MINISTER for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, believes in anthropogenic global warming. Send him a request asking he justify this belief and the reply is likely to be long and full of appeals to authority:
“There is clear evidence that our climate is changing, largely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The Fourth Assessment Report, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, states that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and ‘most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations’.
There are multiple lines of evidence in the report showing that the earth’s climate system is warming. These include increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. The report represents the international consensus on climate change science in literature that has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. The report can be found at: www.ipcc.ch/ .
These IPCC conclusions have been further supported by recent reports that provide updated assessments of climate change science. The Australian Academy of Science published ‘The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers’ in August 2010, explaining how human activities are influencing climate, and providing an overview of the present state of climate change science. The report can be found online at: www.science.org.au/reports/ClimateChange2010-highres.pdf
In addition, the US National Academy of Sciences released the report ‘Advancing the Science of Climate Change’ in May 2010, which concludes that “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting – a broad range of human and natural systems”. It is available at: http//americasclimatechoices.org/panelscience.shtml .
In September 2010 The Royal Society (UK) released ‘Climate Change: A summary of the science’, which concludes that, “There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century.”
In March 2010 Australia’s premier climate research agencies, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, produced a snapshot of Australia’s climate over the past 100 years, available at: http://csiro.au/resources/StateoftheClimate.html . The snapshot notes that all of Australia has experienced warming over the past 50 years with the mean temperature rising by 0.7C since 1960.
[You claim] that 97 percent of the scientific community does not support the theory of climate change science. Recent research (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) has found that 97-98 per cent of the most actively publishing climate researchers support the tenets of climate change as outlined by the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment report. The research also found that the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers who are unconvinced of human induced climate change is substantially below that of those who support the IPCC.
The robustness of climate change science is underpinned by the peer review process. Peer review is the process of allowing science to be reviewed prior to its acceptance for publication by peers in the field who judge the competence, significance and originality of the research. These scientists then challenge or support these results with peer-reviewed articles of their own and over time a consensus builds around the observations that explain the science most successfully. Without a peer review system publication of research findings would be arbitrary and more easily influenced by personal, social or political agendas.
The consensus within the mainstream science community is that climate change is real, currently being observed and will have significant future impacts if no action is taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
Thank you for bringing [your] concerns to my attention.
Yours sincerely, Greg Combet
[End of letter sent to one of Mr Combet’s skeptical constitutents on November 19, 2010]
Anthony Cox, Secretary of the Climate Sceptics Party, penned the following response:
“Combet has written a superficially clever letter. It justifies by exclusion; the mechanisms of exclusion are authority and consensus; validity is thus defined by designation from above and from ‘below’ by group acceptance of the authoritative pronouncements. This is a closed loop with each part of the loop vindicating the other; the loop is an attempt to create a priori knowledge by reliance on the authoritative source and the group acceptance. People who do not accept the authority or who are not part of the group acceptance have no validity and are at best ignorant of the knowledge of the ‘loop’.
The ‘loop’ is profoundly unscientific because it ignores Richard Feynman’s maxim of scientific proof:
The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
As I will show each of Combet’s examples of authority and consensus are contradicted by observed exceptions and his justification for the government’s measures to combat AGW is therefore flawed.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the letter refer to the ultimate source of authority, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC] and its 4th report, AR4. There are 2 key points from AR4 relied upon by Combet. The first is the standard of certainty of the IPPC’s conclusions about AGW: that “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20thCentury is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The IPPC’s standards of certainty were recently audited and found deficient by the InterAcademy of Science [IAC]. The IAC found that these standards were inappropriate and exaggerated. In an article co-authored by David Stockwell and myself the implications of the IAC’s findings were examined:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29880.html
The salient point about the IAC’s findings is that if the IPPC’s standards of certainty are wrong then that means the scientific basis of those standards is problematic: if “mid-20th Century” warming is NOT “very likely” due to “the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” then the basis of AGW is compromised.
The IAC is an internationally recognised source of scientific expertise. For Combet to ignore its findings shows that he is either getting bad advice or ignoring good.
