STEVE Fielding recently attended a climate change conference in Washington, DC. Listening to the papers presented, the Family First senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses they provided directly contradicted the reasons the Australian government had been giving as the justification for its emissions trading legislation.
Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide was much overestimated by computer climate models and remark: “What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
“In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming-climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own quite removed from science.”
Another scientist, astrophysicist Willie Soon, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, commented: “A magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist.” Think about that for a moment with respect to our government’s climate policy.
On his return to Canberra Fielding asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.
Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving dangerous global warming, to help him, and the public, assess whether cutting emissions would be a cost-effective environmental measure.
After all, the cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is about $4000 a family a year for a carbon dioxide tax of $30 a tonne. The estimated benefit of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.
The questions posed were:
* Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
* Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? 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?
* Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making?
As independent scientists attending the meeting, we found the minister’s advisers unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer the questions.
We were told that the first question needed rephrasing because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean.
Que? What is it about “carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased” that the minister’s science advisers don’t understand?
The second question was dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past were not relevant to policy concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to geologist Ian Plimer.
And regarding the accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer models, we were assured that better models were in the pipeline. So the minister’s advisers apparently concede that the models that have guided preparation of the emissions trading scheme legislation are inadequate.
These are not adequate responses.
It was reported in the Business Age last July that the ministry of climate change’s green paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained scientific errors and over-simplifications. Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the scientific advice Wong is receiving is inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society’s energy usage that will be driven by the government’s ETS legislation.
All Australians owe Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress’s clothes have gone. Together with the senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Wong’s advisers may yet provide.
Bob Carter (also David Evans, Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth see below)
Townsville, Australia
*********************************
Other authors of this opinion piece include: Carbon modeller David Evans, hydrologist-climatologist Stewart Franks and meteorologist-climatologist Bill Kininmonth. The four attended the meeting between Steve Fielding, Penny Wong, Chief Scientist Penny Sackett and ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen. Chief Scientist Sackett has so far declined to publically responde to Senator Fielding’s questions.
Republished from The Australian, ‘Wong’s silent treatment clouds emissions credibility’
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25656849-5013480,00.html
The above figure was one of several provided to Senator Wong, with the above questions.
The figure shows the rate of temperature change for the last 48 000 years in °C/century, based on the analysis of oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 ice core in Greenland (after a slide by Andre Illarianov, 2004). Note that during the last 9,000 years of the Holocene, temperature change occurred regularly at rates between +2.5° and -2.5°C/century. Earlier, during the last glaciation, rates of change as high as 15°C/century are indicated.
The rate of temperature rise has therefore many times in the past been higher than it was in the 20th century. The rate of temperature change, both in Greenland and globally, during the late 20th Century Warming was between 1 and 2 deg. C/century. Thus recent, modern rates of warming fall well within the natural rates of change of the last 10,000 years.
In proper context, there is nothing unusual about the rate of late 20th century warming.
Click on the image for a better/larger view.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Australia would cripple her industries and waste untold billions for a return of minus 0.0001C by 2100, gee what a great investment.
Why don’t the urgers, madmen and fanatics on this blog just hang your heads in shame and start to grow a brain.
Obviously Fielding spoke to the wrong people. It’s politicians, singer, actors, economists and lawyers that know all about this. Besides it was was decided by consensus years ago how dare he question it? Just because we have no way change things and will be taxing the bejeezes out of everyone he is apprehensive, silly man.
Perhaps Jennifer can reply to me the following questions?
1) Why do the Arctic terns arrive to the Northern hemisphere from Antarctica now a whole month earlier than they used to do for a decade ago?
2) Why have the butterflies in Finland moved northwards?
3) Why haven’t there been any skiing weather/ snow for the most part of middle Sweden for the last two decades?
Yes Neville, and whilst they hang their collective heads in shame they could also wander out to the power box and flick the main switch to “OFF”……….. to truly show their sincerity.
These are deparate times!
The GISP2 ice-core again.
Of course all good sceptics would already know what the science says about these ice-cores…..
But just in case, here, again, is the guy himself who did the work,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4GThA35s1s
Bah, humbug, what would he know!.
Here’s a map of Swedish ski resorts,
http://www.j2ski.com/ski_resorts/Sweden/Swedish_Ski_Resorts_Map.html
It appears that they are still getting snow as of June 18th at the higher elevations.
Also, the Arctic terns are finding it too cold in Antarctica and are leaving early to catch the dating scene in Tuktyuktuk.
Butterflies are obviously moving to a better neighbourhood.
G’day Birdie: “Why haven’t there been any skiing weather/ snow for the most part of middle Sweden for the last two decades?”
I don’t know, but do you know why the snowing season in Eastern Australia started much earlier this year?
Also, can you tell me why Penny Wong ( her maths on Sunday a week ago -the average = the average/5); Penny Hack and Stiff Willie – with a weeks notice of the questions – had no answers and even tried to change one question.
