IN the Australian Parliament, or more particularly the Australian Senate, the vote of one senator may be important for the passage of the government’s cap and trade legislation, also known as the emission trading scheme.
Senator Steve Fielding recently returned from ‘The Third International Climate Change Conference’ in Washington indicating that he was unconvinced carbon dioxide was driving global warming and that he would like to meet with the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, to ask a few questions. The Australian media immediately tried to brand him a ‘sceptic’, but Senator Fielding has continually denied that he is a sceptic, just that he has an obligation to get to the bottom of a couple of issues before he votes on the important legislation.
Senator Wong organised to meet with him and Australia’s chief scientist Penny Sackett. The meeting apparently took place yesterday and Senator Fielding apparently brought along some other scientists including some so-called sceptics.
Interviewed this morning on ABC radio Senator Fielding explained that he really had one key issue, how can it be that we have carbon dioxide emissions going up and global temperatures, the way the IPCC has been measuring them, not going up.
According to Senator Fielding the Chief Scientist explained that the Australian government is using a different method to measure temperature, one involving the oceans, and indeed this shows temperatures are going up. The long and the short appears to be that Senator Fielding is still unclear: Are carbon emissions driving up global temperatures?
Some of the side arguments at the meeting apparently concerned other potential drivers of global temperature including solar activity.
If I had been at the meeting I would have explained the dilemma as follows:
Yes, carbon dioxide levels have been rising over the last decade, but global temperatures haven’t been increasing. Indeed, since 2003 it appears that even the oceans have started to cool. This does not accord with anthropogenic global warming theory.
There are a range of factors additional to carbon dioxide that can influence temperature including solar activity. Indeed it seems there is so much we don’t understand about global climate and climate change and many competing theories: That is the nature of science to some extent.
I would then explain that according to a new theory dubbed the ‘Saturated Greenhouse Effect’ developed by a Hungarian physicist (Ferenc Miskolczi) adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will not impact global temperatures because the atmosphere will compensate by reducing specific humidity at critical altitudes. Indeed Dr Miskolczi acknowledges the potential warming effect of carbon dioxide but, through the development of a new law of physics, can explain how changes in the concentration of other greenhouse gases have offset the impact of the additional carbon dioxide.
In summary, I would say, the evidence, suggests the climate system is more robust than we thought because despite increasing levels of carbon dioxide global warming has stalled.
For those prepared to at least consider a new theory, the really good news could be that the critical regulating greenhouse gas, water vapour, is unlikely to ever be limiting because there is just so much of it on planet earth.
Of course, this new theory may be disproven, but at this point in time, given the available evidence, it appears to better explain what is happening in the real world than the accepted alternative, the anthropogenic global warming theory.
So, Senator Fielding to answer your specific question: Are carbon emissions driving up global temperatures? No. The observational data doesn’t support this proposition and there is a new theory that can explain why.
***************
Notes and Links
Proceeding of Third International Climate Change Conference
http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/proceedings.html
Fielding Unconvinced After Climate Change Lesson
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2599201.htm
F.M. Miskolczi (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent atmospheres, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society 111(1): 1-40.
‘The Saturated Greenhouse Effect’ by Ken Gregory provides a good summary of the new theory developed by Ferenc Miskolczi .
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen
Given the good senator has the good fortune to meet with The Honourable The Minister on matters of national significance – why not provide a detailed one pager question to the Senator via the Australian sceptics’ associations and ask him to request a formal technical response from the Minister?
Why just fox around here ?
Hi Luke,
From what I know of the Sceptics Association, and in accordance with the comment at an earlier thread from DHMO, the association is not much interested in climate change and not very sceptical.
So, they may indeed be run by mostly faux sceptics.
I understand Ian Lowe is a member of the Queensland Chapter – he even tried to tell a branch in Brisbane they shouldn’t let me speak at one of their meetings. But the president of the branch apparently told Ian that they were big enough, and sceptical enough, to make up their own mind after I spoke… Nice bunch, but more philosophically aligned and interested in the sort of stuff that interests Richard Dawkins.
I too sent an analysis of the Wong/Fielding smackdown to the media[sic];
“Senator Fielding’s briefing by Senator Wong is ground-breaking for a number of reasons.
It is the first time any politician has formally disputed the orthodox line that the atmosphere and surface of the Earth is warming as a result of Carbon Dioxide increases. But this is trivial and non-contentious because it is apparent since the ‘super El Nino’ of 1998 that the Earth has cooled.
What is more important is the recent response of pro-Global Warming [AGW] scientists to this cooling fact. This response was summed up by Professor Will Steffen during the meeting with Senator Fielding. Professor Steffen said it is not the air or surface temperature which is important but the temperature of the ocean.
This is a paradigm shift in the AGW theory. Previously, AGW scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change [IPCC] reports had used computer models to calculate that a doubling of Carbon Dioxide would cause a temperature increase of approximately three degrees Celsius. This was known as the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity [ECS].
The ECS can be best understood as a new, hotter world climate caused by the Carbon Dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels. However, with a prolonged cooling period beginning the Twenty First Century, the idea that the world was heading for a new hotter stable climate was not supported by ECS evidence.
To explain this inconsistency with ECS the idea that the heat caused by the extra Carbon Dioxide was ‘delayed’ or stored was theorised. This delay was called the relaxation time between the increase in Carbon Dioxide and the consequent temperature increase. The heat during this relaxation period was assumed to be stored in the ocean and could be measured by an increase in ocean temperature.
Indeed a recent paper by S. Levitus showed an increase in ocean heating beginning in 1976. However other scientific papers by C Loehle, C Domingues and M Ishii and M Kimoto show a steep decline in ocean temperature since 2003.
The period from 1976 to approximately 2003 was an El Nino dominated period which featured warm and dry climate patterns. This is called a positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO]. It is entirely consistent with the prevailing warmer conditions of the positive PDO climate that the ocean should have warmed.
However, since about 2003 a La Nina dominated period, or negative PDO, has begun. The negative PDO is characterized by cooler and wetter conditions. During a negative PDO it is reasonable to expect that the ocean would cool. In fact from 1942 until 1976 ocean temperatures were cooler than the period from 1976 onwards. The period from 1942 to 1976 was a negative PDO climate phase. The cooling ocean during this current negative PDO confirms that ocean temperature is strongly correlated with natural PDO phases rather than Carbon Dioxide levels.
Until Senator Wong and her scientists can come up with an explanation which supersedes the natural climate patterns Senator Fielding should remain skeptical of the IPCC science”
I bet it doesn’t get a guernsey.
