approaching zero. Don’t let these echo chamber boys fool you into running for parliament or anything doing anything substantive.
DHMO said…”Gordon Robertson. Isn’t 379 parts per million 0.0379% a hundred times less than 3%!”
I’m not following you DHMO. My take on ppm with respect to atmospheric gases, although I stand to be corrected, is that for a given volume of atmospheric gases (air), in which there are 1 million parts, there are 380 parts that are CO2.
A part could be a cup or a molecule. For every million molecules of air in a volume there are 380 molecules of CO2 in that volume. Of course, CO2 is part of the air.
The example I gave was 38 molecules of CO2 in a volume of air holding 100,000 molecules of air. That is arrived at by dividing both sides by 10.
However, that initial 380 ppmv was ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere, including natural CO2 and man-made CO2. So the 38 molecules represents all the CO2 as well. To get the man-made contribution, we take 3% of that (actually it’s about 2.93%)and arrive at 38 molecules x 0.03 = 1.14 molecules. Rather than have 1.14 molecules, we chuck out the 0.14 molecule to arrive at 1 molecule of man-made CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air.
I’m not stupid enough to think my math means anything, it’s simply a visualization for me of what we humans are contributing and the extremely low density of CO2 compared to other gases like nitrogen, oxygen, even water vapour, which is about 1% of the atmosphere by volume.
Patrick B.said…”Better watch out Jen, credibility approaching zero”.
She seems to be rattling your cage. Now why would that be? Let’s see…when someone gets angry and starts slinging muck, there must be a conflict. Oh, yes…on the one side of the conflict is what that person wants to happen, and on the other side is what’s actually happening. That person doesn’t want to see Jen published and she is being published.
OK…there’s one way to resolve the conflict. Since you can’t do anything about her being published, you have to sincerely wish her well for her effort. Are you man enough?
Eh Cohenite I see Eli shafted that stoopid adiabatic lapse of thought paper.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-is-too-short-to-occupy-oneself_21.html
“Zombie George Chilingar and the Adiabat of Death” indeed – I kacked !
Anyway – not that I would mind you – but tell me – what do you reckon – if somebody smacked Birdy one – do you think it might loosen the neurones and we might get a sensible flow of material? You’ll have to do it as he’s on your side and I’m a pacificist. Although I’m being challenged severely.
Patrick B: ‘I mean it’s abhorrent to even contemplate being wrapped in the same news print as “Planet Janet”.’
I take it from your estimation of the Australian and JA that you are a self-hating leftist who believes that we have it coming to us as a species.
But, honestly, what do you people read with your cornflakes? Please, tell me its not the Age and the SMH because that’s just embarrassing.
luke; I wish you would do a bit of analysis of this stuff; eli had a good run at the McIntyre discussion of Chilingar, but the fact that he has had to resort to the usual vicious puerility, along with Tamino, is evident that he came off second best;
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=423&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30
The primary error which eli makes is he treats Chilingar as though it is a paper about heat creation; it isn’t; it is a paper about heat transfer; Chilingar doesn’t quibble about the greenhouse effect; on p2 he says;
The present-day average surface temperature Ts`288 K and effective temperature Te~ 255 K. Therefore, the present-day greenhouse effect is approximately equal to +33C (should be K).
He then makes the valid comparison with an actual glass greenhouse where heat retention is due to the isolation of the air; once that isolation is ended temperature decreases. Eli says Chilingar ignores the sensible and latent heats of water; he doesn’t; he calculates them and then, for purposes of explaining how his convectional model overcomes the EXTRA heating by GH as proposed by AGW, puts them aside temporarily. Chilingar’s model is another in a growing line of ideas (Bob Tisdales, Steve Shorts) which indicate that CO2 increase may be a temeprature moderator, operating inversely to the trend. Even eli concedes that Chilingar got it right for dry air; he misses both the point about heat transfer compared to heating per se and the fact that Chilingar does deal with the heating effect of water vapour; this is done on pp 2-3; the only problem is that Chilingar regards the sum effect of water vapour as being similar to Spencer’s view; that is, a -ve feedback via increased albedo.
The other ‘issue’ of downward IR ( as per Philopona) which eli worries about is dealt with here;
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=268#p5125
The relevant figure is FIG 8.2 with its attendant discussion; Kirchhoff’s Law (or Stewart’s Law) means that increased downward IR is matched by upward IR, which has been transported there by convection; and this really is the point; eli doesn’t disavow the adiabatic convective model, he just pillories it because he maintains that it couldn’t impact on the CO2 heating. What heating I hear you ask.
luke; I wish you would do a bit of analysis of this stuff; eli had a good run at the McIntyre discussion of Chilingar, but the fact that he has had to resort to the usual vicious puerility, along with Tamino, is evident that he came off second best;
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=423&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30
The primary error which eli makes is he treats Chilingar as though it is a paper about heat creation; it isn’t; it is a paper about heat transfer; Chilingar doesn’t quibble about the greenhouse effect; on p2 he says;
The present-day average surface temperature Ts`288 K and effective temperature Te~ 255 K. Therefore, the present-day greenhouse effect is approximately equal to +33C (should be K).
He then makes the valid comparison with an actual glass greenhouse where heat retention is due to the isolation of the air; once that isolation is ended temperature decreases. Eli says Chilingar ignores the sensible and latent heats of water; he doesn’t; he calculates them and then, for purposes of explaining how his convectional model overcomes the EXTRA heating by GH as proposed by AGW, puts them aside temporarily. Chilingar’s model is another in a growing line of ideas (Bob Tisdales, Steve Shorts) which indicate that CO2 increase may be a temeprature moderator, operating inversely to the trend. Even eli concedes that Chilingar got it right for dry air; he misses both the point about heat transfer compared to heating per se and the fact that Chilingar does deal with the heating effect of water vapour; this is done on pp 2-3; the only problem is that Chilingar regards the sum effect of water vapour as being similar to Spencer’s view; that is, a -ve feedback via increased albedo.