Penny’s Wong answer was – I’ll get back to you. I got the same answer in December, 2007 and am still waiting.
And what about the shameful Peter Midnight Oil (as opposed to BIGOIL) who said the Wilkins Ice Shelf would cause a 6m rise in the oceans – (an ice shelf by definition is floating ice and floating ice melt does not cause a rise!) But see the latest on the Wilkins Ice Shelf here: http://www.agmates.com/blog/2009/06/17/if-australian-politicians-looked-at-new-antarctic-ice-data-theyd-see-the-scam/
as JeffT says: “If Australian politicians looked at the new Antarctic ice data they’d see the scam!
I wish these dam sceptical scientists would stop exagerating.
According to the Australian today, Messrs Carter,Evans,Franks and Kinninmonth are saying that it will only make 0.0001C in 100years time.
Thats not true –its 0.004C in a 100 years time. Its a batant porky
Sounds much better for the cost of $4000 per family, and about 25000 miners out of work and rest of our manufacturing industry going to China.
Who their right mind would vote against a deal like that.
Hi Cary and Geoff,
Webcam Riksgränsen , Sweden, the world’s most northern ski resort, you can do the Midsummer / Midnight skiing here :
http://www.stromma.se/sv/Riksgransen/Webbkamera/
Is it much snow here ???
I pointed out MIDDLE of Sweden. Sweden is a long and narrow country and sure you can do the midsummer skiing in Riksgränsen ( bordering to Norway) but the middle parts ( subarctic) parts have been avoid of snow for MANY years now….
Totally off topic, but it’s the Midsummer Eve here today. ( A beautiful evening in June , when men and women found each other).
How do you celebrate this in Australia?
“when men and women found each other).
How do you celebrate this in Australia?”
Well Birdie I would think men and women finding each other is enough celebration in itself but then I used to be a divorce lawyer. A couple of questions Birdie; do you have any long term temperature records for sunny Sweden? And is Will Steffen from Sweden or of Swedish extraction?
Hi Cohenite,
Thanks for your reply.
I found this. Temperature stats for last 108 year in some Swedish cities. Note Stockholm is a middle Swedish town. Methinks they have the longest temperature record in the world.
Green staples temperature above median Midsummer temperaure. Blue staples temp below .
http://www.smhi.se/cmp/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=9400&a=27334&l=sv
PS. Methinks your post was witty;)
D’you think that the peole who went with Fielding to the meeting have had this all explained before but for non scientific and illogical reasons continue to ignore it. You have to ask what drives them? Ego? Hubris?
I don’t know much about Steffen. Stefan is a common Swedish name. He is the Director for IGBP , based in Stockholm and use to have lectures at Swedish Uni’s and Institutes as far as I know.
JC; you are just being provocative and looking for a fight; why can’t you be cosmopolitan and interesting like Birdie; and have interesting temperature data which shows no warming in sunny Sweden. Speaking of the null hypthesis, AGW, did you see Steffen’s interview and his end of the world scenario based on increasing at an increasing rate ocean temperature and rising seas? Be a good chap and find some evidence to support Dr Will’s concerns.
i think that graph might be one of the best possible illustrations, about what is wrong with “sceptics”.
while they are “sceptic” about the data measured with “high tech” thermometers in thousands of points around earth (and in good agreement with satellite data), they immediately believe that the wiggles in this graph, taken from a ice core proxy at a single point, accurately describes GLOBAL temperature.
totally absurd.
that those 4 “scientists” stood next to fielding, when he asked:
all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008
is pretty shocking.
that they repeat that part of a question in a newspaper article makes it even worse.
that sentence alone demonstrates ZERO knowledge about the models and the topic they are commenting on.
You just dont get it do you Sod.
Even if one accepts all the alarmists science and idiot projections to be true, our contribution to any global cooling that may ensue from any variation of the Wong/ Krudd ETS is still so miniscule, it is a total farce for any Govt of Australia to be even suggesting that we should corrupt our economy, and impose a huge impost on future generations for such a piss pot outcome.
I do so love quoting the idiot alarmists own data back at them, when it shows just what a bunch frauds they are.
Science in Australia is going to take along time to recover from this frolic by the tax payer funded white coats, and their complete abandonment of common sense.
The GISP2 data and its significance;
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/
As for the model predictions between 1990-2008 try and read Koutsoyiannis sod. Really, if it wasn’t going to cost the rest of us normal people so much I would say you AGW freaks are pathetic.
Even if one accepts all the alarmists science and idiot projections to be true, our contribution to any global cooling that may ensue from any variation of the Wong/ Krudd ETS is still so miniscule, it is a total farce for any Govt of Australia to be even suggesting that we should corrupt our economy, and impose a huge impost on future generations for such a piss pot outcome.
which of the Fielding question is following this line of argument?
or ae you trying to tell me, that he could have asked better questions? (possibly even not plain stupid questions?)
ps: Jennifer, why are you calling those questions “hard” anyway? “hard” to the scientists who are forced to tackle this nonsense?