PS Remember Senator Fielding is not a sceptic.
I hope Sen. Fielding stands strong and votes against damaging Australia’s further involvement with AGW folly.
Jen – clarification: the various “CLIMATE CHANGE” sceptics associations or political parties e.g. Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Lavoisier Society, and the Australian Climate Sceptics party – not the Aussie Skeptics anti-UFO guys
Why not form a “best consensus” question based on an alternative “sceptical” view to climate change and request a detailed technical answer.
Surely the signatories to your petition would represent a substantial body of voters who would like a serious answer.
My motivation – want to see CSIRO let off the leash. Woof Woof !
(BTW Coho – I’m still waiting to see your correlation of temperature with the 400 year PDO paleo record….. giggle)
Luke, As you will see as my series on “defining the sceptics” progresses there is not much agreement amongst Australia’s many sceptics to very much. I consider this quite normal and healthy – I have given my particular views in this post. I do like a diversity of views – it provides much food for thought.
“I would then explain that according to a new theory dubbed the ‘Saturated Greenhouse Effect’ developed by a Hungarian physicist (Ferenc Miskolczi) adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will not impact global temperatures because the atmosphere will compensate by reducing specific humidity at critical altitudes. Indeed Dr Miskolczi acknowledges the potential warming effect of carbon dioxide but, through the development of a new law of physics, can explain how changes in the concentration of other greenhouse gases have offset the impact of the additional carbon dioxide. ”
You have finally nailed your colours to the mast, Jennifer. Honestly, why did you have to choose something that is completely whacky? You should be changing the title of this series from “The Sceptics” to “The Deniers”, because a true sceptic would never swallow anything so obviously wrong.
If I had been at the meeting I would have explained the dilemma as follows:
Yes, carbon dioxide levels have been rising over the last decade, but global temperatures haven’t been increasing. Indeed, since 2003 it appears that even the oceans have started to cool. This does not accord with anthropogenic global warming theory.
your explanation is simply false.
a simply look at single model runs will show this. for example there:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/trends2000_2020.jpg
Jen – hang on – so you’re asking the Minister to abandon her AGW position for a diversity of disagreeing sceptics?
Wow ! Do you think any politician would be persuaded/impressed with such a position.
Imagine if we applied this to the economy or health or defence.
“Stop your current economic policy and pick a policy from this pot pourri of policies which disagree with each other.”
Holey smokes !
Although dare I say this might be perceived as a tactic to do nothing. But if you’re working on drought policy, building a dam or working on an MDB water allocation this could prove problematic.
So then after all this time blogging on climate – all the words, eye gouging and debating – the sceptics (on your logic here) are just a bunch of anarchists?
Hope can a government possibly deal with this rabble?
Dare I say that unless you sceptics can develop a …. wait for it …. “consensus” position – (hahahahaha) you won’t be able to influence policy. Oh the Socratic irony !
Sod said: “your explanation is simply false.
a simply look at single model runs will show this. for example there:”
And I respond, Huh???!!!??? Your point is that we should believe the models versus the temp readings, shonky as they may be? What am I missing here?
Luke, do not take this opportunity make an a$$ of yourself, again!
CoRev,
The one thing the AGW community does seek to do is to be influenced by inconvenient facts.
That ocean heat content and temperatures are falsifying AGW dogma is unacceptable.
The models do not agree, so the measurements must be false.
If you lot don’t get Sod’s point I think you’re the most illiterate sceptics ever. Instead of thinking you’ve just gone back to parrot speak.
And they’re individual institution model means, not individual runs. So much nonsense spread by so many denialists that only suck on denialist blogs. Sigh.
I find it really interesting that more than 24 hrs after the meeting there is nothing from Penny Wong disputing or correcting Steve Fielding’s take on the matter which (though not getting prominent publicity) is in the public domain.
Suggests that a few points were scored by the “skeptic” team… LOL.
Cohenite:
“Professor Steffen said it is not the air or surface temperature which is important but the temperature of the ocean … This is a paradigm shift in the AGW theory.”
And a very interesting one indeed if the proponents are pinning their flag to this.
There are lots of lags in the ocean – spanning the multi-centenial (THC) to the annual range (re-emergence – see Bob Tisdale who posted up on this just recently). As has been discussed here, the ARGO floats are not really detecting increasing sub-SSTs. Though I have not found global oceanic heat content data – NOAA has the equatorial Pacific dataset here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
A very strong argument can be raised that the Pacific is a strong driver of climate (ENSO/PDO etc)… And its heat content is not increasing – and infact the opposite is true!
There may be a few surprises here for the AGW proponents (esp in the Atlantic!)…
By the way, Steve Fielding’s question vis-s-vis Global temps not increasing in the last decade misses an important point. I know that I’ve harped on this many times before, but the influence of the eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo in the 80’s and 90’s masked the influence of El Ninos on global temps. The 1982-83 El Nino was just about as big as the 1997-98 “super El Nino”.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png
The above shows how much light was blocked out by the recent “big” volcanos. It can be argued that the +ve and –ve atmospheric forcings associated with the Nino and the volcano cancelled themselves out in 1982, and that without the volcano, there would have been a significant spike in global temps at that time.
The effect of volcanic eruptions (definitely natural events) can be easily adjusted out of global datasets and hence determine what the temps would have likely been had they not occured. NASA GISS model E forcings actually give the temperature values…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/transient/climsim.html#climsim_table1
And if you do this for both El Chichon and Pinatubo (also masking an El Nino), you can easily argue that Global temperatures have not increased for over 30 years… Which is a “climactic” time frame.
Cohenite: “However, since about 2003 a La Nina dominated period, or negative PDO, has begun.” Being picky, 2003 – 2007 were predominantly Nino periods….
cheers
Arnost
There may be a few surprises here for the AGW proponents …
i look at the facts and i am not surprised. the current ocean hit does not look different from other periods.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
the claim that the last few years of ocean temperature data disproves AGW is at best weak. (actually it is simply false, as i said above)
sorry hit me. make some heat out of that hit…
oh, and just one other point:
Yes, carbon dioxide levels have been rising over the last decade, but global temperatures haven’t been increasing.
if i had been at a meeting with you Jennifer, i would have explained this dilemma as follows:
actually all measurements of temperature that we have show an INCREASING trend over the last decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:120/trend/plot/uah/last:120/plot/rss/last:120/trend/plot/rss/last:120/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:120/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:120/plot/gistemp/last:120/trend/plot/gistemp/last:120
but what i don t really understand is, why i, as a non-sceptic, was the person to point this out.
shouldn t the blog be flooded with sceptic posts by sceptics, immediately checking and correcting Jennifer s little error?