The other ‘issue’ of downward IR ( as per Philopona) which eli worries about is dealt with here;
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=268#p5125
The relevant figure is FIG 8.2 with its attendant discussion; Kirchhoff’s Law (or Stewart’s Law) means that increased downward IR is matched by upward IR, which has been transported there by convection; and this really is the point; eli doesn’t disavow the adiabatic convective model, he just pillories it because he maintains that it couldn’t impact on the CO2 heating. What heating I hear you ask.
oops, sorry folks.
LOOK WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM PATRICK B YOU MORON!!!!!
My position is in fact unassailable so long as you think that human-added CO2 is a net warmer and not a net cooler.
Thats just a fact. There is no way you can get around that you idiot. Thats why I call this position unassailable.
So what is the matter with you Patrick B?
What is your problem?
Could it be solved by a Schaums outline course in logic? Or is it in fact a MORAL failing?
You are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lets go over it again and one day some understanding is going to penetrate your feeble minds. We are in an ice age. We have been in an ice age for 39 million years. Since North and South America fused we have been in a particularly brutal and pulverising ice age.
Human-CO2-warming is inferred. There is no evidence for it. So it must be wrong or it must be SMALL!!!!!!
Got it. Patrick B you moron? Or am I going to fast for you you dim bulb?
The position that any CO2-warming IS A GOOD THING is unassailable. Since if CO2-warming were strong enough to be harmful we would see it in the evidential record.
Now do you understand Patrick B? Have you clicked yet you !@#$%^&*…………..dummy?
We are just going to have to go over it again and again and again until you thick, blockhead, dumbasses get it.
And I suppose on one level it doesn’t matter if you get it or not because you are malacious, nihilistic liars. But on another level it does matter. Because if you know that this is well understood then you will also know that the game is up.
“The relevant figure is FIG 8.2 with its attendant discussion; Kirchhoff’s Law (or Stewart’s Law) means that increased downward IR is matched by upward IR, which has been transported there by convection; and this really is the point;”
That really is the point isn’t it? I mean the model was set up in such a naeive fashion in the first place. It excluded convection. So we have to add it back. Even if the convection response was overidden than we would have the cooling due to the refrigerant effect of evaporation and the cloud response. And if that wasn’t enough the ocean currents would be less vigourous in response.
So the whole gig of attempting to warm via CO2 would always fail or be a tiny success. Too small to be bad. And it could only succeed if it were so extensive as to really increase air pressure globally.
Thank you Cohenite. Thank you Graeme. Now we have something to discuss. However we do have a fundamental problem as to what each of us considers scientific argument.
Cohenite, you quote a graph with no details and then go on to quote references to Jennifer’s blog. Sorry, but I see those as commentary not scientific review.
You do however quote two papers. For the first one – http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/199/1/231 I would refer you to their opening comment “We argue that CO2 greenhouses thick enough to defeat the faint early Sun are implausible and that, if no other greenhouse gases are invoked, very cold climates are expected for much of Proterozoic and Archaean time.”
This would imply that these scientists DO accept the link between greenhouse gases and temperature.
I am surprised by your second link. You have put the Chilingar paper as evidence of a scientist that does not accept the science of greenhouse gases effect on global temperatures. Yet, a short while later, in your response to Luke you quote that “Chilingar doesn’t quibble about the greenhouse effect”
It would appear that we are in violent agreement – that all scientists accept the science of greenhouse gases and their impact on global temperatures – in which case, why are we having this discussion!
I do not understand the link between Tyndall and Miscolczi. Tyndall simply identified the key greenhouse gases in 1870. Miscolczi, again, does not question the greenhouse effect, in fact he includes the radiant forcing in his calculations. Fourier refers to French mathematician, Joseph Fourier, who first postulated the existence of these greenhouse gases in 1830.
As for you Graeme, I have no idea what you are going on about. You provide no scientific reference to challenge my statement that no scientist questions the science of greenhouse gases and you provide no supporting papers to substantiate your claim of“cooling certainty” and warming that “CANNOT…happen”?
What is particular disappointing here is that there are scientists who are questioning the speed of global warming, other factors which may increase or reduce that warming and the impact of that warming on our climate. These areas are very important and need open discussion.
Blind, religious denial to all of the science simply undermines this dialogue.
But your contention is just ridiculous from the getgo. The Oregon petition got 31000 signatures to it.
Not many scientists buy into this fraud at all. Just a bunch of clowns and grant-whores.
Fella if I thought for one minute you were some outsider who just did not know what was going on I would go a lot easier on you.
Now lets have some evidence for human-induced-CO2-warming. If you are a naieve outsider than you might not know that this evidence does not exist. In which case if you go looking for it, than perhaps you will be enlightened.
On the other hand if you are a hardened criminal so to speak, you are not getting me jumping through hoops on account of you being an unreconcileable fraud.
So which is it?
Now we both know that neither of us has seen any empirical evidence for this fraud. So what the hell are you on about?
This looks like just another ploy from hard-leftists. Look jolly-green-play-actor? How long have you looked into this matter?
You are not who you are making yourself out to be. If you were a naieve businessman in his dotage who were concerned for the environment you would understand that warming was good. You might get it wrong and think that extra-CO2 would warm (more than a tiny bit), but you would recognise that for the obvious good thing that it is.
You are not who you say you are. Your position makes no sense. And your supposed generation isn’t typically carrying the same stupid-genes as the kids.
Dude you are in deep. You are actually giving talks on this racket.
You should have been able to derive this pseudo-science from the ground up prior to actually committing yourself so deeply.
Perhaps you can turn around and clean up what you’ve helped start. And then there will be no harm done.
We can tell from the spray, it’s beak and feather for sure.
Hmmm…Just to try and ask a serious question here for a minute: can anyone tell me why the BOM is still operating with a climate normal period of 1961 to 1990, when calculating anomalies?
Considering the last year of this “normal” period occurred 18 years ago, it just seems a bit odd.