Another account of the meeting: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/
Sod said: “ps: Jennifer, why are you calling those questions “hard” anyway? “hard” to the scientists who are forced to tackle this nonsense?”
They are hard because no one has answered them point by point. The more bluster and obfuscation there is the more ground lost by Team-AGW.
Sheesh!!! This is getting pathetic.
The butterfies must be freezing their Antennae off also.
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Harvesting+of+strawberry+crop+to+be+delayed+by+cold+early+summer/1135247016058
Another account of the meeting: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/
ah, another “independent” source. Jo Nova.
every word of her account is radiating the triumph about forcing real scientists into a meeting with her and the other denialists. they are using this as a publicity stunt. pretty disgusting.
sod; are you nuts? Wanting to have an open and transparent debate is “disgusting”?! I mean the measures proposed to ‘solve’ your religion of AGW are going to be pretty expensive, aren’t they? You might be willing to fork over your tighes but the rest of us want to see some value for our hard-earned.
I’ll tell you what, sod, since you seem to be the Deltoid agent here; why don’t you have a coversation amongst your fellow acolytes and nominate your best and brightest from the church of AGW who would demolish some heretics from the ‘sceptic’ side in a public debate on this issue?
a discussion, in which the denialists bring up nonsense questions like
* Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling?
and then deny being told the truth (definitly NOT all models show a “steady” (!!!) increase.), you will ignore it, shouting “answer the question, answer the question!”
thanks but no thanks.
as you can see from my posts here, i am quite open to debate. but i don t think that giving extra publicity to obviously false denialist claims makes sense.
sorry.
“ah, another “independent” source. Jo Nova.”
Just as independent as any other journalist there.
“pretty disgusting.”
I thought so too all that answering their own strawmen instead of the questions.
I think it’s fairly decent, too decent, of Senator Fielding to give them this opportunity to explain I would not have done I would just have voted against it on the day, having a press release ready for the inevitable questions.
sod, don’t be sorry, try to be right; you say “definitely NOT all models show a “steady” (!!!) increase.)”; well, ok, what about the means of the various models; after all the IPCC talks about ensembles, or is that luke; regardless an average model prediction is a good start; alternatively, why don’t you pick one model which doesn’t predict a steady increase; and which has been used in IPCC reporting; in the mean [sic, yuk] time here is a good anlaysis of the model predictions, including Hansen’s;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354
And what about Koutsoyiannis?
“definitely NOT all models show a “steady” (!!!) increase.)”
Why, that’s even worse!
Which model do you pick then?
The one that suits your argument at the given moment?
No wonder you are not prepared to debate!
Tell you what, if I were you, I would hide the fact that not all models give the same outcome.
This as getting ridiculous!
Coho – you’re so tedious. You have got a steady increase over time. Sod has shown that the various model averages do not monotonically increase. But ALSO an individual ensemble member – which reality is (waits for stones) – will have wiggles like this. When the temperature turns up again you guys are going to be soooo sour.
You’re simply gonna have to wait.
And in any case only the next generation of models will have IPO type representation.
As for Koutso – “With all due respect to the authors, they do not appear know very much about either TAR or AR4. Looking at the statistics of local temperature and precipitation is useful but picking just a few long records and comparing to the nearest individual grid cells is not sensible. The differences in topography an local micro-climates are probably large and will make a big difference. A better approach would have been to look at aggregated statistics over larger areas. This has in fact been done though – for instance Blender and Fraedrich (2003), and there was a recent paper that looked the AR4 models (in GRL maybe? – I can’t quickly find the reference). The most curious aspect of this paper’s reception in the blogosphere is that the authors use the surface station records which in all other circumstances the cheer squad would be condemning as being horribly contaminated. Just saying. – gavin”
Coho – you really need to do some research on how downscaling is done. You have so much to learn.
http://www.mssanz.org.au/MODSIM97/Vol%201/Bates.pdf
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/projects/stardex/
SOD:
“as you can see from my posts here, i am quite open to debate. but i don t think that giving extra publicity to obviously false denialist claims makes sense. ”
IF you are being honest here, I (“i” in your simplistic, cute little effort to “be someone”) would welcome your remark. However, your many previous statements and your use of the phrase “obviously false denialist” shows clearly that you are a bigot and are not asking for an “open debate” at all. You appear to me to be nothing but a dishonest hypocrite, like Al Gore and almost all of the leftist environmental-extremist morons that push AGW! The only other alternative I can think of is that you are just plain stupid. Like several other commenters here who post nothing but raves.