Combet’s second IPPC key point is his assertion that AR4 uses “climate change literature that has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals”. Combet also reiterates the prominence of the peer review system in creating the “robustness” of the “climate change science” in the second last paragraph of his letter. His reliance on the peer review system generally and in particular its use in AR4 is ill-informed. For instance, the science sources in AR4 have been audited:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/uns-climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card/
The audit found that 21 of AR4’s 44 chapters had 59% or less of their official sources non peer-reviewed; in many of those instances organisations such as Greenpeace or the WWF were the source. Overall no chapter of AR4 had their scientific sources entirely peer-reviewed and the high concentration of references from groups with a green ideology means that the scientific credibility of AR4 was severely diminished.
The idea that AR4 represents a consensus of scientific opinion has also been found to be flawed. In the crucial chapter 9 of AR4 from which Combet extracts his first key point that “mid-20th Century” warming is “very likely” due to “the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” the number of contributing scientists is crucial. Claims of up to 2500 scientists supporting this statement have been made. A detailed analysis of these claims has been made by Tom Harris and John McLean:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=0
[A more detailed analysis by John McLean is here:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf]
Harris and McLean note that only 5 independent scientific reviewers contributed to the vital chapter 9.
Dr’s Hulme and Mahoney from the University of East Anglia also reject the idea of a mass consensus supporting AGW, describing any such claim as disingenuous:
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
The Hulme and Mahoney disavowal was particularly appropriate since the e-mail scandal was based on the CRU unit at East Anglia. The e-mails demonstrate that the peer-review system extolled by Combet is a deeply flawed system with active and hostile interference of scientific dissent by prominent pro-AGW scientists. A full discussion of the efforts to censor this dissent is in Dr John Costella’s review of the e-mails:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
Combet in his 4th paragraph claims that other reports support AR4. He refers to the Australian Academy of Science [ACS] August 2010 report. The report is well credentialed with the usual who’s who of Australian AGW involved, David Karoly, Matthew England, Michael Bird, Mike Raupach, Steven Sherwood and Kurt Lambeck doing the introduction. Despite this blue blood of AGW science the first information page features striking errors:
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
Box 1 for instance asserts:
“However, evidence going back up to 20 centuries does not show changes in global temperature resembling those that have taken place in the last 100 years1-3”
The references for this are of course Briffa and Mann. This is reprehensible. The recent McShane and Wyner paper has comprehensively contradicted the Mann and Briffa hockey sticks:
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/aoas1001-014r2a0.pdf
Nor is there any mention of the Wegman report which revealed the deep flaws in Mann’s study and the controversy about Mann’s data and methodology. These are egregious oversights.
The errors continue with a reference to Arrhenius’s experiment:
“The response of the climate system to human causation was foreseen by scientists more than a century ago 4”
Arrhenius was a genuine scientist, but his so called proof of the influence of “carbonic acid” or CO2 was wrong in several profound ways. Firstly, he confused radiative loss with convective loss because he believed the glass container was impermeable to radiation. Arrhenius also did not understand that CO2 did not transmit radiation but in fact absorbs and reemits it for no net gain. Arrhenius’s experiment to test CO2’s heating properties used radiation limited to 9.7 microns, which is the wavelength at which water vapour is active, and at 100°C; he was unaware that CO2’s active thermal spectrum is at 14.77 microns and that radiation at such temperature is not representative of Earth’s radiative spectrum.
This mistake with Arrhenius is compounded with a further error by ACS’s report in Box 2; there it is declared that water vapour is responsible for about ½ of the greenhouse effect. This is a basic mistake and contradicts the research and conclusions of premier climate scientists.