JGC; the relevant link for the Tyndall reference is Spencer Weart’s classic RC spray about the semi-infinite opaque atmosphere resplendant with Tyndall’s dam equivalent across the vertically ever-expanding photosphere;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument
This is the AGW model; a barrier at the TOA allows the increasing CO2 to do its dirty work at ever increasing heights, heating the surface and troposphere. Miscolczi proves this wrong; Chilindar proves this wrong; the Zahnie paper proves this wrong because the AGW model is talking about CO2 NOT GHG’s; is this another metamorphosis of this term; from AGW to climate change, now a GHG effect? Sweet hypocrisy; the original concept of AGW is impossible; the greenhouse is governed by Kirchhoff and Stewart and a host of Miscolczian -ve feedbacks; the enhanced greenhouse concept is a misrepresentation; CO2, as the chosen agent of humankind’s assault on benevolent nature was a bad choice; if the move now is to widen the definition of AGW forcing agent to include the others, you’ll still come a cropper, but CO2 by itself is a dud.
The graph about CO2 historically following temp is based on Berner’s paper;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5525/2310
They ought not even be doing this anomalies JIVE. They ought to just be giving us the temperature. This is priesthood stuff. Its setting up anothe chinese wall between them and the public. There is no need for it. Its a symptom of obscurantism.
Shut up gavin you idiot. You are just useless mate. You ought not even be here. Your contribution is nil. You are dead wood.
Jolly Green
As a scientist I refute the existence of a greenhouse gas.
cohenite: You know pliny’s post documents Climate Science, not physics.
There is no heuristic within that stands: Kirchoff does not apply, Beer’s law is misapplied, i.e, overstates by orders of magnitude the emissivity of GHGs, the graphs are not empirical, but calculated from Beer’s, on and on.
Seeing in print this effluent ladled out makes me physically ill, and for what? That Luke be saved?
The force is not with him; different Luke.
Jennifer, I wish your 150 year temperature anomaly graph had included a smoothed graph of the geomagnetic aa index. The correlation between those two graphs obviously suggests the sun dominates global warming and cooling.
Secondly, Enron’s Ken Lay was a passionate supporter of cap-and-trade. Rudd is in bed with a dead man.
Mate: With currawongs flapping round the house all day I am quite used to great blobs of bird shit everywhere but I reckon it makes the place look untidy all the same.
TW: From memory, 1960 or there about was the beginning of solid global instrument records following the first geophysical year in 1958. An average temperature run of several decades could be reasonably calculated from stats gained downunder then compared with other participating countries also working in the SH.
Atmospheric science had arrived. Since then there has been a lot of record chucking where local discontinuities were uncovered. Sad, but they can and have been recovered via a little math.
BTW: Recognising trends from various instrument charts and tracking errors across a spectrum of users in the 1960’s was a major part of my industrial employment then. I am still quite happy with a general acceptance of the hockey stick approach to climate change relative to several hundred years of direct temperature measurements despite all the arguments.
I wonder if Cohenite and Gulrud will ever publish anything or will the world have to be saved by finding this blog. Sigh ….
Again from Louis – “As a scientist ” – err don’t scientists publish science?
so we find http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=L+Hissink&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=bio&as_subj=chm&as_subj=eng&as_subj=phy&hl=en&lr=
Must have gone wrong somewhere….
“I am still quite happy with a general acceptance of the hockey stick approach to climate change relative to several hundred years of direct temperature measurements despite all the arguments. ”
Just shows what an idiot you are. You and Robin Williams must be the only suckers buying into that one. For starters they used tree ring growth as a proxy. Totally inappropriate for those time scales and for the industrial era.
There is real intention here. As idiotic as you clearly are you cannot seriously buy into this except through supplementary moral failure.
“The correlation between those two graphs obviously suggests the sun dominates global warming and cooling.’
The alarmist crowd are so inept that they are unable to see relationships of this sort even if they are right there on the same graph.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One reason I pay attention to the resistance-to-circulation of the oceans as a key determinant of global average temperature is this…. While the ocean responds immediately to the orbit of the sun (ie the earth getting closer to the sun) or Forbush events, or heightened solar activity.. While imbedded energy is immediately punched into the oceans…. If you look over a period of some decades you see the imbedded energy oscillating up and down and not quite in accordance with solar cycles. Sometimes in accordance with the solar cycle, But otherwise it appears that gulf stream momentum decides when a smoothed peak or trough is hit.
The oceans can and should absorb more energy when the gulf stream, or other surface currents are already in a state of high momentum.
So if we woke up tomorrow and the resistance to circulation was less the energy of the oceans would oscillate up with the very next strong solar activity.
Forbush events are a little different. Because the extra energy gets punched into the oceans out-of-step with any natural rythm of the oceans. It may even upset that natural rythm. Hence the energy has to be released to the atmosphere much more quickly. It might be like getting the rythm wrong when you are pushing a kid on a swing. You can add a lot of energy but you throw the kid out of whack and it won’t necessarily lead to a lasting upsweep in the imbedded energy. Rather it will lead typically to a sudden increase in troposphere temperature step-fashion over a few months.
Note how after the 1998 air temperature peak the temperature briefly dipped below normal like the kid on the swing losing her rythm for a bit. Needing another cycle to get back in the swing.
Luke:
Sorry I’m such a disappointment, but I have no advanced degrees and prospects for one only in History. No matter, Siddons and Kininmonth can do anything I might and more with the physics you require.
As for contributing authorships, I do have a PI expecting my participation on field identification of certain fungi.
More likely, I will simply provide content to websites of family and friends.
But if I were to self-publish (the biggest if), it would be on a subject of no interest (not to say impact) to you whatever.
Gary; pliny’s post does say Beer’s doesn’t apply, and if you don’t like Kirchhoff, well, we’ll use Stewart;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1625.pdf
The crucial thing is, that as absorbance increases so does emission; what the greenhousers don’t appreciate is that the concept has an inbuilt governor; adding CO2, or any GHG, triggers this ‘balancing’ mechanism.
Luke
Your input here is one continual ad hominem – typical lefty policy – can’t counter the message, so we will go for the messenger.
I note that Google scholar has my late father’s paper in its listing, but I’ll leave it up to you to work out which one it might be.
Scientists are people who use the scientific method and publishing or not publishing has nothing to do with it. However many people call themselves scientists, but only those who adhere to the scientific method deserve that title.
The scientific method is like a 3-legged stool – the legs are observation, theory and experiment. Take away any one of the supports and the stool will fall.