“Comment from: Luke June 17th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Although dare I say this might be perceived as a tactic to do nothing. But if you’re working on drought policy, building a dam or working on an MDB water allocation this could prove problematic.”
Could prove problematic? Is that the best ya got?
Of course doing nothing could prove problematic. Do you admit that implementing a costly program which may not yield any results could also prove problematic?
“PS Remember Senator Fielding is not a sceptic.”
But he does hang out with denialists……………….. and use their language…………………………………. So yes, he is not a Richard Dawkins type sceptic or more accurately a James Randi type sceptic, i.e. the sort of sceptic I warm to.
Arnost: The OHC data from Levitus et al (2009) is here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
Specifically attached to this page:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
And thanks for mentioning the my post on the Reemergence Mechanism. For those who are unaware of it, it’s a process by which wintertime SST anomalies created over the deep mixed layer are preserved in the summer thermocline then reemerge at the surface the following winter. In other words, it’s the process by which the oceans integrate ENSO. Link:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/reemergence-mechanism.html
Regards
“I find it really interesting that more than 24 hrs after the meeting there is nothing from Penny Wong disputing or correcting Steve Fielding’s take on the matter which (though not getting prominent publicity) is in the public domain.
Suggests that a few points were scored by the “skeptic” team… LOL.”
When I see this sort of comment from denialists I cannot stop the Shirley Strachan raucus refrain from running through my mind, “EGO! ‘s not a dirty word, EGO! ‘s not a dirty word, EGO!………..” Just shows my age though.
Indeed Jermemy – and if the perhaps Senator Fielding was feeling laid back and slipped a little Mondo Rock on the retro turntable for a bit of subliminal ice age action on Penny?
Your world is as cold as ice, your world is so nice
But you don’t want me arou-ound
Your world is a barren place, that look upon your face
Says you don’t want me arou-ound
I might break into your coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
In your world there are no regrets, your goals have all been set
There are no more to be fou-ound
Your world is so well controlled, you will not be told
You know you don’t hear a sou-ound
It might break into your coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool world
Break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3BoxPNggew
aqnd if the chemistry was right? Well who knows?
“From what I know of the Sceptics Association, and in accordance with the comment at an earlier thread from DHMO, the association is not much interested in climate change and not very sceptical.
So, they may indeed be run by mostly faux sceptics. ”
My irony meter blew up again. You once again, without any evidence, are prepared to trash a real group of sceptics, while choosing to believe that a scientific non entity has single handedly create a whole new law of physcis.
My challenge to you is to express in your own words why Miscolczi is right, and the IPCC is wrong, including a detailed explanation of his model and why the challenges that have been made to it are wrong. If you are a sceptic, you will be able to do so, because a real sceptic will only be convinced by evidence that they understand, unless they acknowledge they have a limited understanding of and issue and must therefore defer to an authority. The recognised authorities on AGW include our own CSIRO, none back the “Law” of Miscolczi.
And perhaps my lack of a sceptical eye has misread this graph ? Might the trend be …. how you say it …. err …. “up”?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
hahahahahaha
sod; to prove your point about temperatures rising you have linked to a composite graph showing model simulations! That’s rich; here are the actual temperatures;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/uahvsrss2000.jpg
You are a cherry-picking fraud sod;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:144/trend/plot/uah/last:144/plot/rss/last:144/trend/plot/rss/last:144/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:144/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:144/plot/gistemp/last:144/trend/plot/gistemp/last:144
And luke, that ocean heat graph you have stapled to the back of your head is the Levitus graph; pulease.
A timely reality check, Arnost. Yes, after factoring in El Chichon and Pinatubo there has been no warming for three decades. In the real world we determine trends by plotting the upper and lower extent of a range of outcomes, as for stock prices etc. And when we do this to the global temperature series we get a dead flat upper trend line and a very modest lower trend line over the past 30 years and a similar one from 1942 to 1976. So the best the AGW’ers can come up with for the past 67 years is two flat lines and a single step up from 1976 to 1982.
This has zero correlation with CO2 forcing theory. The climate muddlers have been trying to validate their muddles against an invalid temperature data set. And the fact that their continued tinkering with the assumptions, which gets them closer and closer to that invalid temperature series, only highlights the extent to which they have lost the plot.
SJT, pull your dopey head in. It was you who claimed Miscolczi was wrong so it is YOU who must explain why. Your unsubstantiated reference to some imaginary opinion poll of CSIRO gimps might pass muster in your own fetid puddle but it won’t wash here.
Luke, spare us the bull$hit demands for a single sceptic position. Is there a single green position? No, they are all over the shop but that didn’t stop a single piece of legislation anywhere. Onyabike, punk.
“SJT, pull your dopey head in. It was you who claimed Miscolczi was wrong so it is YOU who must explain why. Your unsubstantiated reference to some imaginary opinion poll of CSIRO gimps might pass muster in your own fetid puddle but it won’t wash here.”
I am testing Jennifers powers of scepticism. If she cannot explain his law in her own words, then she is accepting him as an authority.
“You are a cherry-picking fraud sod;”
You are cherry picking, cohenite.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/wti/trend
Something bothering me. The heat from 1998, where did it go? I mean the sun was still piping hot; the solar maximum still three years away. The oceans were bleaching out the corals; practically bubbling with the kettle set on boil. Carbons rising at a break neck pace with the US in the lead, China and India nipping at our heals.
So what happened in 1999?
The PR war, at least in the UK, is being lost by the global warming alarmists.
An interesting analysis of the position here…
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=196
I agree that AGW is indeed an easily explained fraud, but Fielding should vote against this legislation and wait to see the outcome of Copenhagen, because the chances of China and India agreeing to sign up are zilch.
If they don’t sign the whole thing is worthless because they represent 30% of current emissions and in another 1/4 century that will be 50%, so no China, no India, no deal.
I just caught a story on AM abc this morning about US temp increasing by 2C over the last 100 years and could increase by many more degrees by 2100, should be interesting to read this whacky nonsense via the transcript.
Anyhow the only sensible course is don’t do anything before Copenhagen.
Senator Fielding asked Penny Wong why although the CO2 has been increasing since 2001 the temperatures have not as predicted by the IPCC. Because the temperatures aren’t rising man’s contribution of CO2 is NOT causing the planet to warm significantly enough to require drastic action.
Now you can post your cherry picked charts, Sod, but you are not addressing the question. The question is from 2001 – 2009.
Craig Loehle presented a paper in E&E that showed that ocean heat content has been falling since 2003, a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 10**22 Joules per year.