Ramanathan and Coakley, in their 1978 research, show that water vapour has 2 ½ times the greenhouse effect that CO2 has. Their results show the relative greenhouse values of the greenhouse gases by the ‘simple’ technique of measuring the variation in radiation leaving the Earth when the various gases are removed:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png
As can be seen if water vapor is taken out there is a 25% increase in the radiation. And if we take out CO2 it is a 9% effect. Since the greenhouse effect of the other gases is negligible water vapor is not ½ of the greenhouse effect but nearly 75%. Professor Lindzen puts the greenhouse effect of water vapor and clouds at 98%:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf
The issue of water vapour is absolutely essential to AGW. The ACS shows this in Figure 1.1 with feedbacks from increasing water vapor amplifying the initial warming from CO2. This problematic feedback has been seriously challenged by a recent paper written by one of Australia’s and the world’s leading climate scientists, Garth Paltridge. Paltridge’s paper is based on thousands of radiosonde measurements of water vapour taken since 1958 by NOAA. Paltridge found water vapour had declined at mid to high atmospheric levels:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
AGW has hit back at Paltridge in the form a new Dessler paper which contradicts Paltridge’s findings:
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
Paltridge’s reply to Dessler and an analysis of Dessler’s paper has been done by Jo Nova:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/comment-page-1/#comment-125477
There are then, two crucial aspects of the Paltridge/Dessler debate which have been ignored by the ACS report. The first and most obvious is that there is a debate. There is no mention in the ACS report about the basic contradiction between Dessler and Paltridge.
The second aspect is that there has been recent research which tends to support Paltridge. If Dessler is right and more water vapour is occurring at the mid levels of the atmosphere then this would support a fundamental prediction of AGW, the Tropical Hot Spot [THS]. AGW says that with CO2 induced warming extra water will be evaporated, especially in the Tropics, with a rapid warming produced in the mid levels of the atmosphere due to the presence of the extra water vapour [see Figure 9.1(c) AR4]. This would create a THS.
Whether a THS exists or not has been subject to intense debate; this debate now seems to have resolved against the THS with the publication of a paper by McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
McKitrick et al show that the models are wrong and that there has been no temperature increase consistent with a THS. This is a groundbreaking paper published in a top climate science journal but the ACS has not referred to it. Not only does McKitrick’s paper remove one of the tenets of AGW but it gives support to a strong argument against another tenet in the form of Paltridge’s work.
Combet then refers in his 5th paragraph to the US National Academy of Sciences. This report is a farrago and a source for the erroneous AGW claim that the indices of AGW are worsening.
This is readily contradicted by a cursory examination of the NOAA report issued a month later. The NOAA report examines 7 indicators of AGW and presents them graphically. Six of the indicators show decreases since either 1998 or 2003 while the 7th indicator, sea levels, shows a declining rate of increase since 2003:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100728.html
Despite this spokespersons for Combet and indeed Combet himself continue to claim that AGW is worsening. Yet the evidence is plain that this is not true.
In his 6th paragraph Combet refers to The Royal Society report. This report has been strongly critiqued by Dr Goklany:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/the-royal-society-still-embarrassing-science/
As Dr Goklany notes The Royal Society report basically relies on IPCC conclusions without even referring to some of the provisos contained in AR4. In short it is a “me too” charade.
Combet completes his list of supporting reports with reference to CSIRO and BoM’s State of the Climate report [SOC]. Combet says:
“The snapshot notes that all of Australia has experienced warming over the past 50 years with the mean temperature rising by 0.7C since 1960.”
This is a misrepresentation. In an exhaustive analysis Ken Stewart shows that all temperature records in Australia have been adjusted upwards by as much as 0.4C:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/
For a summary of this analysis see http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/australian-temperatures-in-cities-adjusted-up-by-70/
Many of the particular site locations which are used to calculate state and national records have shown, in their raw, unadjusted data, declines in temperature over the 20thC.
Basically the SOC has not used all the data at its disposal, which in climate science terms, means they have cherry-picked data to get their results. This is particularly obvious with the SOC pronouncements about rainfall declining in Australia during the 20thC which was based on data only from 1960! David Stockwell examines the faults with the SOC here:
http://landshape.org/images/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf
Combet winds up his letter with a reference in the 3rd last paragraph to “recent research” finding “that 97-98 per cent of the most actively publishing researchers support the tenets of climate change as outlined” by AR4 and have more “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” than sceptics. This is a dreadful statement. It relies on this paper by Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
At one level Schneider’s ‘result’ is inevitable for reasons described by Stockwell and Cox [ibid] in response to a demand by Clive Hamilton to restrict AGW sceptics’ access to publication at the ABC to a ratio of 39:1 in favour of pro-AGW articles:
“Hamilton’s ratio is based on a consensus-proving, peer reviewed paper co-authored by Stephen Schneider. This paper lines up scientists into good and bad or “climate deniers”. The first great flaw with this paper and the consensus generally is that it ignores the vastly disproportionate funding of science which is predicated on AGW being real compared with the pittance provided to sceptics. Educational institutions, government departments and official science bodies like the EPA, IPCC and CSIRO have concentrated their research, publications and training on the basis AGW is real. AGW has become the Zeitgeist and the consensus idea is part of the truth creation of that prevailing mood rather than a reflection of scientific validity which is independent of social context”
More generally, however, the consensus and authority arguments are the antithesis of scientific endeavour as enunciated by Richard Feynman. The system which Combet relies on to provide his authority and consensus is riven with faults and corruption; it is undermining the integrity of science. It will take a brave man to question the direction of the AGW debate.