Right now I am testing a particular geology theory concerning the structure of of a particular base metal ore body by drilling very deep holes. It’s called the scientific method – observation – the gossan at the surface, the hypothesis is that the mineral deposit has a particular spation orientation going in a particular direction with depth, the experiment testing is to drill holes to confirm this.
I use the scientific method as a professional geoscientist.
Your problem is that you confuse the publication of peer reviewed, consensus fiction as science.
So Louis you’re saying you not really a scientist then after all?
I’m a lumberjack myself. Cut down trees, wear high heels and go the lavatory, at night I put on women’s clothing and hang around in bars.
(Impressive Gary 🙂 I’m into lower life forms)
gavin,
Thanks for that. I note that the NCDC has moved on to a 1971 – 2000 Climate Normal. Does anyone know if the BOM intends to do something similar?
Luke
No, never said that at all – but then that’s you isn’t it. As I posted before, we are witnessing the prostitution of science, and from your description of your night time activities, we know who the scientific whores are.
Well done Jennifer – the trolls (Luke, SJT et al) were quick off the mark to criticize your article but they’re not the ones being published in The Australian!! All they can do is lurk here obsessively on this forum making pathetic comments. keep chipping away
Julian.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/24/dr-jennifer-marohasy-ignores-the-climate-science/
Herein lies the problem: Jennifer doesn’t actually make a case for anything.
Just filing this here:
Tim Lambert’s weblog
ScienceBlogs – USA
On Saturday the Australian published an article by Jennifer Marohasy. It’s the usual cherry-picked global-warming-ended-in-1998 nonsense, and Barry Brook …
See all stories on this topic
Google Blogs Alert for: Jennifer Marohasy
The Australian’s War on Science XVIII [Deltoid]
By Tim Lambert none@example.com
On Saturday the Australian published an article by Jennifer Marohasy. It’s the usual cherry-picked global-warming-ended-in-1998 nonsense, and Barry Brook has written a detailed refutation. But I felt I should post this graph from …
ScienceBlogs : Combined Feed – http://www.scienceblogs.com
Speaking of irony
By Tobias Ziegler
Jennifer Marohasy has attached a footer to her latest blog post:. This blog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in politics and the environment. We strive for tolerance and respect. We don’t always agree with what we …
– http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com
Case of the warm and fuzzy
By Co2sceptic
by Jennifer Marohasy WHEN Nicholas Stern released his influential British government report on the economics of climate change in October 2006, it said that the east coast of Australia had suffered declining rainfall. In the same year, …
CO2sceptics – News Blog – http://co2sceptics.com/news.php
Louis Hissink.
If you are a scientist, perhaps you could elaborate a little on what it is exactly that is your scientific day job?
And a hint Louis…
…when expounding on what science is, you might usefully consider John Mashey’s insightful description of the processes of true science:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/john_mashey_on_how_to_learn_ab.php
Just quietly, Jennifer, if any of my students had produced scales on a graph such as illustrated at
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/the_australians_war_on_science_19.php#c1069206
I would have given them a big fat zero for this part of any report. This is unacceptable from an undergrad, and indeed from a high school student.
Why were the data presented in this fashion?
As I asked of someone else who so constructed a graph several months ago, why not just start from 0 celcius, or heck, even 0 kelvin?
Bernard; what are you talking about? Jennifer has posted 3 temperature graphs; a global anomaly one from HadCrut from 1850-2008 which is calculated on the 61-90 base period; a satellite one which is stock-standard for their ’79 onwards coverage; and a global mean from 1850 onwards; all are in C and all show declarations of imminent doom are irresponsible; the satellite one is flat, and less than flat (sic) once you remove the ENSO, as lucia did (although Schmidt achieved the opposite; strange that; any comments on crook statistics from that little bun-fight?); the 1850’s pair, which show the data in 2 different ways (and what is wrong with that?), still reflect the climate phase shifts from the late 1900’s through the 20thC. Unfortunately for AGW temperatures just won’t play ball despite all the hyperbole, hysteria and thuggery and obfuscation. Just for the record how would you present the data; the 99 or the 07 version?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Bernard J.,
Therefore, as far as you are concerned, it’s completely acceptable to present fluctuations of less than 1 degree celsius as a mountainous swing?
If this is the case, why are we able to cope with daily fluctuations of 10, 20, 30 degrees?
What are you more likely to notice? The temperature going from 13.5 to 14.5 degrees, or from 10 to 15 degrees?
Before you start awarding big fat zeros, perhaps you should outline a case as to why we should be more concerned with less than 1 degree celsius over 150 years, when it is so far within the daily range?
Exactly what part of the Earth is in deadly danger, if its average temperature is 1 degree higher today, than it was in 1850?
Now steady on Bernard – we could logarithm the data – it could get worse 🙂
Come on Cohenite – give it away… – perhaps could divide the data series by pi too?
What the heck are you guys going to do when the temperature starts to climb again?
Go to the beach; according to AGW, I won’t have to walk far.
Really the best advice you can give anyone is to buy real estate a little bit inland from the North Queensland coast. The centre of gravity in the country will shift that way when the weather turns down and the power bills turn up. But don’t buy real estate there until I get the chance. And remember my fee for giving you the good advice.
This is once of these rare places that probably would have been hospitable even during the last glacial period. Plenty of good rainfall and warm weather pretty much all the time. Get there first and charge exorbitant rentals to all the refugees who come later.
Isn’t it funny that the leftist scientists are not just a little bit out. But totally wrong and stupid in all constituent parts to their argument and even going so far as to predict the exact wrong problem?
Thats what happens when you go after alleged science sentiment rather than actual scientific evidence.
Dickheads like TheWord just make you want to puke – any thought as to what might happen to the ends of the distribution or what levels of SST temperature change cause droughts to floods. Give us a break tosser.
What temperature change? What droughts? What floods?
Give US a break Luke and spare us from your evidence-free stupidity.
Hey Luke,
So, how do you know what happens, knob-gobbler? Do tell! Does temperature change cause drought and flood? Is it cooler or warmer climate which causes one or the other and which is it?