The thing that pisses me off the most about Leftists, Environmentalists, and the AGW issue is that the promoters will NOT allow a true debate. And this shows plainly that they are VERY afraid that the truth may get out! If you don’t believe that, spend some time watching the disgusting censorship going on at sites such as RealClimate, Open Mind, etc. Then look at ClimateAudit, Whats Up With That. (See Jeff/AirVent for an example of the latest example). Compare the environment at these sites and report back about which are “open to debate.” If you don’t see the disgusting bigotry going on under the guise of “peer-reviewed climate science,” then you have a very low IQ, indeed.
I am extremely impressed that Senator Fielding has the guts to honestly look at this issue. What a rare individual in this corrupt world! I pray for him.
You, SOD, should also be impressed, if you honestly value openness. Oh, but have you said any such thing? Hell no, you hypocrite!
If he was serious he’d ask for a few days with CSIRO and BoM not a pretty little tea party with Penny.
As for morons – well I think “I pray for him” is all we need to know. You’re another wacker. Nothing worse than rightist turds assuming the moral high ground. Earn it !
Ok luke, I passed on your new generation Hadley model information to a guy who works on super-computers; the increase in resolution still has to operate within the assumptive parameters which include +ve feedback from water; until this is resolved the models will have trouble.
As for Koutsoyiannis; Schmidt’s comment is not fair; if you read the Koutsoyiannis paper you will see it specicfically targets TAR and AR4 model predictions; K’s abstract states;
“In practice, the climatic model outputs are downscaled to finer spatial scales, and conclusions are drawn for the evolution of regional climates and hydrological regimes; thus, it is essential to make such comparisons on regional scales and point basis rather than on global or hemispheric scales.”
Notwithstanding this K notes on p5 that;
“According to IPCC AR4 GCMs have better predictive capacity for temperature than for other climatic variables (e.g. precipitation) and their quantitative estimates of future climate are particularly credible at continental scales and above.”
Now that admission in itself about water predictions should kaput AGW; but anyway, K continues;
“However this did not prevent IPCC to give regional projections…”
It is not K who changes the goal-posts between regional and larger areas for prediction but the IPCC.
In regard to your 2 links; the 2nd one doesn’t work but the 1st one by Bates et al says this about GCMs;
“(GCMs) perform reasonably well in simulating the present climate with respect to annual or seasonal averages at large spatial scales (>10/4 km2) but poorly at the smaller space and time scales relevant to regional impact analyses.”
K proves that but the accolade for the large stuff is premature as the ongoing dispute about whether the current cooling is in fact cooling and whether it contradicts the model predictions on a global scale, but as a matter of logic if you cannot predict what happens regionally than the assertion that predictions are meaningful at the larger scale is inherently contradictory.
As to the methodology of the Bates paper which is described as “a doubly stochastic process” where “there is an underlying (unobserved or hidden) stochastic process that can only be observed through another set of stochastic processes that produce the sequence of observed outcomes”, I’ll have a think about that. Incidentally, this paper is over 10 years old; where did this NHMM double stochastic process go to?
Don’t bother, I see the nonhomogenous hidden Markov model, NHMM, is fairly common in the literature.
“As for morons – well I think “I pray for him” is all we need to know. You’re another wacker.”
So, Luke, you’re not prepared to allow a belief in God?
You really are a little ray of religious tollerance.
I just hope Jae is a muslim and declares a fatwah on you.
But you probably are cunning enough to pick a soft target which is about your speed.
“The GISP2 data and its significance;
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/ – cohenite.
Which is what, cohers????
For the third time, here is one of the GISP2 lead researchers telling you “the significance”,
Sod,
while they are “sceptic” about the data measured with “high tech” thermometers in thousands of points around earth (and in good agreement with satellite data),
since when do these HIGH TECH THERMOMETERS mean anything?? Thousands of point around the earth??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Let’s see, the record is corrupted by station mis siting, moves, bad equipment, missing data, lack of coverage virtually everywhere except cities in the Norther Hemisphere, UHI, steady adjustments of the historic record before satellites DOWN… and the satellites calibrated against these high tech thermometers just like satellite sea level data was calibrated against Tidal Gauges in Hong Kong, which just happens to be SINKING!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You funny DUDE!!!!
Michael,
has the significance of the GISP2 ice core data been calibrated against the only long term accidental experiment in Greenland???
Remember the P-38 recovered from the ice in Greenland, Glacier Girl?? Here are a couple of numbers for you.
50 years on/in the ice
268 ft depth
1 mile from original crash site
These numbers make a joke of the glacier ice core scenario. The data is virtually meaningless the way it is being interpreted.
While the 100 ft/year horizontal movement is somewhat reasonable, the 13 ft/yr depth blows the annual layering interpretation into the Mariana Trench. It also casts serious doubt on the other cores as similar assumptions are used to interpret all of them.
In other words, the only significance they have is Warmer Desperation!!!!!
Please have a reasonable explanation as to how these aircraft descended so far if you want to disagree.
