FIFTEEN senior Australian climate scientists have hit back at the resurgence of climate scepticism among the nation’s politicians and the media, warning that the threat from climate change is real, urgent and approaching a series of ‘‘tipping points’’ where it will feed on itself. Read more here and here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Yeah – saw that this morning – Even Realclimate admits that the world is cooling and will continue to do so for the next 10 years.
I’m sure the paper approached them as they needed another global warming page to satisfy their readers lust for doomsday scenarios – nothing to see here.
if you want to be printed in the letters section of the SMh just write some feeble letter about how the government isn’t doing enough about climate change, simple as that.
“The fourth conclusion is that climate change cannot be reversed for many centuries, because of the massive heat stores in the world’s oceans.”
Is there no limit to the alarmism that these gory bleeders will spout in harmony.
Choir practice on the internet!
At least their is now a list of the scientists in the ‘scientists say crowd’ even if there is an absence of data or even logic to support their missive!
Quite sad how delusional this church has become. Interesting to note the dumping of the climate models now ‘not solely’ and the move away from measured air temperatures to ocean temperatures. They are running out of clay pigeons to toss up as a internet community of little people all over the world explode their myths one by one!
Steve and the crowd (www.climateaudit.org) are enjoying flipping the Hadley haddock on a hotplate as we are being amused by the death throes of our own little church of alarmists! Rudd and Turnbull are going to have to admit that the whole scam is just to piggy-back a new tax!
McIntyre isn’t analysing anything. Reminds me of the song and dance he created over Hansen’s code, and found out there was nothing wrong with it. He’s just playing to the crowd.
)In 20 years, central parts of the Arctic Ocean might be ice-free for the first time in 14-15 million years.
Dr. Catherine E. Stickley from the University of Tromsø
– Our research confirms how dramatic the current climate change is, says Prof. Nalân Koç at the Norwegian Polar Institute. She heads an international research project that recently published their findings in the acknowledged journal Nature − results that confirm that the formation of sea ice started in the Arctic Ocean already 47 million years ago.
The scientists have found fossil sea ice algae at 260 m depth below the sea bed. The siliceous algae, together with sand particles transported by the historical ice, tell scientists the story of the early formation of sea ice in the Arctic.
The results show that the sea ice in the Arctic has a longer history than the ice in Antarctica.
The authors of the Nature paper are Catherine E. Stickley, Kristen St. John, Nalân Koc, Richard W. Jordan, Sandra Passchier, Richard B. Pearce and Lance E. Kearns. A PDF can be cownloaded here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/nature08163.html
2)The Sea Ice Outlook reports low pan-arctic ice extent
The June 2009 report indicates a continuation of low pan-arctic sea ice extent, in the range of 4.2-5.0 million square kilometers for May. This is well below the 1997-2007 September climatological mean value of 6.7 million square kilometers
http://npweb.npolar.no/english/seaiceoutlook_june2009
SJT “McIntyre isn’t analysing anything. Reminds me of the song and dance he created over Hansen’s code, and found out there was nothing wrong with it. He’s just playing to the crowd”.
Now who’s wallowing in denial?
1)McIntyre and McKittrick brought Michael Mann’s quaint slight of hand, by which the MWP and LIA disappeared completely, to the attention of the US government. They did that out of desperation because they could not be taken seriously by IPCC bigwigs. The US gov asked a statistics expert, Wegner, as well as NAS, to look into the matter. The conclusion from both was unanimous, that Mann had screwed the statistics and used inadmissable proxy data.
When Mann tried it again, with Stieg, claiming the Antarctic actually had warmed, McIntyre went after them again, exposing bad modeling and statistics.
2)McIntyre went after Hansen and GISS for another sleight of hand, trying to erase 1934 as the warmest year in the US and replacing it with 1998, an El Nino enhanced high. GISS were forced to acknowledge and return 1934 to its rightful place as the warmest year in recorded US history.
3) Hansen and GISSTEMP again. They tried to pass of a horrendous mistake in record keeping as a sudden rise in temperatures in Russia. McIntyre was involved in that exposure….again. Schmidt, of realclimate and GISS, was furious, claiming GISS did not have the funds to verify every bit of data they collected.
I think old Steve has done really well for a guy whose does statistics as a hobby.
Ann Novek “)In 20 years, central parts of the Arctic Ocean might be ice-free for the first time in 14-15 million years”.
Here’s John Christy’s response to that.
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291
He claims warming in the Arctic is more than 7 times larger than in the southern hemisphere, and since CO2 is evenly distributed throughout the globe, it doesn’t look like an effect of global warming.
Diehard alarmists will claim the extent of the ocean in the SH is keeping it cooler. However, they refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that the oceans are the overall mitigating factor.
Here’s something on the Arctic Oscillation:
http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html
Here’s a BBC article on the Keenlyside study that claims the lull in global warming is just temporary, due to the AMO. He says that while staring him in the face is an Arctic that is 7 times warmer than the rest of the globe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
“He claims warming in the Arctic is more than 7 times larger than in the southern hemisphere, and since CO2 is evenly distributed throughout the globe, it doesn’t look like an effect of global warming.”
In fact, models predict less warming in the South than in the North because there is more ocean surface in the South. The Polar Vortex also creates a “mini climate” that is isolated from the rest of the system.
Since when do you go around calling senior scientists from Australias most reputable institutions “warmaholics” jennifer? How grubby does this web site have to get?
The skills of these scientists could be better spent helping with current crises. I agree with Anthony Watts who recently wrote ..… “Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/
On Saturday, in Sydney, a large industrial fire produced a cloud of toxic smoke and gas which covered much of Sydney for many hours. Where were our Government environmental agencies? And what were they doing to help the public? Why were we exposed to these toxic fumes which unlike CO2 do have an effect on our health and environment?