You can plug the question into your pretty little computer model, or you can shove it up your arse. Either way, the answer will be fertilizer, cause you just don’t know and nor does anyone else.
Answer me this: is cloud cover a positive or negative forcing? Don’t know, do you chain-choker? No-one does, for all the posing and posturing, you can’t answer that single, simple question with anything approaching precision as to sign, let alone amount!
“Get there first and charge exorbitant rentals to all the refugees who come later.”
Graeme – are you serious?
Think this one through, man. The ‘refugees who come later’ will (by definition) be the AGW nutters – who stayed too late because they believed it was actually getting warmer. Surely any sensible person would sool the dogs onto them, not rent them habitation. Otherwise, you would have them living in the neighbourhood. What a ghastly prospect.
mmmm – gee TheWank you’ve got me there – mmmmm …. let’s see …. hmmmm …. could it be something like Hell Vee-A-O – ROTFL !
Yeah, OK. Luke’s a moron. Best ignored, from now on.
Bernard J
I work as a professional exploration geologist in which the use of the scientific method is put into practice daily. Observation, hypothesis, experiment.
Bernard J.
And Mashey’s insightful description of the processes of true science?
I think you will a far more accurate description of the scientific method in the lead article of Aust. Inst. Geoscientists Issue 87, February 2007, linked (http://www.aig.org.au/assets/22/AIGNews_Feb07.pdf).
Science is about explaining observations, not inventing hare-brained ideas like CO2 ice age theory, or CO2 global warming theory.
The problem with AGW is that it was never observed in the first place therefore requiring a theory. Rather the theory was put first, and then evidence sought to confirm it.
Pure junk science.
TheWank obviously doesn’t know about El Viejo. ROTFL
Wow, I am truly amazed. We have all these climate scientists who have spent 10+ years of their lives studying and researching atmospheric physics & chemistry, and yet they are ALL wrong!
If the scientific community wanted to know how carbon emissions will affect the earth’s climate, all they needed to do was ask dear Jennifer Marohasy. She has no credentials whatsoever to speak on climate science, and yet somehow she knows all the answers!
How many climate-change denialists here have ever read a single paper in a ‘real’ climate science journal?..and how many of you have ever had something published in a peer-review climate journal?
If you want to be taken seriously when you speak about very complicated, technical matters such as the planet’s atmosphere, I suggest you go back to school. If, after 10 years or so of (relevant) study, you still believe all the existing climate-change evidence is rubbish, you can publish your own scientific papers on the topic.
Only then will I start to listen to you.
Wow, Ben! That’s a really serious deference to seniority you’ve got going there.
Only the young and inexperienced (or the true authoritarians) have that bent. Which are you? If the former, when you’re older and more cynical, you’ll understand why climate change is not a true “science” and why it’s so-called “experts” must be challenged.
Some of the more puerile contributors here assume they know everything. How old were you in 1991?
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/House1991.pdf
For all the hundreds of billions wasted on AGW’ing twaddle, your so-called experts still haven’t answered Lindzen’s challenges from 17 years ago. I don’t know about you, but I find that to be telling.
Despite that there are young losers like Luke who think throwing around stylized references to vegetation-atmosphere-ocean is some kind of clever checkmate, rather than a tacit admission of a lack of capacity to formulate and argue a point of view.
Tell me, Ben, how well do you think all that money has answered even these few concerns which Lindzen had, so long ago?
Ok Ben, now tell us just what Al Gore and Flannery know about climate science, or for that matter Michael Mann, and his cohorts.
Isnt it interesting how Gore ( with no quaifications at all) has now become so fabuously wealthy peddling the alarmist cause, backed by many of the peer reviewed PHd’d scientific glitterati.
What peer reviewed paper has he submitted. He is a con man, too cowardly and dim as a second rate ex USA politician, to even debate Monckton.
When Flannery asks on television for someone to show him the science, how does a life time of collecting fossils qualify him to a be a judge of the science, anymore than someone who has spent a life time in engineering,or IT, for example.
Or is it the case that if you are on the side of the warmanistas then one set of rules apply, but if one is sceptical then one is immediately disqualified from having a view if not in possession of a Phd in climate fiddling.
All that Marohasy’s of this world are saying is that the evidence is showing that it is not as cut and dried, as the alarmists would have us believe.
Louis Hissink.
Your comments on scientific methodology, and your avoidance of comment on Mashey’s piece, are not quite in line with the opinions of many scientists who are intimately aware of how to conduct their science.
If you find yourself in disagreement with John Mashey it really behoves you to hop over to that link and explain to him where he is in error.
“Wow, I am truly amazed. We have all these climate scientists who have spent 10+ years of their lives studying and researching atmospheric physics & chemistry, and yet they are ALL wrong!”
Yes indeed. They didn’t follow the scientific method. As explained to you by Louis. And it was bigger than that. The movement got so big that the very stupid became upwardly-mobile. Moreso than usual. So a whole lot of non-entities like Hansen, Schmidt, Connelly, Mann, Annan and others were catipulted to being the alleged representatives of science when in sober reality they were a bunch of misfits incapable of sound inductive reasoning.
Bernard J.,
I’ll see you a John Mashey and raise you a Karl Popper, any time of the day.
Popper had the wrong idea. He downgraded induction. You never throw any tools away. He had a cookie-cutter approach to the whole deal. He fell into this myth that induction is no good because no one-step example of induction can prove anything. Which is true but its not the least bit relevant.
His idea about falsification was good but he pushed it way to far. And he didn’t emphasise CONVERGENT falsification which plays into the hands of the bully-boy-advocates of the intellectual status quo because it leads them to rely on mindless dismissal of any new idea.
Since only the philosophers and theologians are fully trained in bivalent deductive logic, but even toddlers practice induction, the philosophers are always coming up with arguments to enthrone the former and degrade the latter.
So what we wind up is a two-tool form of science. Which emphasises only (bad) deduction and statistics.
Popper had a lot of good things to say but his epistemology was just crap. Rothbards rule is that they always specialise in the things they are bad at.
Graeme,
That’s quite an opinion you have there on Popper. I’d have to think hard on it, before responding.