A Wood for Trees temperature chart using any of the recognised measuring systems from 2001 – 2009 shows reducing world temperatures.
Ocean temperature charts at http://www.climate4you.com show the ocean temperatures have been dropping since 2001.
That was the question and so far, apart from some blustering, no one has adequately answered it.
I’m still waiting.
Mottsup – thanks for admitting again that you’re a rabble. Shouldn’t you be down at the prickle farm?
Anyway looks like the good Senator had some good minders – a glowing array of Aussie faux sceptics in tow. Guess Fielding is a big time denialist by now then.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/fielding-sceptical-after-wong-climate-lesson/1541424.aspx?storypage=1
With Senator Fielding were David Evans, a former carbon modeller for the former Australian Greenhouse Office; Stewart Franks, an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Newcastle; Robert Carter, an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University; and William Kininmonth, a long-serving member of the Bureau of Meteorology.
Hey Banana – PJs – try opening your eyes mate – see Bob Tisdale’s graph. Ocean heat still increasing. Notice presence of wobbles in the rest of the graph. You guys have got nuttin’
And this when the PDO and Sun you tell us is knocking the top off the temperatures.
You’re just a bunch of wiggle watching denialist scum. Pathetic.
Blah blah blah… snore…ok we get it, he’s a skeptic. So what? Wong won’t be able to show him the science which proves man is responsible for climate change because there is none. If the science was good she would not have to “get back to him” in the next few days. She is going to show up with an armload of science papers and as usual none of them will be conclusive. Just more hype about the oceans rising, glaciers melting, storms getting bigger, droughts getting drier, crops growing better…oh wait scratch that last one…Anyway none of it will be relevant. He is going to vote against the legislation, and it is the correct thing to do.
The great part of all of this is that Europe is now moving to the right, and so is the USA. This summer the US Cap&Trade legislation will pass Congress but it will be so watered down that it will be worthless. Then in the fall, the US Senate will kill the bill like a wounded dog. That will pretty much put an end to the whole issue and we can get back to the business of polluting and ruining the planet. Wahoo!
Bob Tisdale is always good value luke; but I’m not sure what graph you are referring to.
“Senator Fielding asked Penny Wong why although the CO2 has been increasing since 2001 the temperatures have not as predicted by the IPCC. Because the temperatures aren’t rising man’s contribution of CO2 is NOT causing the planet to warm significantly enough to require drastic action.”
The IPCC has never said there will be a direct linear correlation.
Luke – I didn’t mention Bob Tisdale – both Loehle and Willis have observed dropping ocean heat since 2003
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/dipuccio-2.jpg
note: OBSERVED – not computer predictions!
The IPCC has never said there will be a direct linear correlation.
but surely there must be some correlation! there is none.
“The IPCC has never said there will be a direct linear correlation.”
Perhaps that’s true, but they did say this in their 3rd report: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” In other words, the UN IPCC state clearly that it is impossible to make long term climate predictions. Yet climate scientists and the rest of the mindless AGW herd make long term climate predictions every day.
This comment by sod confuses me. Is sod saying that CO2 hasn’t been rising? All data I’ve seen shows it has. Or is sod saying that global temperatures haven’t been increasing? The data from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCRUT all show currently flat or decreasing trends over the last decade, certainly well below 0.2C/decade. Or does sod question the ocean cooling since 2003? Seems odd, since this conclusion came from NOAA originally.
So all that’s left is the statement that all this cooling is not in accord with the anthropogenic global warming theory as laid out in the IPCC’s AR4. I’d have to agree with that, but sod seems to feel differently, citing Lucia Liljegren’s chart from an analysis she did trying to reproduce Pat Michael’s graph. I’m not sure why sod feels this graph therefore is slam-dunk proof the Jennifer’s explanation is “clearly false”.
However, since the graph has been entered as evidence, let’s look at it, and the original post. The analysis shows clearly that the observed surface temperatures from GISS and Hadley were already touching the lower 95% uncertainty levels at the end of 2008. In other words, the IPCC felt that there was only a 5% chance that the observed temperatures would fall outside this. As Lucia concludes: “The HadCrut 8 year weather trend is lower than all but 2.7% of all possible weather from all possible models”. Is this graph then convincing evidence of a “clearly false” explanation? Not to me.
Not only that, Lucia points out that if you look just at the pure model data regardless of uncertainty level, then in fact the observed temperatures are lower than ALL models at the end of 2008. Bear in mind this is only two years after AR4 was published – not a good start.
Lucia has done some excellent work in this area, and sod’s example was poorly chosen. Lucia’s conclusions have consistently been that the IPCC model projections are in the process of being falsified by the actual observed trends. And Lucia is not a sceptic, she accepts the AGW hypothesis.
For further explanations from the same source, see here:
Simulations compared to the Earth’s real climate
and here:
Comparison of Observed and Simulated Trends
I think Jennifer’s statement stands, and the fact that people are attacking such an obvious statement of fact is both interesting and illuminating.
The fact is that the IPCC has always stuck to the simple principle that current rates of CO2 increase will increase global temperatures at about 2C/century, which will have dire consequences. Consequences aside, the fact that current CO2 increases have not caused this increase, coupled with the observed DECREASE in temperatures over the last decade must surely call the IPCC projections into question, which is exactly what Lucia and Jennifer are doing.
Unless, of course, sod is trying to argue that global cooling is now consistent with AR4. If so, could sod please cite the reference from AR4 where it says that increasing CO2 will result in decreasing temperatures, because I haven’t seen it there.
“but surely there must be some correlation! there is none.”
There clearly is, CO2 is rising, temperature over the long term is rising. It’s the long term that is of interest.
“I do like a diversity of views – it provides much food for thought.”
A diversity of sceptical views of AGW only reinforces the diverse case against AGW.
Unlike a consensus of AGWarmers which is extremely narrow in concept and evidence.
“through the development of a new law of physics,”
“the really good news could be that the critical regulating greenhouse gas, water vapour, is unlikely to ever be limiting because there is just so much of it on planet earth.”
On the first point, does this happen very often? I mean it sounds quite important, a new law of physics would presumably have a great deal of rigorous proof and observation to back it. Is it infact a “law” or a theory?
On the second point, I think we have an insight into the denialist mind set. Without presenting any evidence and based entirely on an unspecified “new law of physics” the OP optimistically concludes that there will be a mechanism that allows for infinite input of polluting gases into a system because that system is capable of unlimited absorption (or something).
Such is the strength of the denialist position.
Patrick B,
Hmmmm….could it be that a poor expression of words was chosen?