Combet, who lives by the ocean, is obviously not such a man.
*********
First published at the Climate Sceptic’s blogspot, republished here with permission: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/01/youre-so-wrong-wrong-greg-youre-so.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I agree with Anthony Cox that G Combet’s letter fails to substantiate his initial statement ‘There is clear evidence that our climate is changing, largely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.’
I have said elsewhere that politicians should have a ‘due diligence’ duty similar to other professionals who can be sued by clients who suffer damages from negligent advice. Sadly politicians seem to be immune from this type of action.
I have myself written innumerable letters to politicians starting with an open letter http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/open-letter-on-climate-change/page:printable
urging that a Royal Commission be commissioned to examine the question as to whether CO2 is causing global warming.
I received a reply from two Senators to that letter; unfortunately I don’t have a copy as I suffered a computer crash but the letters from recollection were short simply thanking me for my letter. I have continued to urge a Royal Commission but the silence on that is deafening. I’ve also written letters to politicians saying ‘I thought the message was loud and clear on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) decision: we don’t want one! So why is this same logic not being applied to the Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation?’ Again no substantive response other than a few letters thanking me for the letter and ‘respecting your view.’
It’s all a bit dispiriting but if you think that a carbon tax will achieve nothing or at least nothing is proved as to what it will achieve then the only thing to do in my view is to keep writing to elected representatives. Politicians need to know what the people whose interest they purport to serve have to say.
Well said val; I think you are right about what will be necessary to produce a paradigm shift in this ‘debate’; it has happened in New Zealand and is happening in the US, where the authorities behind temperature and other climate data and which are responsible for the impetus of AGW are being sued. Otherwise, as you say, the only response is polite dismissals or being ignored all together.
Having said that I had an interesting exchange with a Liberal candidate who initially mouthed the Liberal policy a la Greg Hunt; I put him onto this post and this one:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41816.html
And he now says he wants to be educated on the latest developments; he had the decency to be embarrassed about availing himself of the solar subsidies which are sending NSW and Australia broke. There is, therefore, some flexibility out there but the mindset and ignorance will take a lot of over-turning.
What a hoot – Val quoting bilge like Quadrant as source. Anthony quoting Harris, McLean and Goklany …. deary me.
Only a lawyer would use a word like “riven”.
“More generally, however, the consensus and authority arguments are the antithesis of scientific endeavour as enunciated by Richard Feynman. ITSELF AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY The system which Combet relies on to provide his authority and consensus is riven with faults and corruption; (WOO HOO !!!!! WHAT UTTER BUNK) it is undermining the integrity of science. (DRONE ON) It will take a brave man to question the direction of the AGW debate.” NOT REALLY – ANY DRONGO CAN HAVE A GO !
Combet probably got the tea lady to reply to the letter – why waste time on it?
Maybe the sceptics will hold the balance of power at the next election – perhaps they should have more respect? Nah…
Feynman is not an appeal to authority, it is a reference to principle; otherwise your comment is riven with laziness and bovver boy humour.
What’a lazier is you leaving out most of the story, reams of evidence and quoting discredited activists as source. You are joking mate ! Don’t try to take the high ground and talk about principle – your slip is showing.
BTW I see NIWA have redone the temperature record and the answer is the same. Will the NZ Climate Cookalition now resign?