[I’m surprised and I’m sure the True-Believers would be, that you think Popper set the bar too high.]
Actually, “too high” is wrong, because I didn’t really know how to immediately respond to someone who seems to be serious, but essentially heaps it onto Popper.
It seems like it’s not a matter of a “too high” question, but one whereby you just don’t really agree with Popper at all.
[I’d have a problem with that, by the way.]
“Rothbards rule is that they always specialise in the things they are bad at.”
I notice that you specialise in criticising thousands of scientists who work in a field that you have no experience of…
Theword,
Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round. If you’re on secure ground then your friends can cheer your humiliation of Mashey, and Deltoid will surely implode.
I note that neither you nor any of your armchair ‘scientific’ friends here have had the courage to contradict Mashey outside of this blog. Graeme in particular is all froth and bluster here, but seems to only be able to spray his vitriol when he is in the company of his ‘friends’.
Of course, I shouldn’t fret about this – your collective parochial inclinations merely serve to keep the nasty anti-science miasma confined to lingering in the corners here…
“…when expounding on what science is, you might usefully consider John Mashey’s insightful description of the processes of true science”
Bernie, autoeroticism does not entertain.
“Formulated in 1858, Stewart’s Law [1] states that when an object is studied in thermal equilibrium, its
absorption is equal to its emission [1].”
Touche. Your turn. You know how to do this, start from first principles and demonstrate that any region of the atmosphere can be thought in thermal equilibrium while its temperature changes.
Jan had a paper, btw, that brought it through Planck to Einstein as a history of science.
TheWank – “throwing around stylized references to vegetation-atmosphere-ocean” – WTF – …. LOLZ ….
Get up’em Bernard – there’s not enough condemnation of the sheer moral bankruptcy of the philosophical position here.
I didn’t want to imply that Popper set the bar too high or too low. I’m saying he got things entirely wrong.
I sometimes call philosophers “Godless Theologians” to emphasise this medieval bias they have in favour of strings of syllogisms and pseudo-syllogisms in endlessly lengthy books and their institutional bias against induction.
Philosophy is like other areas with its promotion of people who shore up the priesthood and its institutional biases. The way to get to the top in philosophy is to show technical dexterity early on and shore up the priesthood.
Popper set the bar way too low with Einstein. He was impressed that Einstein had specified conditions by which his thesis could be falsified by checking out the bend of starlight during an eclipse. But failure to falsify is not positive evidence in favour of anything. These days they seem to say that these experiments that fail-to-falsify a thesis VALIDATE that thesis. Not verify but validate. Thats a sloppy concept. I don’t call such experiments anything but a tragic waste of taxpayer money. You want experiments that verify, falsify or rerank various paradigms as to plausibility or no-one to be writing any cheques.
The Eddington experiment falsified nothing. It didn’t verify anything either. It failed to falsify so it did next to nothing. The publicity did what the experiment had not done. Plus people had been looking at eclipses for centuries. Its likely that Einstein knew the answer in advance. Its hard to imagine how he could not have. Are we meant to believe that for centuries they’d witnessed eclipses and never made such calculations?
So Poppers way of thinking doesn’t raise the bar too high or too low. It just gets everything wrong. It is the fault of philosophers that they get a good idea and than precede to push it way too far. His idea about falsification was a neat little timesaver and thats all it was. But he pushed it so far as to make it crowd out verification. And he had this approach where you have conjectures and refutations.
“For Popper, it is in the interplay between the tentative theories (conjectures) and error elimination (refutation) that scientific knowledge advances toward greater and greater problems; in a process very much akin to the interplay between genetic variation and natural selection.”
This is ahistorical and terrible methodology.
Poppers approach is analogous to trying to inspect quality into a product. You keep throwing stuff out until the quality of your product is you-beaut. But quality is not inspected into anything. It must be DESIGNED into it. Hence realclimate, Barry Brook and others who have a crap product, and their alleged justification is only the faux-falsification of their opponents.
We have many tools in science. But all of them come from induction. You ought not ever throw any tools away. But all of them are imbedded induction. Maths is imbedded induction. Logic is imbedded induction. Venn diagrams, statistics, boolean algebra- all good tools and all imbedded induction. Induction is still the master-builder who must think things through before picking up the chainsaw or the sledgehammer. The other tools without intelligent inductive thought behind them can be worse than useless. But induction alone would leave him building a crude treehut with his hands.
Popper was quits with finding the truth of anything. He didn’t think you could. Well you certainly couldn’t with his methodology. That can be granted up front.
Here is more on the way that philosophers tend to work:
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/deductive-bivalent-exactitude-versus-rightful-certitude/
Bernard J
I am not at in agreement or disgreement with Mashey as I have not read his opinion, so your final sentence is somewhat presumptious.
The scientific method is the empirical method – observation, framing of an hypothesis, then testing it. It cannot be expressed any simpler than this. I suppose that when one is not able to do an experiment to test an hypothesis, such as in the fields of astronomy, archaelogy and geology, then the lure of the Deductive Method becomes irresistable.
Of course there is then what might be termned Whig Science, in which consensus and proof is determined by reasoned argument among a group of experts. That is not science but scientitism.
I am sure that many pseudoscientists are very aware of how they conduct their efforts.
Graemebird: “Ok Ben, now tell us just what Al Gore and Flannery know about climate science”
Well, compared to real climate scientists, I suspect they know very little. They have never published in peer-reviewed journals, and therefore have no real credibility. Actually, I wish Al Gore had never become involved in the debate because it has somehow cast what is a scientific issue as a political one. Unfortunately it seems many people are unable to separate the two.
For those of you who are confused about the matter of ‘scientific consensus’ among the experts, I suggest you read this:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Do you climate-change denialists believe there is systematic bias in all scientific disciplines? Are there people out there who dismiss the findings in journals of Nuclear Physics, Genetics, Immunology, Organic Chemistry etc… as ‘not following the scientific method’?
Or is atmospheric science the only one that is full of greedy, immoral lefties?
Theword,
Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round. If you’re on secure ground then your friends can cheer your humiliation of Mashey, and Deltoid will surely implode.