Dick Alley; yeah, right Michael; what a fun night you could have with Dick and this guy;
THE ENSO CYCLE AND GLOBAL WARMING
>
> Andrew Glikson [geospec@iinet.net.au]
>
> > One of the persistent claims made by so-called climate sceptics is that
> the climate has been “cooling” since early in the 21th century, a claim
> which uses the abrupt 1998 El-Nino warming peak and the 2007 La-Nina
> trough, and although mean global temperatures continued to rise between
> 2000 – 2006. Climate science regards these variations in terms of
> increased climate variability related to elevated energy of the atmosphere
> and the oceans.
>
> According to a new paper titled Is the climate warming or cooling by
> Easterling and Wehner Geophysical Research Letters, 2009)
> global warming
> trend tracking toward 3 or 4 degrees Celsius through the 21st century is
> likely to include pauses, namely multi-year to a decade-long or two
> decades-long periods of cooling, inherent in the ENSO (El-Nino La Nina)
> cycle to date. Peaks in the trend represent El-Nino events (warming and
> droughts in some regions), whereas troughs represent La-Nina events
> (cooling and heavy rainfall in some regions). Such projected
> irregularities would continue trends observed during 1975-2009.
>
> The paper states: Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have
> claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we
> show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged
> surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed
> record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century
> forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the
> 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where
> the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even
> slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.
>
> This will give sceptics no end of opportunities to claim “global cooling”.
>
> It is not clear from these projections whether, or at what point, tipping
> points which may overprint the oscillating warm/cool ENSO pattern
> . Tipping points
> refer to the critical threshold at which a minor perturbation of the
> climate system can qualitatively alter the state or development of a
> system. In principle, early warning systems could be established to detect
> the proximity of some tipping elements. The authors
> state:
>
> Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections
> of global change. Our synthesis of present knowledge suggests that a
> variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this
> century under anthropogenic climate change. The greatest threats are
> tipping the Arctic sea-ice and the Greenland ice sheet
>
> Major consequences include warming in the north Atlantic and sea level
> rise. Other potential tipping elements include
> :
>
> 1. Melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet.
> 2. Collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, regional cooling and
> southward shift of the inter-tropical convergence zone.
> 3. Intensification and rise in frequency of the El-Nino Southern
> Oscillation, with consequent droughts in SE Asia and elsewhere.
> 4. Retardation of the Indian summer monsoon and consequent droughts.
> 5. Extension of the Sahara/Sahel and West African monsoon one positive
> outcome of global warming.
> 6. Reduction of the Amazon rainforest and biodiversity loss
> 7. Reduction of the Boreal forest
> 8. Reduction of circum-Antarctic ocean vertical circulation (bottom water
> formation) associated with ocean warming, reducing ocean CO2 storage.
> 9. Increase in Tundra tree cover
> 10. Reduction in permafrost and in marine methane hydrates, threatening
> methane and CO2 release.
> 11. Oceanic anoxia and marine life extinction
> 12. Reduction in Arctic ozone and increase in UV radiation at the surface.
>
> Should the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (Gulf Stream) fail, deeper
> cooling would occur in western Europe and northeast America, associated
> with advanced melt of Greenland glaciers, similar to events at 11,700
> years ago and 8200 years-ago
> .
> Similar cooling of unspecified length, followed by further warming, may
> occur in connection with the melting of Antarctic ice sheet.
>
> Of critical importance is the ability to predict the time table of tipping
> elements in advance, to help mitigate or retard the process. Such
> potential advanced warning may be provided by activity lulls associated
> with an approach to critical tipping points
>
>
> According to a recent paper by Dakos and others (2008, Proceedings of the
> National Academy of Science) abrupt tipping points may be preceded by
> slowing down of the fluctuations starting well before the actual shift, as
> shown by analyses of eight ancient abrupt climate shifts
> , potentially
> allowing an early warning signal for upcoming catastrophic change. We
> should be so lucky…”
There is some sort of pathology here that goes beyond a lack of dress sense.
>
Michael, you chump!
We have been paddling this canoe for 4 billion plus years and while it might have shipped a little water it has yet to capsize.
Spare us the Dorothy Dixers!
What a spectacle.
Various ‘sceptics’, from Bolt, to Feildings ‘advisors’ to Jen have been waving around the GISP2 graph, obviously without the slightest clue. Get the lead researcher to tell them “the significance” and look at the flurry of nonsense above.
One of the denialists (kuhnkat), even jumps in to say that GISP2 is a load of rubbish.
Debacle.
hm, comment just doesn t show up. test.
here again:
sod, don’t be sorry, try to be right; you say “definitely NOT all models show a “steady” (!!!) increase.)”; well, ok, what about the means of the various models; after all the IPCC talks about ensembles, or is that luke; regardless an average model prediction is a good start; alternatively, why don’t you pick one model which doesn’t predict a steady increase; and which has been used in IPCC reporting; in the mean [sic, yuk] time here is a good anlaysis of the model predictions, including Hansen’s;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354
i support a look at that graph.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen37.jpg
please tell me, which of those scenarios shows a “steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008,”.
and these are neither individual runs, nor “all models”. i am looking forward to your explanations! don t the wiggles of scenario A actually look pretty similar to what we saw since 2000?
and now the rest:
i>And what about Koutsoyiannis?
my first attempt to google him (Koutsoyiannis model) ended up on an intelligent design page..