Now the new insight- that a particular substance reaches a point of decreasing effect, was well accepted before. CO2 is still logarithmic in its declining impact, is it not? So the insight is not based on some undefined new law. It is based on a simple statement of what the physics of CO2 are.
I do notice that AGW true believers have to grasp at twists of phrase and punctuation with a mighty grip to avoid dealing with the actual points skeptics make. After all, if you can continue to dehumanize and de-legitimize those you disagree with, then you can continue to pretend they have nothing to say. That is standard in any system, like AGW, that seeks to control the public square by social force.
“CO2 is still logarithmic in its declining impact, is it not? So the insight is not based on some undefined new law. It is based on a simple statement of what the physics of CO2 are.”
For some reason, this is interpreted as meaning there is no effect, but we are well on the way to doubling the CO2 content. There is also the ‘saturated gassy argument’ that has to be taken into consideration. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Fact. The warmth that was present in 1998 is no longer present. The same amount of warmth that would have been present in 1993 but for the Pinatubo eruption is also no longer present. And the same amount of warmth that would have been present in 1982 but for the El Chichon eruption is also no longer present. Put “Pythonically”, it is an “ex-warmth”.
Mauna Loa CO2 was 337ppm in 1982 and it has increased by 48ppm to 385ppm in 2009. So of the total CO2 increase of approximately 100ppm since pre-industrial times, 48% has taken place since 1982. Ergo, half of the total increase in CO2 has zero warming to show for it.
Put another way, the amount of so-called ‘additional’ CO2 (in excess of pre-industrial levels) has doubled over the past 27 years with no real change in temperature. It also follows that more than half of the earlier (initial) CO2 increase from 285ppm to 337ppm took place between 1940 and 1976, when no temperature increase took place. And that means some 75 to 80% of the total increase in CO2 has zero warming to show for it.
In fact, the increase from the 1959 start of the Mauna Loa data set to 1982 was 24ppm from 313ppm to 337ppm. This involved 8ppm in the 6 year period of rising temperatures from 1976 to 1982, and 16ppm in the 17 year period of no temperature increase from 1959 to 1976. This leaves us with another 17 years of no warming from 1942 to 1959 for which we must fill in the gap in the CO2 record. An intelligent guess would put CO2 increase during this period between 9 and 12ppm. Add 11ppm to the 16ppm before 1976 and the 48ppm since 1982 for a total of 75ppm or 75% of all CO2 increase with no warming associated with it.
In fact, only 8ppm of the estimated 83ppm CO2 since 1942 has any warming associated with it. The climate muddlers are “validating” their climate muddles on just 10% of the relevant data set. And they have the gall to call themselves climate scientists.
Luke: You wrote, “Hey Banana – PJs – try opening your eyes mate – see Bob Tisdale’s graph.”
What graph are you referring to?
Little will. still with the saturated fatty acids and high cholesterol; no wonder you have gas; Weart’s piece has been laughed out of the room so many times and you still return to it like a faithful dog to its dead owner buried in the ground like that Disney movie.
Anyway, log effect of CO2;
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
But even that is a charitable interpretation of CO2’s ‘effect’; this is more likely;
INDUCED EMISSION
The release or capture of a photon by a molecule of any substance depends on three main processes:
1. Spontaneous Emission, which consists of randomized emission of photons through many trajectories. Spontaneous emission is isotropic (the same intensity in all the trajectories) and an external source of photons is not needed for exciting atoms or molecules into releasing energy, i.e. it can occur in the absence of photon streams. However, it is affected efficiently by Induced Emission and Induced Absorption.
2. Induced Emission, which is the release of photons by an atom or a molecule in a higher energy state in the same direction as the incoming radiation or photon stream, understanding “incoming radiation” as the incident energy on that atom or molecule.
3. Induced Absorption, which happens when part of the incoming radiative intensity is absorbed by an atom or molecule at a lower energy state.
The radiative intensity of the atmosphere of Earth can be calculated by the following formula:
Iav = h 1/4π [(Aul / Bul) / (gl *Blu / gu * Bul) e^hν/kT – 1 (Modest. 2003)
Where Iav is for the radiative intensity of the atmosphere, h is for the Planck constant (it has the value 6.626 x 10^-34 J*s), π is ≈3.1416, Aul is for the Einstein coefficient for spontaneous emission, Bul is for the Einstein coefficient for induced emission from high energy states to low energy states, Blu is for the Einstein coefficient for induced emission from low energy states to high energy states, gl denotes degeneracies from low energy states to high energy states, gu denotes degeneracies from high energy states to low energy states, hv is the energy of a photon, k is the absorption coefficient variable, and T is for temperature.
If the emission of photons from the atmosphere happened only by Spontaneous Emission, this emission would have to be far more intense than the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing radiation emitted from the surface, specifically, that the photon emission from the atmosphere would have to be forcibly more intense than the electron stream incoming from the Sun or exiting from the Earth. This is plainly not true in the real world.
Actually, the three processes of heat transfer by radiation have effect in the terrestrial atmosphere where induced absorption and induced emission prevail over spontaneous emission because the intensity of the solar photon stream and the intensity of the surface photon stream are always in higher energy states than the atmosphere photon stream.
Many have alluded to nighttime inversion of radiation, but it is an inappropriate idea taken from planets without oceans. At night, the oceans release photons forming a photon stream which leads to atmospheric induced emission.
There are many scientists who have found errors in the calculations of the proponents of the idea that carbon dioxide is causing planetary warming. The most serious of these errors resides in believing in a downwelling photon stream which, as AGW proponents say, overwhelms the surface emission of radiation and warms the surface during nighttime. However, when we analyze the issue of downwelling radiation emitted by the atmosphere, we find that such warming of the surface by greenhouse gases does not exist.
The problem with the AGW idea is that its proponents think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface of the ground. They fail to take into account that incoming heat from the Sun is transferred by conduction from surface to subsurface materials, which store heat until the incidence of direct solar radiation declines, explicitly during nighttime.
At nighttime, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up. The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards, i.e. towards the upper atmospheric layers and, from there, towards deep space. This process is well described by the next formula:
FSH = -ρ (Cp) (CH) (v (z)) [T (z) – T (0)]
Where FSH is for Sensible Heat Flux, ρ is for density of air, Cp is specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure, CH is the heat transfer coefficient (≈ 0.0013), v (z) is the horizontal wind speed across z, T (z) is the temperature of air at 10 m of altitude, and T (0) is the temperature of the surface.