” ANY DRONGO CAN HAVE A GO…”
I thought the real drongo’s had already have had a go (publically funded as well)… and have been found wanting, on many fronts.
The climatariat are frauds of the first order, and it begins with the deliberately misleading use of the term ” climate change”, and just gets worse the more one delves into it.
Anthony Coxs’ piece just underscores the gap between the b/s as science, being peddled by a Minister who is having his strings pulled, and something that is closer to reality.
BTW I see NIWA have redone the temperature record and the answer is the same. Will the NZ Climate Cookalition now resign?
No – the request is for John Morgan to resign.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00057/call-on-niwa-to-admit-latest-temperature-review-not-valid.htm
for anyone interested in the NIWA proceedings there are some good articles on the Climate Conversation website; for example
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/observations-on-niwas-statement-of-defence/
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/01/the-11ss-a-dog-that-didnt-bark/
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/01/rotted-minds-at-hot-topic/
there’s also the press release issued by NZCSC at
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
The NIWA story has a way to go yet
Hmm.. Which side to believe, respected international scientists or some crackpot skeptics using extremely dubious sources to support there claim.
Chances are… the former.
cohenite thanks for those comments; I made this comment to that ABC article you cite:
I read somewhere about a European scam where solar stations were found to be producing ‘solar’ power 24 hours a day because the station itself had back up coal fired generators – can’t find it now. The Mafia in Europe (who always know where to make a buck) is heavily into renewables because of Govt subsidies – the whole of Sicily is covered with wind turbines and solar panels. My personal preference in Aust is if the Govt here really want to put a price on CO2 (remember each of us uses it too to breath in and out) then make it $0 per tonne; although I would like to see it priced at a premium for those who exhale too much hot air pontificating to others what they should do to address a non problem like AGW
Quadrant Online has two excellent articles in Doomed Planet one by Prof Carter and one by John Reid; you can read them here:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/
Given the well documented doubts about the BOM’s own records, one has to wonder why the NIWA would use the BOM as its peer reviewer.
Perhap it was more an attempt to keep it all within the boys club ….just like the various East Anglia Climate Gate inquiries tried to do… and also failed.
Great post, cohenite.
This govt is using AGW, as the wonderful political weapon it is [because of its uncertainty factor], to survive in their present predicament.
In bed as they are with the Greens in order to survive [and becoming more so], it is a card they can play at will.
However it will have diminishing returns for them as their main support base becomes impoverished from their ever increasing Green AGW policies.
Combet’s “scientific” argument is just political expediency, window dressing and survival but the opposition so far have had no traction against it due to lack of MSM investigation and balanced discussion.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false/
” So, when some scientist says we “know” that warming is human-caused, I cringe at the embarrassing abundance of scientific ignorance on display. No wonder the public doesn’t trust scientific predictions — just as suggested by the 2005 study I mentioned at the outset, those predictions have almost always been wrong!” Last para in Roy Spencers document.
I guess Roy S. would also cringe at the idiot contents of the Combet letter which writes about similar ” knowing” ….. as advised by his Department and a mongolian horde of other university and govt agency advisers.
Pity about the predictions being wrong as well.
So Desmond which respected international scientists would they be.
Dr Roy Spencer would have to be be one of these… yes/no?
OTOH James Hansen would be both a serious crack pot and environmental lobbyist…but classed by some as a respected international scientist …Need I go on?
Whilst contemplating that could you explain to me why these so called respected international scientists like to use the language of the deceptive and disingenous by the repetetive and quite deliberate use of the term Climate Change, to imply all CC is as a result of AGW… and it is all caused by a pollutant called Co2.
If the case is so sound why the need to engage in public manipulation via deception.
Desmond
All our side needs is equal time and the people will laugh out loud at ‘the former’.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Desmond says this: “some crackpot skeptics using extremely dubious sources to support there claim.”
Grammar aside this is a complete misrepresentation; the sources are impeccable; Hulme, the IAC, McKitrick, Ramanathan, Lindzen, NOAA, McShane and Wyner. I mean Desmond, you are having a wind-up aren’t you? Noone could be that stupid, could they?
Yes – unfortunately they could be that stupid Cohenite.
check out all the flaws in this latest Greenpeace article!!