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/koutsoyiannis-tests-if-global-climate-models-are-scientific/
not a good start.
but i assume that you are talking about this paper:
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1
he is testing a thesis, that nobody thinks to be true. global models can NOT project the temperature in Albany (USA) accurately. the idea that a single model run will do that, is pretty absurd.
but my opinion on the paper is not even important here. because bringing it up, already exposed a complete logical contradiction in the things that you believe and support:
you think that the Fielding claim is accurate:
all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008
and you also believe in the Koutsoyiannis paper:
thesis: a single model run should accurately “predict” the temperature in Albany (USA). (and in 7 other locations around the world)
but with ALL models showing a “a steady increase in temperature”, there also must be a “a steady increase in temperature” in Albany (USA). no summer, no winter. no day no night. no cold year, no warm year. always “steady increase”.
it doesn t take a 14 pages paper, to show that something is wrong with your assumptions. good luck figuring out the error…
so which one will you give up: Koutsoyiannis or Fielding and Co?
Coho – hope you got the decadal stuff (last of 3). Don’t say I don’t look after you. You see you guys are really just arguing about yesterday’s stuff.
Spanglers _ “belief in god” – what the !!! – mate this is science. Don’t undermine you intellectualr position.
I can see I’ve over-estimated you sod; the Koutsoyiannis paper is here;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/3/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPrSm_.pdf
Probably the most important critique of the models in recent time; why am I not surprised you don’t know it.
You have completely misinterpreted the McIntyre piece about Hansen’s models; you have cherry-picked the 2007 graph; the rest of the graphs show a further divergence from Hansen’s 3 scenarios due to the extra year’s data; Scenarios A&B are business as usual scenarios where you can take your pick about how severe the consequences are depending on your current dislike of humanity and scenario C is where we would be if huamnity had taken Hansen’s advice about emissions back in 1988 and collectively gone and lived under a rock; the paucity of the models’ predictive capacity is shown by the fact that the temperature trend in the real world is less than it was predicted to be by Hansen if humanity had eliminated emissions!
Notwithstanding this McIntyre who is nothing if not scrupulously fair says that statistically scenario B [the lessor of Hansen’s 2 business as usual scenarios] cannot be eliminated to a 95% confidence because it is still at the outer limit of autocorrelation error bars based on the real data. He is too fair of course as lucia has shown time and time again with her analysis of real data compared with the down-sized IPCC temperature increase projection of only 2C which is continually falsified despite Schmidt’s obfuscations.
McIntyre ‘s point is to show that the recent movements in the real data, the “downtick”, shows that the predictions are junk. This cherry picking tendency by the models and AGW ‘theory’ generally is the subject of a new paper by David Stockwell, soon to be published, which shows the sensitivity parameter of AGW, as enunciated by Rahmsdorf and others, is entirely a construct of truncated data, which can be negated by merely the addition of one extra year’s data.
“Spanglers _ “belief in god” – what the !!! – mate this is science.”
Even you have a God [or Gods].
But I’m talking about tolerance, respect, manners and courage.
I know you don’t have those.
I can see I’ve over-estimated you sod; the Koutsoyiannis paper is here;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/3/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPrSm_.pdf
Probably the most important critique of the models in recent time; why am I not surprised you don’t know it.
that was obviously the paper i was talking about. why am i not surprised that you didn t notice this?
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/3/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPrSm_.pdf
(you might search the document and my comment above for the town “Albany”)
if this is the most important critique of the models in recent time, then the models are fine.
You have completely misinterpreted the McIntyre piece about Hansen’s models; you have cherry-picked the 2007 graph; the rest of the graphs show a further divergence from Hansen’s 3 scenarios due to the extra year’s data; Scenarios A&B are business as usual scenarios where you can take your pick about how severe the consequences are depending on your current dislike of humanity and scenario C is where we would be if huamnity had taken Hansen’s advice about emissions back in 1988 and collectively gone and lived under a rock; the paucity of the models’ predictive capacity is shown by the fact that the temperature trend in the real world is less than it was predicted to be by Hansen if humanity had eliminated emissions!
no. it is you, who is completely misinterpreting things. whether the models agree with reality or not is completely irrelevant for the claim made by Fielding:
all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008
now look at that graph again:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen37.jpg
if you can not see the similarities between the Scenario A and the real data in the years between 1998 and 2008, you should have your eyes checked! the “discrepancy” is NOT in the way the graph looks! Scenario A does NOT projected a steady increase in temperature for that time.