The “minus” sign means that heat is absorbed by the colder system. For example, the sensible heat flux for a region where the temperature of the surface is 300.15 K, the temperature of air is 293.15 K and the horizontal wind speed is 40 m/s, is 0.443 kJ s/m^2 and the change of temperature caused by this amount of heat stored is 0.3 K (Compare with the result above). A change of temperature of 0.3 K occurs in the air, although the difference of temperature between the surface and the air is relatively high (7 K or 7 °C). In one second, the temperature of the air changes from 293.15 K to 293.45 K.
I want to make clear that this formula applies to both ocean and land heat transfer, although on land it is more appropriate introducing CD instead of CH. However, CD ≈ CH ≈ 0.0013.
The sensible heat flux (day and night) is directed upwards, that is, from the surface to the atmosphere (Peixoto & Oort. 1992. Page 233).
Concluding, atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission prevails over spontaneous emission. During daytime, solar irradiance induces air molecules to emit photons towards the surface; however, the load of Short Wave Radiation (SWR) absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere is exceptionally low, while the load of Long Wave Radiation (LWR) emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere is high and so leads to an upwelling induced emission of photons which follows the outgoing trajectory of the photon stream, from lower atmospheric layers to higher atmospheric layers, and finally towards outer space. The warming effect (misnamed “the greenhouse effect”) of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat.”
From; http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
Now, I strongly urge all the faithful alarmists, little will, luke, JC, but not Pat B who is a smartarse, to go out and allign themselves with a real pollution issue and to have an answer to the question; who comes first, nature or humanity?
“Little will. still with the saturated fatty acids and high cholesterol; no wonder you have gas; Weart’s piece has been laughed out of the room so many times and you still return to it like a faithful dog to its dead owner buried in the ground like that Disney movie.”
You laugh at it because you have no answer to it. The science is sound.
You would be better off laughing at biocab, who is just one more nutter, or yourself, doing an excellent job as a lawyer presenting an argument that sounds very convincing, because, it sounds like it must be convincing.
Neville,
I also heard the ABC report, the claims are getting increasingly shrill…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/17/2600335.htm?section=justin
I do like the bit about the UN claiming earthquakes to be one of the threats of climate change.
BTW, the ABC (if I heard it correctly) claimed that Steve Fielding took 4 sceptical scientists with him to see Penny Wong – anybody know more about this? Couldn’t be sloppy reporting could it?
“The Skeptic” has a review of Plimer’s book, and it seems to be an excellent exercise in skepticism.
The Reviewer starts off by studying the case for AGW, so that he understands it, something that the ‘faux sceptics’ here seem to be incapable of doing.
He then realises that Plimer’s book has serious flaws. Plimer does not represent the case for AGW fairly, which will mislead readers into thinking that the case is very thin, by leaving a lot of the case for out. He indulges in deliberate “mischievous caricature” to deceive readers in the debate over the “Hockey Stick”. He misrepresents the case for AGW by stating that CO2 is the “major driver” of climate change, and the historical record. He also misrepresents the historical temperature record and it’s accuracy. Plimer is all too ready to dismiss the case for AGW “with little regard to the accuracy of the data or the validity of the argument”.
The closing remark is “Professor Plimer subtitles his book “Global Warming: The Missing Science”, but one wonders much of this science is missing becuase it is either too conjectural or too discredited”
The ‘faux’ sceptics reside here, Jennifer. Every nutty idea that passes by is published, as long as it is contrary to AGW. That is not scepticism.
It is just so DAMN refreshing to see a politician try to address the facts, instead of just play the “get re-elected” games. I salute Fielding and wish he would run for office in the USA. I don’t think we have anyone as truthful and SCIENTIFIC as he is.
SJT spreads his bullshit on every thread:
“The ‘faux’ sceptics reside here, Jennifer. Every nutty idea that passes by is published, as long as it is contrary to AGW. That is not scepticism.”
According to whom? YOU, LOL? What unmitigated bullshit!
SJT,
The only problem you have is you never support your statements here with a verifiable source – “The Skeptic” magazine for example – issued 4 times a year? The Australian one? Who knows?
And you now want Jennifer to censor any posts here that do not support AGW?
Finally your true colours are coming out.
“And you now want Jennifer to censor any posts here that do not support AGW?”
I’m just calling on her to use her supposed superior powers of scepticism, which are so much better than the faux sceptics, to weed out the rubbish and present a real case against AGW, such that it exists. It would be good of her to demonstrate these powers of scepticism by explaining, for example, what Miscolczi’s ‘new law of physics’ is.
sod; to prove your point about temperatures rising you have linked to a composite graph showing model simulations! That’s rich; here are the actual temperatures;
i pointed to the models, to show that the current temperture is very well within the bounds of model runs.
You are a cherry-picking fraud sod;
i did NOT cherry pick. your reply shows data for the last 144 months. are your DECADES slightly longer than mine?
Sod,
if you add enough models Ice Ball earth would be within the bounds!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Unfortunately for you, the idea of using model ensembles, or multiple runs, in the manner the IPCC and Groupies do is not exactly good science!! At the best, it has not been validated against anything useful. At the worst it is simply spurious.
By the way, I am still wondering how CO2 accounts for the increase in temps, over the last 30 years, on multiple planets of the Solar System which do NOT have GG’s!! Care to take a shot at it??
How about you SJT or LITTLE Luke??
“By the way, I am still wondering how CO2 accounts for the increase in temps, over the last 30 years, on multiple planets of the Solar System which do NOT have GG’s!! Care to take a shot at it??”
I am always amazed at how often this patently illogical argument comes up. First of all, tell me how many bodies there are in your sample. Next tell me how many are warming, how many are cooling, and how many are staying the same. Then you will have presented at least the simplest, tenable case for your argument. Just cherry picking the ones that are warming, while you ignore the other 80%, is no argument at all.
Just filing this here:
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, June 17, 09 (01:03 pm)
Here is the list of questions Family First Senator Steve Fielding asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong on Monday – questions to which he has yet to get an answer:
This briefing paper outlines questions put forward by Senator Steve Fielding to the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, the Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen.
While the questions below are those which the Senator would like answered, the supporting material has been supplied from some leading scientists from Australia and overseas.
These are questions Senator Fielding would like answered so he can make an informed decision on whether or not an emissions trading scheme is the best course of action for Australia to take to deal with climate change and global warming.
The Senator remains open minded and has requested that the government address these questions, the answers to which are fundamental to shaping any climate change legislation.
QUESTION 1.
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
QUESTION 2.
Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
QUESTION 3.
Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?
If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making?
(No link to the briefing paper and its graphs.)
I’m disappointed, but not surprised, unfortunately, that the media has shown so little interest in what questions were actually asked, and why Wong so struggled to answer. We are interested in the science, aren’t we?