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/2011-arctic-vs-big-oil-20110106
A friend posted that article on Facebook. This was my reply.
Good reply John; I am staggered at the paucity of Combet’s rationale for a carbon tax; still such a tax will give the certainty the pundits are extolling it for; the only difference is that the certainty will be the ruination of the Australian economy.
Of course Combet would have only signed this letter of reply, probably wouldn’t have even read it. I can just picture several little warmies (maybe just like the Luke desk) sitting around their solar fire late at night cooking up the reply.
At least my imagination is beeter than their science
Combet is now being touted as the next PM in various circles.
cohers,
Combet being a waterfront dweller in your fair city, isn’t there a tide gauge or similar you can point him to that will set his paranoia at rest.
I’m sure he would be eternally grateful, so much so that he may even have a Damascene awakening and shower you with great favours.
SD; “shower me with great favours”! Morelikely shower me with thumps and kicks up the rear end; this is Newcastle after all. I have a couple of mates who are surveyors and they are tearing their hair out because they have tidal records for Newcastle Harbour which show no rise for the life of Newcastle; they can’t use it though because it is allegedly contaimanated by the dredging which has taken place.
There are a couple of papers which give some account of sea level rise around Newcastle; chapter 5 of this one:
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp29.29082005/index.html
And Carter’s piece:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
Ken Stewart has done some great work as well:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/checking-the-logic-queensland-sea-level-rise/#comment-456
Yes Cohenite; Ken Stewart has done great work as well and see it publicised here
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-retreat-from-global-warming-data-by.html
Is it just me or are others having weird experiences accessing WordPress sites. WUWT is just a mess of unformatted data, as is the Kenskingdom link cohenite posted. I thought it must be Firefox but IE7 behaves the same way, on and off, it’s weird.
Thanks for those great links fellers.
Particularly those graphs of SLR of Ken Stewart’s, cohers. Yeah, 10 cms per century stops it dead.
I just sent another letter off to Combet but a fat lot of good…
John Sayers Kenskingdom is working fine now as is WUWT – the latter has some great Friday funnies
enjoy!
Oh well looks like a complete rout for the NZ Climate Kooky-lition – poor old codgers.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-christmas-cracker-for-the-cranks/
Oh well no solace in the record low Arctic ice either.
And all of this with a weak sun and so called global cooling. Ho hum.
You’re hopeless luke; let’s make it elementary for you:
raw data slight warming
adjusted data hot
reason for adjustment from your link:
“NIWA explained that when stitching together long term temperature records from lots of different sites, you had to account for site and equipment changes by making adjustments up and down — and that’s what they had done.”
That is junk; first of all the Defence lodged completely disavowed the temperature record:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/statement_of_defence.pdf
See clauses 6-8. Secondly, the adjustment effect is patently obvious:
http://climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/app3.graph.pdf
Despite what you say no attempt has been made to justify those adjustments; or to provide details of the ‘methodology’ in producing them.
The result is actually increased warming after the reanalysis – now scummy time-wasting sceptics trying to wiggle clear before going on to foul the next nest. What a waste of time. Such whiney little sceptics.
“reanalysis” = confirmation of adjustment methodology, still unrevealed in form or justification; you are either naive to the point of nancy boy status luke or have sold out for big quids.
Sold out !! – thought that was the lawyers domain.
The science is explicit. You guys aren’t scientists bootlaces as your piddly list of non-publications and nefarious fifth columnist methods show.
cohers,
“I have a couple of mates who are surveyors and they are tearing their hair out because they have tidal records for Newcastle Harbour which show no rise for the life of Newcastle; they can’t use it though because it is allegedly contaimanated by the dredging which has taken place”
This is the sort of crap I have to put up with when I point out that according to my 48 year benchmark there has been no SLR.
The “experts ” reply that dredging has taken place since then. And it has, but that has only hugely opened the “choke”, not restricted it and as a result low tides have become lower and high tides have become higher, but the king tides are still not higher than half a century ago unless there is a strong flood or sea surge influence.
Maybe Greg Combet should spend money on more dredging. Don’t raise the bridge, lower the river.
Don’t raise the land, lower the ocean!