Why do our environmental ‘scholars’ apparently ignore research and prevention into this type of poisonous pollution? Surely our health would be better improved and our hospitals less congested if more attention was focussed on current and real pollution issues. Leave CO2 alone – it is a trace gas which has no public health issues, no proven input in climate change and is a fertiliser for plant growth.
““Spending money on speculative, even if plausible, catastrophes instead of problems we know exist for sure is like a starving man giving up a fat juicy bird in hand while hoping that we’ll catch several other birds sometime in the next few centuries even though we know those birds don’t exist today and may never exist in the future.””
Watt is a small man with a small mind. Most species on this planet depend on the climate, the climate is changing, globally. The scope of the problem is our whole planet.
He also sets up a false dichotomy. Why does working towards fixing the unintended consequence of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevent us from addressing any other issues?
SJT “the climate is changing, globally” – So why fight it? – this is a natural process which has been going on since the year dot. We are better to focus our time and resources on adapting to changing climate not fighting a natural process. Reducing the CO2 we produce will have no measurable effect on temperature but will dramatically affect our means of combatting other issues by making us a good deal poorer.
Actually Anthony is quite tall.
“SJT “the climate is changing, globally” – So why fight it? – this is a natural process which has been going on since the year dot.”
And living about 30 years used to be part of the natural process.
Climate changes, but it’s not something that is part of a mysterious force we have no idea about. It always changes for a reason, and we can find out what those reasons are. At present, the reason is CO2. That it will change sometime in the future for another reason is undeniable, but that’s not what’s happening now.
SJT … “It always changes for a reason, and we can find out what those reasons are. At present, the reason is CO2”.
The amount of CO2 we contribute is meaningless to the climate equation.
In general our lives would be far more comfortable with warmer weather – a colder climate would have far more serious consequences.
In any event, changing climate happens at such a slow pace we have ample time to adapt. It could be very pleasant to have Brisbane’s climate in Sydney in a few hundred years but I don’t think many would be happy with Hobart’s climes.
“In general our lives would be far more comfortable with warmer weather – a colder climate would have far more serious consequences.”
Speak for yourself. My first experience of 47C was anything but comfortable.
SJT – With a few hundred years of temperature creep from 45C to 47C even you may have time to adapt. Perhaps you could just move a tad towards the pole – or to the equator if it gets a bit cooler (maybe leave a message in a bottle for your offspring just in case they have small minds and forget to move).
There are a lot more species on the earth than just us, and they don’t know what’s coming. As for moving closer to the pole, between me and the pole is a big ocean with a very small island in it.
“Speak for yourself. My first experience of 47C was anything but comfortable.”
If you want to quote extremes most of Australias hottest records happened a long time ago whereas the US and Canada are having record cold winters and summers as of now.
But of course this is all natural variation.
SJT – I’ll see your 15 and raise you 45
http://tinyurl.com/n37ban
I could easily find that many scientists who believe in creationism. Petitions like this are just a simple way of finding out who the incompetents are. Eg Beck makes an appearance, and he is not a scientist.
oh bullshit SJT – whenever anyone, no matter how qualified or distinguished they are disagrees with you you revert to name calling!!
Many of those listed are just as qualified, some probably more, than the 15 you put up yet you toss them off.
Pathetic.!
SJT “Beck makes an appearance, and he is not a scientist”.
Since when is a guy with a Dipl. Biology not a scientist? In Germany, they don’t have a B.Sc./M.Sc. preceding a doctorate, they just have a Dipl. So, Beck has at least a masters degree in biology.
Anyway, he’s just the messenger. He ‘collated’ studies from other scientists, among them Nobelists. Does that mean you or I could not do the same, as long as we kept it unbiased? And does it mean scientists from the 19th and 20th centuries are all unreliable? If so, we’ll have to exclude Einstein, Plank, Boltzmann, Faraday and Bohr, to name a few.
The IPCC is basing it’s CO2 density guesses solely on work established by Tyndall and Arrhenius, which were updated by Callander. Beck collated 175 different technical papers between 1812 and 1961, some of them from Nobelists, yet the IPCC ignored all of that work and went with cherry-picked data that supported their radical theories. I don’t care if Beck is a librarian, he has contributed to science in a big way.
SJT “In fact, models predict less warming in the South than in the North because there is more ocean surface in the South. The Polar Vortex also creates a “mini climate” that is isolated from the rest of the system”.
I was quoting a climate scientist with a degree in the field. He was trying to tell us what he has seen based on the analysis of real data. Christy still claims CO2 ‘should’ warm the atmosphere but his claim with regard to the Arctic is that the warming is not behaving globally. If you look at any of the UAH global contour maps that becomes immediately apparent.
If models predict less warming in the SH, how does that tie in with the latest AGW propaganda from our Dept of CC that is promoting the ETS, that the real warming is in the oceans, not the atmosphere?
But the SH and tropics haven’t been warming so are they predicting cooling?
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/hemitemps.jpg
janama,
They usually manage to achieve correct predictions after the fact so that should happen shortly. [It’ll take a couple a runs to get it right, mind.]
“If models predict less warming in the SH, how does that tie in with the latest AGW propaganda from our Dept of CC that is promoting the ETS, that the real warming is in the oceans, not the atmosphere?”
The oceans are warming, they warm less quickly than land.
“The oceans are warming, they warm less quickly than land.”
D’you think they are warming now or just that they intend to in the future?
IOW, is that based on data or modelling?
“D’you think they are warming now or just that they intend to in the future?”
They are warming now.
“They are warming now.”
Only in your mind.