“I’m disappointed, but not surprised, unfortunately, that the media has shown so little interest in what questions were actually asked, and why Wong so struggled to answer. We are interested in the science, aren’t we?”
If you are, you would know that Miscolczi is not science.
Wong is not a scientist, if she is to do the right thing, she will pass it on to the scientists for an expert opinion, not a politicians.
Wong is not a scientist, if she is to do the right thing, she will pass it on to the scientists for an expert opinion, not a politicians.
but the other participants were the Australian Chief Scientist and the Head of the ANU Climate Change Unit – who else is more qualified to answer the simple questions?
“but the other participants were the Australian Chief Scientist and the Head of the ANU Climate Change Unit – who else is more qualified to answer the simple questions?”
If the question was asked in the Senate, which I am assuming it was, the scientists are not present, and the question is formally asked of the Minister, with the invitation for the others to participate in the answer.
“Wong is not a scientist,”
but folks would have us believe that the Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen are and they were there and it was hardly a case of questions without notice.
“If you are, you would know that Miscolczi is not science”
No he isn’t, but he is a scientist and that is something that you are not little will.
SJT,
The questions were asked of Minister Wong on Monday – those scientific experts were present at the meeting.
Heavens, you can’t even get simple facts correct – too much time in la la land perhaps?
SJT: “If you are, you would know that Miscolczi is not science”.
Wong, he is a human being, and a scientist. You are not the latter and there is some doubt about the former.
If the question was asked in the Senate, which I am assuming it was
wrong again SJT – the questions were asked in a meeting that had been arranged by Senator Fielding. The intent of the meeting was to ask Penny Wong some questions regarding AGW – the Chief Scientists and Prof Steffen were invited to the meeting by Penny Wong to answer those questions! They obviously can’t answer them.
“Family First senator Steve Fielding has emerged from a meeting with Climate Change Minister Penny Wong claiming she could not answer his questions on the relationship between carbon emissions and climate change.
That is despite Australia’s chief scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, and ANU climatologist Professor Will Steffen providing detailed answers to Senator Fielding about the direct role of carbon emissions in warming the earth’s atmosphere.”
I see, the questions were not during Question Time. He was told the answers, in detail, but could not comprehend them.
“No he isn’t, but he is a scientist and that is something that you are not little will.”
Whether I am or not is no consequence, there is supposed to be sceptism at work here. I see little evidence of it. Any psuedo scientific trash is presented as evidence. Scepticism is not the process of flinging enough mud in the belief that some will stick, it is the evaluation of that evidence as well.
SJT – Senator Fielding has a Bachelor of Engineering degree at RMIT and a
Masters of Business Administration (MBA), Monash University.
Im sure he can comprehend any answer given to him regarding AGW.
No SJT,
She and her advisors did not answer his questions as put. You have zero evidence to state that Senator Fielding could not comprehend the answers.
And to think you are employed by the AGO as a computer programmer.
If I had been at the meeting …………………I would have said that the so-called climate scientists continue to confuse computer power with intellectual rigour.
“Im sure he can comprehend any answer given to him regarding AGW.”
I’m just going on the evidence, he clearly can’t.
“I see, the questions were not during Question Time.”
Like I said hardly without notice.
“He was told the answers, in detail, but could not comprehend them.”
He is an engineer, and unless that’s software engineer, he’ll have a fairly good handle on causation so I think that unlikely.
SJT – no one has given him an answer to non comprehend. He is currently waiting for it. Our leading scientists couldn’t answer his questions.
perhaps you can answer them?
He went in there, flanked by denialists. If he was open to all opinions, he would have had a range of people to prepare himself with other than them. It was a setup.
Meanwhile, the real world contradicts him.
“Professor Nicholls said heat records for many centres were broken more than once last summer, often by huge margins by meteorological standards. Melbourne had never before experienced a run of three days hotter than 42 degrees. The final week of January had three consecutive days topping 43 degrees.
In March 2008, Adelaide had 15 days hotter than 35 degrees — seven more than the previous record.
“The old records are not just being broken by increments, they are being smashed,” Professor Nicholls said, pointing to other heatwaves this decade in Europe, the US, Asia and south-eastern Australia.”
Australia is going to do it hard, if this trend continues, when we are supposed to be going through a ‘cooling’ period. What happens to us, a country that is mostly desert?
“Whether I am or not is no consequence, there is supposed to be sceptism at work here.”
Will you’ll jut have to accept that fact that trusting you over the work of genuine scientists can not be considered evidence of scepticism.
Well maybe Senator Wong isn’t much chop – she should have drop-kicked that load of questions for 6.
(1) Cooling ? What cooling . The latest OHC data from Levitus et al (2009) is here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
The Chief Scientist should have ticked off the faux sceptics for statistical bullshit even trying it on with any other data set.
(2) The olde “it’s warmed before and the Earth is still here” – well most of the rocks might be – but heaps of species and lots of humans are not. PETM. Speed of change. Mega-droughts of the MWP – ya could have got an AC-130 gunship strafing the pretend sceptics on this old fav.
(3) The old GCMs don’t work ruse /have been falsified bunk – yes they do – Will Steffen should have lectured the faux sceptics on what the models actually say. Individual model means do show cooling or statis periods – so do individual ensemble members. Should have shown them some of the latest Hadley stuff and set them down for a quick seminar.
So what a piss weak set of questions.
Anyway Wongsy blew it – she should have presented the sceptics with the list of bullshit they’ve tried on for decade. Given them 3 questions for their own homework.
Including why doesn’t Steve Short believe in Mizowhatsy.
It’s just outrageous. Very unhappy with the Feds performance. Should have seen those coming and done ’em like dinners. Probably too polite.
“It was a setup.”
So is a court of law. The judge and jury get to hear both sides in this case Fielding had to bring the opposition to the governments POV with him. Sounds fine to me.
“Including why doesn’t Steve Short believe in Mizowhatsy.”
That’s easy because like you Luke he doesn’t understand it.
SJT – claiming there are record heat events when the earth has been warming for 100 years is just lame. You could just as well state all the gains from having a warmer world, like better crop yields etc.
The Government’s team blew it – they couldn’t give a reply. Did you know that the Chief Scientist only discovered that the CO2 effect was logarithmic the other day? These are the people who carry on like royalty every time someone dare question them. Our leading scientists have been so busy joining in with the crowd they’ve forgotten to study the science.
Why couldn’t the scientists answer Feildings questions?