I note that neither you nor any of your armchair ‘scientific’ friends here have had the courage to contradict Mashey outside of this blog. Graeme in particular is all froth and bluster here, but seems to only be able to spray his vitriol when he is in the company of his ‘friends’.
Of course, I shouldn’t fret about this – your collective parochial inclinations merely serve to keep the nasty anti-science miasma confined to lingering in the corners here…
“they have never published in peer-reviewed journals…”
Totally idiotic epistemology. You fail. Go to the back of the class and where the dunce cap. Gore has made a million dollars a hundred times from this science fraud. Flannery is a public speaking whore. They are useless because they are stupid whores. But this publishing in peer reviewed journals is just fieldwork and doesn’t lead to any conceptual understanding of anything. Its chores. Nuts and bolts work. And thats if its done right. Field workers are not field Marshalls. And no field worker is a specialist in all the relevant areas.
” I’m into lower life forms”.
We’re relieved, no progeny then.
Ben; “Do you climate-change denialists believe there is systematic bias in all scientific disciplines? ”
Sorry guy but $50 Billion in research grants can buy a lot of friends and the news media loves alarmist news releases, believe it or not they are private enterprise busineses which have an eye to the bottom line. Lets not be too naive. Yes there is a systematic bias. I have read hundreds of peer reviewed technical papers which never get a hint of recognition in the news media but one piece of alarmist propaganda gets sent around the world by AP and Reuters I have responded to these news wires many times directly with proof of their blatent disregard for the truth but there is never a retraction. The problem is that the politicians believe the news wires are reflecting the will of the poeple which the recent poll in the UK proved totally wrong but now that they are committed they cannot retreat thats the problem, scientists can reverse their opinions based on new evidence which so many have but politicians can not, they are a much lower form of life.
“Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round.”
Let me get this straight, you don’t want to philosophise on the nature and practice of science but want us to go pick a fight with a couple of Computer Scientists over their views on the matter?
As a computer engineer I have the utmost respect for this Mashey’s accomplishments, having worked on SGI and MIPS units for OEMs back in the ’90s.
I have lived and worked and partied with such brilliant individuals. They see solutions instantly that I cannot with great effort. They are also the very last people I’d look to for erudition on the philosophy of science.
Sorry, but their sites are lame in the extreme.
Have you heard of Hume or Wittgenstein or Kuhn? Oh, Deltoid has discussed and dismissed them? Indeed.
Right, I just had a bit of a look at Deltoid.
My god! What a snide little collective of self-satisfied, back-slapping, group-thinking twerps.
Unlike the rightist back-slapping rabble that inhabit this hallowed blog. LOLZ.
And gee Gazza if you’re computer engineer and not a top flight scientist excuse us if we also discount your own philosophical opinions.
Theword,
Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round. If you’re on secure ground then your friends can cheer your humiliation of Mashey, and Deltoid will surely implode.
I note that neither you nor any of your armchair ‘scientific’ friends here have had the courage to contradict Mashey outside of this blog. Graeme in particular is all froth and bluster here, but seems to only be able to spray his vitriol when he is in the company of his ‘friends’.
Of course, I shouldn’t fret about this – your collective parochial inclinations merely serve to keep the nasty anti-science miasma confined to lingering in the corners here…
Yeah, Bernard. You said that already.
I also read a few of your contributions over at Deltoid, BTW.
Is it science that you teach? Or bias and ridicule?
Regarding my Mashey comment – it was made with tongue firmly in cheek. I haven’t read Mashey, but I will have a read of what he has to say.
Graeme,
Regarding your criticism of Popper, based on his rejection of induction, I can see that point of view. However, I also see the attraction in Popper’s arguments for falsification. In truth, in order for me to cogently argue with you on the subject, I’d need to put much more thought into where I stand on the induction vs. falsification dichotomy. I will think on it, but don’t hold your breath on my response! On those kinds of questions, I ponder long and not always diligently.
I presume that you’ll recognize that, whether you agree with Popper’s conclusions or not, he brought focus to this and a number of other issues, which has been useful.
I’d be interested to know how you would distinguish, say, psychoanalysis from true science, if falsifiability is not the test?
Theword,
Popper and his limitations have been discussed at Deltoid before, but if you’re so confident about your bid then throw your chips at Mashey and play the round. If you’re on secure ground then your friends can cheer your humiliation of Mashey, and Deltoid will surely implode.
I note that neither you nor any of your armchair ‘scientific’ friends here have had the courage to contradict Mashey outside of this blog. Graeme in particular is all froth and bluster here, but seems to only be able to spray his vitriol when he is in the company of his ‘friends’.
Of course, I shouldn’t fret about this – your collective parochial inclinations merely serve to keep the nasty anti-science miasma confined to lingering in the corners here…
Bernard,
What a flogger you are! I’ve now answered you three times, with three different and considered responses (albeit responses with which you obviously disagree).
….and, you choose to simply copy and paste the same response. Intonation, repetition – like some kind of religious ceremony.
If you’re a father, I’m glad I’m not your son. You say you are a teacher; I’m glad I’m not your student.
Gack! I only clicked ‘post’ once, but somehow one of my messages seems to be circulating in the ether!
I have another user on my computer, so if they somehow refreshed my open tabs and resent that message I extend my apologies to all here, whether I stand on the same side of the fence or not!
Bernard,
OK, fair enough. If you didn’t do it, it’s far more likely to have been a doppelganger.
TheWord.
I appreciate that you took the time to respond, and I really am sorry that my post was repeated for whatever reason. It was not intentional, and the fact that it is duplicated verbatim should emphasise that.
I don’t know that I can blame the other user here, because we have both been out all day, but for whatever gremlin caused the repetion, if it came from my side of the proceedings I do apologise.
And Graeme, whatever your interpretation or mine is on the science behind the interview (and there are several things about it that I disagree with) my point is that there are many military sources that take the field very seriously. As do many in the insurance industry. If you reread my previous post you will see my intention was to make this point.
If there is a conspiracy of left-wing ideology that permeates the world’s orthodox science, why does the same thinking extend to these two very disparate and stereotypically conservative bodies?