“if you can not see the similarities between the Scenario A and the real data in the years between 1998 and 2008”
I think the real problem is between Hansen’s “real data’ and every body elses real data.
You are a sophist sod; yes it’s true that after I followed your link to the ID site and your cheap shot implied in the link that I didn’t even look at the 2nd link which is indeed Koutsoyiannis’s expanded paper. In any event your comments about Albany are grotesque; a steady increase doesn’t mean the suppression of seasons; why would it? Obviously a “steady increase in temperature” means a steady increase in means or average annual temperature; it doesn’t preclude ocassional annual reversals; it means that when you do a linear regression over the data you get a straight line pointing upwards you nong; as for instance here;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010
Except, and isn’t that funny, the straight line is pointing down.
And I don’t care how long you stare at Hansen’s scenario A, it has as much similarity with the real world as Walt Disney’s Bambi does.
Yes thank you luke, I received your Hadley stuff, as I mentioned above.
Coho – So did you notice Folland’s listed PC analysis on NMAT and SST perchance?
Yes luke; slide 10 was of particular interest to me; the step effect is of course something that was suggested by McLean and Quirk and Bob Tisdale has done a lot of work on it; and I may have something interesting shortly.
Getting back to the brouhaha about the models not predicting “steadily” increasing temperatures and the associated idea that the alleged cooling since 1998 is merely a temporary natural suppression of the ACO2 effect ala Keenlyside; this has been effectively nullified by lucia who removed ENSO; now, if ACO2 was temporarily being dominated by natural factors like ENSO, with ENSO removed the temperature trend should have the ACO2 effect isolated with its upward effect manifest; see if you can find it;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif
sod,
Why are you claiming that temps taken on land are accurate?
And I don’t care how long you stare at Hansen’s scenario A, it has as much similarity with the real world as Walt Disney’s Bambi does.
again, check your glasses, if you can t see the similarity. the graphs are extremely similar between 1998 and 2008.
You are a sophist sod; yes it’s true that after I followed your link to the ID site and your cheap shot implied in the link that I didn’t even look at the 2nd link which is indeed Koutsoyiannis’s expanded paper.
i ll take this as a compliment.
In any event your comments about Albany are grotesque; a steady increase doesn’t mean the suppression of seasons; why would it?
i was stretching things a little there.
Obviously a “steady increase in temperature” means a steady increase in means or average annual temperature; it doesn’t preclude ocassional annual reversals; it means that when you do a linear regression over the data you get a straight line pointing upwards you nong; as for instance here;
so the Scenario A from 1988 is according to you, showing a “steady increase”????
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen37.jpg
it is basically starting on the same level that it ends on! (time from 1998 to 2008, the frame brought up by Fielding)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010
Except, and isn’t that funny, the straight line is pointing down.
it is a cherry pick.
http://tinyurl.com/mss4lj
adding the trends from 2 years on either side of 1998 shows four trendlines that point UP. only a single one is pointing down. the one you chose.
and you even got to cherrypick the dataset..
so according to you, “steady increase” is NOT a steady increase. it can contain some downward parts. but any non-significant down ward trend contradicts the claim that something is ” increasing”. interesting.
sod,
Why are you claiming that temps taken on land are accurate?
look, i was doing a comparison with the ice core data shown in this post. so which of them is the more accurate description of global temperature?
Alas Coho you missed two major points – the PC analysis which more or less kisses anything but a centennial trend goodbye.
And secondly that sceptics have really no idea where the latest research is at and is continuing on without their help or involvement thank you very much. What you guys get for being 5th columnists.
Decadal effects makes AGW too complex to “sell” to a simplistic public IMO and even more dangerous and insidious than one might realise.
If you haven’t sat down and been over this you really have no idea.
Look luke, I agree with you; one of the main issues is ascertaining appropriate and reasonable data points to base conclusions on; as Steig and Mann found PCA is wrong when it is applied to non-stationary data and there are insufficient principle components to accommodate the data diversity or lack of data; as well, PCA is not much good when there are break-points or steps in the data; that is, a relatively trendless section of data which is seperated by an event which may be stochastic or have some LTP that the selected data points, beginning and end, cannot accommodate. I don’t see why you find that surprising since people like Richard Alley, Hansen and Glikson have been babbling on about ‘tipping points’ which is what a stochastic event is.
For starters I think Steve Fielding is doing the right thing. Asking questions about the validity of data that will influence government policy, in this case a tax, is what he has been elected to do. Perhaps more politicians on both sides of the house should take note of this.
Luke, “too complex to “sell” to a simplistic public ”
I think some may find that offensive, but seeing I resemble that remark how’s this for simplistic.
Many years ago I was told by an authorative body (IPCC) that the globe was warming.
That warming was caused by the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by
mans use of fossil fuels.
The more CO2 the more warming. Even more CO2, even more warming.