Because it went something like this;
Q. Why has increasing Co2 cooled the earth for the last 10 years?
A. It hasn’t.
Q. Why can’t you answer my question!
A. Huh?
“Q. Why has increasing Co2 cooled the earth for the last 10 years?
A. It hasn’t.”
They haven’t answered the question and that wasn’t the question anyway.
They answered a question of their own making. You do know what a strawman is don’t you?
It’s interesting that throughout the Insiders Interview on Sunday Senator Fielding consistantly says his meeting on monday at 4pm is with Minister Wong and the Chief Scientist.
So professor Steffen was bought in later, no doubt at the request of the Chief Scientist who is realising she isn’t as across the subject as she should be.
I’d still like to know who comprised Senator Fielding’s bodyguard.
Just been listening to James Lovelock on Radio National. We’re all doomed, you know. And he doesn’t think much of the climate models either.
Sod,
if you add enough models Ice Ball earth would be within the bounds!!!
look, Jennifer made the claim that the current temperature is not explainable by the theory of global warming. i showed her immediately, that models include periods that look pretty exactly like what we have at the moment.
so you show me a model showing ice ball earth, and we have a discussion….
“So is a court of law. The judge and jury get to hear both sides in this case Fielding had to bring the opposition to the governments POV with him. Sounds fine to me.”
Fielding didn’t ask people from both sides before he went to see Wong, he only looked at the arguments from people with no current knowledge of the state of the science. The questions were loaded, and presumed there would be no answer that could satisfy them. That is not an open mind, that is a closed mind saying “I bet you can’t answer this”, which meant no matter what he was told, the answer would not be good enough.
“So professor Steffen was bought in later, no doubt at the request of the Chief Scientist who is realising she isn’t as across the subject as she should be.”
No one scientist is across every subject these days, that’s just the nature of knowledge these days in advanced and complex scientific issues. The chief scientist is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.
“Fielding didn’t ask people from both sides before he went to see Wong”
Rubbish all that we ever hear from the media is the Wong side.
“The chief scientist is an astrophysicist”
Should be familiar with the Schwarzschild equations then which being basically Laplace transforms which Engineer Fielding should also be familiar with they could have had a nice little tete a tete about the probity of using semi-infinite Laplace transforms to describe a thin atmosphere with an atmospheric IR window.
It would have probably confused everyone else there and still wouldn’t have answered the question.
Wong is the proponent of a measure that is being put to parliament. The burden falls on her to answer all questions put to her on the issue. Contrary to what the boy wonder might think, it is not Fieldings duty to answer her questions. Wong has demonstrated that she is “The Bimbo for Climate Change”.
And still no response to the fact that 75ppm of the past 83ppm of additional atmospheric CO2 has produced zero evidence of warming. Thats 60 of the past 67 years had zero warming. You do accept, I hope, that a temperature plateau is not a warming?
You do accept, I hope, that volcanic impacts on temperature can be accurately measured?
You do accept, I hope, that a 3 decadal lag is inconsistent with CO2 forcing theory?
You do accept, I hope, that a period involving 83% of total CO2 flux is much more than an adequate sample? and
You do accept, I hope, that given a choice between an 8% sample of warming and an 83% sample of mostly no warming, the larger, longer sample should be used as the basis for validating Global climate Modells?
“Should be familiar with the Schwarzschild equations then which being basically Laplace transforms which Engineer Fielding should also be familiar with they could have had a nice little tete a tete about the probity of using semi-infinite Laplace transforms to describe a thin atmosphere with an atmospheric IR window.”
I keep forgetting about people like you who know everything about every topic of science. Why didn’t they just ask you along?
“I keep forgetting about people like you who know everything about every topic of science.”
No just physics and Mental Health is all i lay claim to unlike you. I’ve suggested before that you should stop projecting your own failings onto others.
“Why didn’t they just ask you along?”
Like I said it’s something that both Sackett and Fielding aught to be able to cope with themselves.
“Australia is going to do it hard, if this trend continues, when we are supposed to be going through a ‘cooling’ period. What happens to us, a country that is mostly desert?”
Interesting to note that the last time any continent set a continent wide high temperature was in the 1970’s, while the last time we saw continent wide low temperature records set was… last year, and it wasn’t just one it was several. Just saying…
When Pielke Snr, who has several decades and hundreds of published papers in climatology research says “oceans heat content has not increased”, I think we should at least pay attention to what he has to say.
When climate researchers ignore the warnings of the previous generation of climate researchers about geometry induced numerical artifacts in principle component analysis of climate fields such as temperature, we should be concerned. When such are pointed out to them and they still insist there is no problem, we should be very concerned.
When a scientist says “We have 25 years invested in this. Why should I give you my data when all you want to do is find mistakes”, we should be concerned.
When the “driver” increases more than assumed by modellers, yet the “driven” stays stable or even goes in the opposite direction to the model output, we should be concerned. When those who say the models are right also say this hsows things are worse than we thought, we should be very concerned.
Perhaps you can understand why I am very concerned!
SJT,
then tell us all about the ones that are not warming!!!
SJT,
you still have to come up with an explanation as to how those other planets and moons and asteroids… warmed. You haven’t, and without solar power, you can’t.
Sorry, you and little Lukey lose as usual.
The “global warming” theory says atmospheric CO2 is “greenhousing” the middle and upper levels of the atmosphere, and retaining solar heat. For poorly understood reasons CO2 is building in the atmosphere. At the same time, atmospheric temperature is falling, and ocean temperature is randomly rising.
The problem? The global warming theory does not work this way.
Explaining that temperatures are actually rising because ocean temperatures are (slightly) rising does not support a human cause. It rejects a human cause.
“No just physics and Mental Health is all i lay claim to unlike you. I’ve suggested before that you should stop projecting your own failings onto others.”
It took me about five minutes of reading your rants to realise you think you know a lot more than you do, but aren’t aware of it. A common human failing. Why do you think surgeons specialise on such specific areas or functions of the human body? They are all highly intelligent and skilled, but even that one area of knowledge is far too complex for one person to understand and be skilled in the current state of the science. Specialisation is the answer. Climate science is no different, it is a highly complex area of knowledge.
“you still have to come up with an explanation as to how those other planets and moons and asteroids… warmed. You haven’t, and without solar power, you can’t.”
Heard of the Milankovich cycles? The basic principle applies to other bodies as well. You still haven’t responded to my question. Out of the total number of moons and planets, how many are cooling, how many are warming, how many have a temperature that is staying constant?
Little Will, “It took me about five minutes of reading your rants to realise you think you know a lot more than you do, but aren’t aware of it.”
I have repeatedly advised you to stop projecting your own failings onto others.