Why do so many governments, professional scientific bodies, military strategists, and business interests all accept the science, when many of them would traditionally have resisted (and did resist) the mere idea of climate change on ideological grounds?
Bernard,
OK, that’s good – don’t protest too much.
I’ve just confirmed that our ‘phone was plugged in for most of the afternoon, and not the computer, so it seems that the repetition came from the ISP, or further. Weird.
Anyway, if there are any further bizarre events in this vein chill out everyone – whilst I might want to stir some thought here, I wouldn’t do it with silliness like clicking ‘post’ half a dozen times.
“And gee Gazza if you’re computer engineer and not a top flight scientist excuse us if we also discount your own philosophical opinions.”
Luke, mi amigo, in economics it’s called ‘Comparative Advantage’.
My first degree was in Bio, focussing on Evolution.
On my first return, for a CompSci/Math degree, a good buddy pursuing the CompSci, had a PhD. in Botany, and had recently completed a 6 month study of lichens, in Brooks Range Alaska; likely the umteenth such, for which he earned, to the immense gratitude of his young family, $6000, U.S.
The IBM PC was nascent and computers since have done alright by me.
Even though I’m a bit of a ‘tard. I feel at home here, Ok?
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/crucial-to-keep-open-mind-in-a-climate-of-change/1255345.aspx
“A former head of CSIRO’s division of space science, Dr Ken McCracken was awarded the Australia Prize the precursor of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize in 1995. Now in his 80s, officially retired and raising cattle in the ACT hinterland, he is still very active in his research field of solar physics.
McCracken is adamantly not a climate change sceptic, agreeing that rising fossil-fuel emissions will be a long-term cause of rising global temperatures.
But his analysis of the sun’s cyclical activity and global climate records has led him to the view that we are entering a period of up to two decades in which reduced solar activity may either flatten the upward trend of global temperatures or even cause a slight and temporary cooling. In a paper given in 2005 to a ”soiree” hosted by then president of the Academy of Science, Professor Jim Peacock, McCracken said the sun was the most active it had been over 1000 years of scientific observation. This made it inevitable that its activity would decrease over the next two decades in line with historically observed solar cycles.”
So if the sun is at its most active for 1000 years ( ie since MWP) it is surely likely that temperatures are also at highs?
The Canberra times is very careful to point out that this scientist is a believer.
It also goes onto stress how important it is to let us know that temps could go down……and they seriously expect us not to be sceptical…
Toby.
The lack of correlation between solar output and temperature as been repeatedly demonstrated in the last several years.
Try Google; and especially Google Scholar.
Start here Graeme Bird.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
And seriously, try Google Scholar – there are yet other, recent studies that show that solar activity over the last several decades has not caused most of the observed temperature trend.
No lying involved unless, of course, we include your contribution.
“The lack of correlation between solar output and temperature as been repeatedly demonstrated in the last several years.”
Uh, Toby, what Bernie meant to say was:
Measurements by satellite of solar TSI since 1979 show a mere 0.1% variance between secular Schwabe cycle max and min. .
Sami Solanki of Max Planck, famously noted that this variance was insufficient to account for climate warming during this period. Sami also said the sun’s output was at a 10,000 year high in a different paper. Sami is prolific, publishing as a co-author about every other week.
I doubt he proofs these papers, but maybe I don’t understand academia.
Google Scholar? May I ask, at what level do we teach?
Bernie,
Please direct people with a less careless manner and precision of expression.
KuhnKat, on an adjoining thread, gives a link to SORCE data, the latest satellite launched to study solar TSI. He points out that while the variance at 1AU is small, the variance here at earth is 6% per year, a rather larger number.
Now we also know that TSI does not account for all the solar energy received, e.g., solar wind and the ionized electrons, protons and atomic nuclei input teraWatts at the poles near solar minimum on each earth directed CME.
Another possible solar effect, again at solar minimum, is to increase cloudiness and decrease insolation. The earth’s albedo has been increasing throughout the new millenium and the reduction in TSI reaching the ground has already decreased more that 10W/m^2, or more than the variance in solar output.
Moreover, these are smoothed vaiues. Engineers damp readings inorder that they converge to an average value rather than flailing about, limit to limit. Just the other day, one satellite was offline (SOHO?) due to ccd saturation, being hit with a rare flare(rare for solar minimum, anyway).
Well, solar flaring has been absent since Feb. 07, whereas it continued daily, uninterrupted all thru the 1996 minimum. On this end at earth, UV, 20% of the solar spectrum in energy, can spike 100%. These spikes are not currently incorporated in the data.
There is more. 40% of the energy received is IR. A mere 1% reaches the surface. The remainder is absorbed in the atmosphere. The variation and consequences I have yet to sort out.
Bernie; Gary is absolutely right the suns influence is so much more than just the variation in radiation. We are only just beginning to understand the presence of a multitude of factors let alone quantify and evaluate them. The correlation is there and it is only the first clue as we have said so many times correlation does not prove causation so much more research has to be done and even 10 years is an eye blink with respect to data collection on this subject. I have been very interested lately in researching the gravitational pull of all the solar system components on each other and how it causes wobbles and eccentricities in all the orbits including the sun. This causes the fluid components on the surface to oscillate, best example being our tides, this could also effect our ocean currents which have a major effect on the climate, El Ninos etc. Perhaps the sun has currents caused by varying gravitational forces which effects its performance. There is so much that we do not know it is totally irrational to take a dogmatic stand. Some may say we are dogmatic but in almost every post by Graeme is asking for evidence this can be seen as the position of a passionate debater but it certainly can not be called dogmatic.
“We are only just beginning to understand the presence of a multitude of factors let alone quantify and evaluate them.”
Good writin’.
Jenifer,
Could you comment on the time axis of trhe “global mean temperature”: chart?
As published it appears to suggest that the period 1910-1925 and 1925 to 1930 are equivalent.
We’d be there with it by now if the alarmists hadn’t sucked out all the oceans. Its just a matter of carrying out good research on a pretty limited number of relationships.
You go to guys who are studying planetary orbits versus solar phenomenon and the blogs are slowed down to a post a month.
Its just disgraceful what these science frauds have done.