This point and this point alone is the keystone to the AGW argument, in my simplistic opinion.
Models were created to predict the effects of increased CO2 on the environment and future global temperatures. The results of those computer generated predictions have been taken as” facts” and used by many governments to formulate taxation policies designed to reduce
the emissions of CO2.
To help get these taxes set into law a raft of ever increasing dissasterous future events has been fed to the simplistic public. We all know what they are, ice melting, polar bears about to go extinct, rising sea levels, millions of human deaths and general all round misery, if we don’t all go along with this theory and stop using stuff like coal ect.
Like Steve Fielding I’ve done the right thing and simply asked for some proof that what the IPCC models predict is ” in fact ” correct. I’ve been asking for the last 25 years and I’m still waiting.
These days all we get is the worst case scenarios and quite frankly I’m getting sick to my back teeth with being told to live my life in fear of the future if I don’t do this or cut back on that.
Some may call me a skeptic or even a denier I’ll let you decide.
Here’s my take on global warming or should I say natural variation in the worlds average temperature.
I have no problem with a warming planet. The world has been steadily warming since the end of the LIA and I expect that trend to continue more or less until the start of the next big ice age. This trend will be interspersed with periods of cooling and some may be quite extreme.
At no point in the available data do I see massive meltbacks of the polar caps, 100 year rises in global temperature of even 3 oC let alone 5,6 or 7 as some would have us believe or massive rises in sea level of 4 m or more. I’ll go for 33cm by 2100.
What I do see is the IPCC temperature predictions going up ” even faster than expected ” and so obviously diverging markedly from real world temperatures that little wonder I’m going to question those models that are going to be used to reduce my standard of living . A standard of living, I might add, that has taken me 50 years to achieve, not have it destroyed by a bunch of dumb pollies who insist on calling CO2 a pollutant.
CO2 is going up, temperature trends are level if not falling. AGW due to increased CO2 is, in my view, a myth.
Now wheres the proof.
Ian
nah – 2 independent ocean data sets – no land data – 3 EOFs – centennial signal, PDO and AMO.
Local role for the AMO is controversial.
sod,
Neither is particularly accurate. And using (abusing) wide MOE data sets and asserting they are accurate to .01o, and telling of dramatic changes in the past present or future is art and marketing, not science.
The human mind seeks to impose patterns on randomness. AGW proves that desire is not limited by education.
once again hunter:
several thousand modern thermometers all over the world versus a single ice core.
which is more accurately measuring GLOBAL temperature?
sod,
Once again,
The only survey done of instrumentation has shown them to be, in large numbers, badly sited, and strongly biased towards false high temps.
It is like what a machine intelligence guy told me one about cock roaches:
If you have a million cockroaches, you have quite a bit of computing power, but you still only have a million roaches. If you have thousands of modern thermometers and they are largely badly used, you only have thousands of modern useless sources of data.
And when we are confronted with studies that fall apart, like Mann, and the recent Antarctic fiasco, there is no reason at all to grant credulity that the AGW community has done more than fit data to pre-selected questions.
Well – he’s spoken, Senator Fielding this morning declared he was not convinced by Minister Wong, the Chief Scientist, or Professor Steffen and will vote against the ETS.
Michael,
“One of the denialists (kuhnkat), even jumps in to say that GISP2 is a load of rubbish. ”
I’m really disappointed that you didn’t point out the error in my poor math abilities.
GISP2, along with the other ice core data, matches virtually no other proxy data. Keep on denying this. It is the only way for you.
(unless it actually matches up with the Hockey Stick SMIRK!!)
Luke’
“And secondly that sceptics have really no idea where the latest research is at and is continuing on without their help or involvement thank you very much. What you guys get for being 5th columnists. ”
Actually, we know exactly where the current IPCC science is. It is in a Huge narcissitic feedback loop that blocks out reality to maintain its dominant position regardless of that reality and the damage it does there.
Sod
“once again hunter:
several thousand modern thermometers all over the world versus a single ice core.
which is more accurately measuring GLOBAL temperature?”
Once again Sod, NEITHER!!!!!!
Both of them are biased to a particular region(s). They are no more global than the local favorite Guitar player at a Bistro. And that is even dependent on whether they have any accuracy!!!
I reproduced the Andre Illarianov chart from the Vostok data. I have some problems with it and do not think it should be used in the manner it is. The points on the chart are from time periods as short as 6 years. If anyone is interested I have the excel file (as .xlxs but I could change it to .xls ) and I would like to have feedback. I discussed it with Bob Carter. One of his comments was:
“Of course the Greenland figures are local and not global. There are no accurate global T figures prior to 1979 or 1958 (take your pick). Which is precisely why opinions on climate change have to be formulated on the back of the best regional sets of figures that we can muster.”
Should be GISP2 not Vostok
Penny Wong has put up her answers to Fielding’s questions here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/tr20090624c.html
Jimmy i love it:)